Talk:John Lennon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Citations

I have started to put "citations needed" into the article, because it needs them. You can find a lot of them on the McCartney page (and the links pages) and copy them over to here. andreasegde 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes more citations from Albert Goldman's lovely biography: "The Lives of John Lennon" where Goldman claims Mr Lennon picked up male prostitutes in Thailand; and had an affair with Brian Epstein. A professional knowledgable author!? Did Mr Goldman do professional research on either this book or "Elvis". I doubt it but these references must be included in the Lennon biography if this kind of slanderous stuff is also being printed over in the Elvis article. There are users on Wikipedia who are biased so are favouring some celebrities over others when it comes to editing.--Suzulu 03:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My account is to knew, but I can clear up several citation needed comments.

Specically - Under 1960-1970 Lennon told Rolling Stone that '...Let It Be ("That film was set up by Paul, for Paul")...' and 'Lennon told Rolling Stone, "I was a fool not to do what Paul did, which was use it to sell a record,"

Both items can be validated on the Rolling Stone - Lennon podcast available at Rolling Stones website. The whole interview is a 3-4 hour recording from 1970(?), that I highly recommend. If in 4 days this isn't changed I'll adjust this myself. The interview itself should be included in the notes, as it's readily available at Rolling Stones website.

This statement (under Recreational Drug Use) "Lennon largely abandoned his leadership role under the influence of LSD and Timothy Leary's book The Psychedelic Experience, believing he needed to "lose his ego" to become enlightened." can also be cited as being confirmed on the Rolling Stone interview.Littleoracle 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "On one occasion, when asked if Ringo Starr was "the best drummer in the world", Lennon replied, "He isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"," needs citation, doesn't it? Most Lennon interviews are well documented. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure Jasper Carrott or somebody used to make that joke as part of their act, so it's possible that naming John as the source could be incorrect. As I understand it, Ringo replaced Pete Best because he was an excellent drummer, and the popular misconception that he was talentless doesn't need strengthening, particularly when he was clearly good enough to be the drummer in a band who obviously had a great deal of success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.182.60 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Style

As Kingboyk rightly changed the Macca article to sub-sections, I believe Lennon's should mirror it. It would give this article the same feel, and look, and would make it easier to read. Slap me with a wet fish if disgruntled... andreasegde 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I have done some bits, but it needs more work. andreasegde 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved more stuff, but it still needs a good sweep with a large brush. andreasegde 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to editors: Delete all adjectives, such as 'great', 'brilliant', and 'iconoclastic'. The people 'upstairs' frown upon these words, and will "waggle their eyebrows at you" (copyright: LessHeard vanU :)) andreasegde 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs a section on his drugtaking (which was copious).andreasegde 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorting the sections out before adding anything new from books. andreasegde 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of stuff from May Pang should go in his solo career. andreasegde 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am up to The Beatles. I am putting in a lot of citations from Cynthia at the moment, because it's hard to balance three books at the same time on the edge of the desk. andreasegde 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

Happy New Year Andreasegde I'm not sure if you meant to or not, but you deleted the family section from theJohn Lennonartical. I have reverted it back...but justed wanted to give you a heads-up. Once again "Happy New Year" Shoessss 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bugger me - He won't do that again, by crikey... Plinky Plonky Plink Plonk 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"ex-Beatles since the lads had waved farewell at Candlestick Park". Do me a lemon... Imagine all the users 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask if anybody else thinks the part about J.L. being born during an air raid should be dropped, mostly because it can not be proven right (Liverpool Echo did not report any raids the next day) and because it is irrelevant in many ways. Somebody in Germany might be able to check out Luftwaffe records? Anyways, cool sounding legends are not ment for Encyclopedias? Hh75

I changed the 'Family section' to 'Personal Life' as since so much derogatory passages from Albert Goldman's book "Elvis" have been included in the Elvis article it is only fair that derogatory passages from Albert Goldman's book: "The Lives of John Lennon" be included in this Lennon article. Note this Professor's claim that Lennon had homosexual relationships. If users are allowed to put Goldman's implications about Elvis' sexuality in that article then Goldman's remarks about Lennon's have to be in this article. Do not delete.--Suzulu 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Albert Goldman's book on Lennon

Very interesting that no passages from Albert Goldman's 'The Lives of John Lennon'. has been quoted in this article. Goldman stated that Lennon was homosexual. However,no one feared printing derogatory passages from Albert Goldman's book 'Elvis' in Presley's bio on this very same site. Biased anyone? Wikipedia is very unprofessional. ~~Suzulu~~

Goldman's book is thoroughly discussed in a separate Wikipedia article: See The Lives of John Lennon. Perhaps some information from this book can also be included in the main article on Lennon. Onefortyone 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Length

• 80% of the humour section should be in 'Wikiquote'. It's 573 words at the moment.
• Activism is 916.
• Christianity is 507.
• Solo career was 920. He only had five years of it... It's now 781.
• Murder was 1,033. It's now 870.

OK, his 'Early years' is 874, but The Beatles is only 878. (I know, I know... Family life is 1,563.) Me - who else would it be?? 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• 9,186 words, after cutting. Far too much.

I concur. Also, I oppose to young people using the word "gay" referring to homosexuality. Back in my day "gay" meant to be happy and carefree. I don't mind telling you when I declared at my local that, having won £2.64 at dominos, I felt "Gay as a gander." The youngsters gave me the strangest looks, and one burly biker raped me in the stalls. Oxford English Dicitonary - revise your policy!--The Rt. Hon. Basil Massingbird-Massingbird-Baden-Massingbird MBE (deceased) 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I do so love a man that concurs... Burly biker 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploading the Lennon/Chapman Photograph

Oddly, the section that speaks of his assassination ignores the photograph taken of John signing Chapman's LP as he left the Dakota earlier in the evening. I added a sentence mentioning it, but I think it would be more powerful if someone upload it and added it to the article. I would, but I don't know how. A Google Image search will turn up numerous results for the photograph in question. -Notahippie76

To be really honest, I think that a lot of people would prefer that Chapman could be erased from history. He can't be, of course, but putting a photo of him on this page would be cementing his image in people's minds, and would be thought of as distasteful. Let him rot where he is, and don't give him what he craved the most; being famous. This is only my opinion.

P.S. If someone killed a loved one of yours, would you want a photo of them on a page? andreasegde 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the photo in question has been on and off of this page numerous times. There may be a copyright question, or it may have disappeared because it is so disturbing - I'm not really sure - I neither added it nor removed it. Some people have suggested that Chapman's name not even be mentioned in the article, but obviously we have to think like an encyclopedia, so the name appears. The photo, to me, adds only to the utter senselessness and viciousness of the crime - two things I don't personally need added to, because I never forget either one - to see Lennon extending a kindness that he didn't have to do to the man who a few hours later would murder him in cold blood is physically sickening. But the photo certainly is a powerful reminder of just how awful the crime was, if anyone really needs that reminder. I'm not going to look for it or upload it, and I probably won't remove it either - but no promises. I researched the "combat stance" phrase a few months ago, re-reading the contemporaneous newspaper account - and as I said then, I never wanted to re-read that New York Times article and I never will read it again. It doesn't get any easier, more than 25 years later. This is just my opinion as well. Tvoz | talk 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill is NOT John Lennon's paternal grandfather. Can this be removed?

I tried unsuccessfully to corroborate that Winston Churchill was John Lennon's paternal grandparent, as is stated in this article, as I had never heard this before. Instead, I discovered that (according to the Liverpool Lennons' Family Tree: http://www.lennon.net/familytree/sub/jack_lennon.shtml ) Jack Lennon (1855-1917) of Co. Fermanagh, Northern Ireland was the Paternal Grandfather of John Lennon. Is it possible to have the text relating to the Churchill relationship removed? GRSUS 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Note. John Lennon's paternal grandfather was born in Liverpool 1855. A little research would show this. Forget all the books and websites. Check it out for yourself. Brakn 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... how to put this. Okay - you, um, might have saved yourself a bit of trouble if you had read that line more carefully. I think the word "and" is meant to suggest that there are two separate people being referred to. Hope that helps. :) Cgingold 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I will make it a bit clearer. andreasegde 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet if you asked May Pang she'd corroborate Grandpa Winnie... Tvoz | talk 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

May Pang corroborated John in the undergarments dept... :) andreasegde 11:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A pity, really. The idea of Freddie Lennon as the product of a tryst between the First Lord of the Admiralty and Elizabeth Lennon has a certain appeal. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It could have changed history:

"We shall defend The Beatles - whatever Brian Epstein's percentage may be. We shall have photos of us taken on the beaches and on mountains, we shall bow to the public at all our concerts, we shall talk about vegetarianism in the fields and break telephone boxes in the streets of Liverpool, and we shall live in large houses; we shall be the toppermost of the poppermost. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our fight, and so bear ourselves that, if The Beatles last for a thousand years, men (and women) will still say, 'This was their finest album.' " Dr. Winston O'Boogie 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, Part II

Christianity Today ([http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/januaryweb-only/001-22.0.html ]) reports that Lennon wrote to Oral Roberts in 1972, expressing regret for his earlier remark about Jesus. Lennon further wrote: “I want out of hell”. This began a correspondence of several letters between Lennon and Roberts. Lennon later announced to friends that he had become a born-again Christian. Yoko was appalled, and did everything she could to destroy his newfound faith. By his death in 1980, Lennon no longer considered himself a Christian.

Re: England & the United Kingdom

Attention: All editors who may wish to remove either "England" or "United Kingdom/UK" from Lennon's place of birth.

Please take note of the fact that BOTH of these designations are included for a very simple reason: in order to provide correct and complete information to readers. Neither alone is complete. End of discussion.

Therefore, be advised that any future edit that removes either designation from Lennon's place of birth will be considered Vandalism. Any editor, whether sincerely motivated or simply a Troll, who disregards this warning and persists in deleting either the birthplace data, or the "invisibile text note" pertaining to this issue, will be reported for Disruptive editing.

Cgingold 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"End of discussion."

Like fuck it is. Please point me toward a WP policy or even any Beatles related talkpage where a concensus was reached. As it happens I agree that both should be included, but I do not care for your arrogant attitude. LessHeard vanU 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Start of Discussion.

Sorry, that was me who voted him judge and jury. I also died and made him boss. I dunno what I was doing, I was on an e. But, sadly, unless you want to argue diminished responsibility on my part, he now has ultimate power of judge AND jury on wikipedia (and if I remeber correctly, myspace and google too). He told me if I voted for him, he would alter the Oasis article so that Be Here Now - Heathen Chemistery never happened. I feel such a fool. By the way, I think he may have ambitions to change articles so the Hitler never died and Godzilla is real, which would be bad news for all of us.Crestville (just helping LessHeard vanU stick the knife in that bit deeper)

To Mr. Cgingold: Mr. Lennon was born in Liverpool (Northern England) England, but not in Great Britain and the United Kingdom—and in that order. Anybody that disagrees with with that will have to buy me a pint, and stand in the corner with a hat on their head that reads, "I am ignorant of the basic rules concerning birth places". andreasegde 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes my blood boil... Lennon was NOT born in Great Britain (which means Scotland, England and Wales) or the UK (which includes Northern Ireland). He was born in England. Now shut up and put some in-line citations in, or I will feed your dog something unpleasant. You can now report me for being a vandal. andreasegde 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess no-one has EVER been born in America then, right? Only California, Florida, Texas etc? What a freakin' moron..... 86.17.211.191 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree about the naming of the place of birth; whilst all four (six including Sutcliffe and Best) were born in the country of England they were also born in the nation of the United Kingdom. I would include both. Think of the United Arab Emirates; we refer to the cities and citizens as UAE, whereas they may think of themselves and their cities as belonging to a particular Emirate. In Wikipedia the correct distinction is nation/nationality, and divisions by country/emirate is a geographical indicator. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If a person is born in England, then so be it—otherwise the list goes on and on: Born in (hospital of your choice) Liverpool, in the county of Lancashire, northern England, the Kingdom of England, Great Britain (but not born in Scotland or Wales) the UK (but not born in Northern Ireland) the Commonwealth, the European Union, Europe, the Northern Hemisphere, Earth. Take your pick. I am a citizen of the UK, but I wasn't born in it, as that would mean I was born in four of the above at the same time.

P.S. The United Arab Emirates is a collection of states, and not countries, as is the USA, which has one capital. The UK has four.

P.P.S. I could imagine an interesting conversation with a drunken Scotsman, Welshman, or a Northern Irishman on a saturday night in their home countries. :)) Major Sniffley, BSC (Bronze Swimming Certificate) 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The historical country England is a good geographical indicator of which part of the United Kingdom you come from, Liverpool is better and Wooton too detailed, but you are still a British subject and international law defines you as from the United Kingdom. Since Wikipedia is an international reference we need to apply the same standard of national identity as any other nation.

As for the Emirates, they are not states they are soveriegn countries each with an Emir who have constitutionally joined together and are ruled by one of the Emirs on a rotating basis (although it does tend to make them dizzy). The constitution of each Emirate has been amended to reflect their confederated status. LessHeard vanU 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC) ps. re pps Wouldn't they need to shout a bit, as there is no common borders?

I think this discussion has got silly. Can't we just put Liverpool, England? Or do I just win £5? Crestville (born 5 August 1986, Maternity Ward, Leed Royal Infirmary, Leeds, West Yorkshire, Yorkshire, northern England, England, Great Britain and/or United Kingdom, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Inner Planets, The Solar System, [The Magic's in] The Milky Way, The Local Group, An ever expanding universe which it taken to be infinate, Rutland) I think I've made my point

You little rascal - I was also born in the Maternity Ward, of Leeds Royal Infirmary! If we have the same mother I claim £5. BTW, I talked to a Northern Irish guy today, and he said he would definitely never say he was born in the UK. I think it's us people born in merry old England what uses that UK term thingy, and not our celtic brethren in the colonies. Nurse Longbottom (Nurses against bedpans protesters' group) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What this all means is: 1. I am waiting for Freddie and Julia to go through GAR, so I'm bored. 2. I should do some bleedin' editing and stop being flippant and pedantic at the same time (which brings me out in a rash). 3. I have finally found something to disagree with LessHeard vanU about (which leaves me feeling all confused and also interested because of the intellectual stimulation it gives one). 4. There is no four. If you put a Leeds United fan inside a room by himself for one hour, he will come out with a black eye and a fractured jaw. 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How people may choose to label themselves is not the point, it is how the international community sees a citizen. We may be considered Limeys, Brits, Poms or Running Lackey Dogs of Imperialism, but the vote in the United Nations records the Nation as the United Kingdom, as it does in the Eurovision Song Contest. To top even that intellectual cudgel of an argument, I wish to put forward the unanswerable logic of My Mam is Bigger than your Mam!. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I surrender to your logic, and infinite wisdom, but.... (Oh bugger - he's off again) my passport reads (as yours does):

EUROPEAN UNION

UNITED KINGDOM OF

GREAT BRITAIN

AND NORTHERN IRELAND

(which doesn't even mention Scotland the Brave and Tom Jones' birthplace). Whatever... I'm off back to the minor articles, and to keep my head down out of the line of fire. My Grandad had a wooden leg, and my dad was left with one little toe on his right foot after an industrial accident. 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(mumble)No, Wales is not mentioned as it is a Principality subject to English jurisdiction ... However the United Kingdom referred to above is that of Scotland and England, ie one Kingdom made from two countries, plus Northern Ireland whose constititional standing cannot easily be given.

I don't have a passport. I have to cross the River Tamar by nefarious means. LessHeard vanU 23:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, good times. You weren't by any chance born on the 5th August 1986 were you? We could be twins separated at birth. If you've got the other half of the amulet bequited to me by my mother, then that would answer a lot - she left me on a doorstep in Thronton with a swtichblade, a bottle of scoth and a note saying "please look after my baby - I can't be bothered." Incedently, if you look out of the window of the maternity ward you can see a pub across the street named "Joseph's Well". I believe this to be a major factor in my Dad's choice of name for his fist born. My Grandfather Lost His Tounge in WW2. He never talked about it

Unlikely, since there would surely be some record of a birth of one male infant and one male adult in the region of 26 years... Although it may give some indication of why Mam (who was then recently bigger than any other Mam) was so reluctant to continue with childcare. Mark 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will continue this happy state of mind. My Grandad lost his leg in the pit, My Dad (who was always taller than me until he was horizontal in the box) lost four toes on a conveyor belt in the pit, and my brother Michael lost four toes whilst driving a petrol-driven lawnmower over his expansive lawn. Look at the Lennon's tradition below. The Lennon's lose their fathers, but we lose limbs. Bugger. My leg itches, but it's not there 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's almost macabre--Crestville 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot: My dear old Mam had most of her toes chopped off because of an arthritis problem. That goes under extremities, and not limbs, though. Do two hip replacements on her count as well? My eldest brother only has one kidney. We're losing body parts faster than you can say..... Quick nurse, the screens!. 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Family tradition

Freddie's father died when he was nine. Freddie left Julia when John was five. John left Cynthia when Julian was five. John was shot when Sean was five. Maybe wait for Julian and Sean to have kids before continuing... Daddy come home... from the pub 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

um, if freddie was 9 how is that a tradition, if everyone was 5?

Oh bugger, I slipped that one in to see if anyone would notice. It still means that the fathers left when the wee bairns were young-ish. egde 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal Variety

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

Memorials and Tributes (Elton John + Clarity)

Maybe it's just me, but in this section it says:

Elton John mourned the loss of John Lennon in his 1982 hit "Empty Garden (Hey Hey Johnny)", from his Jump Up! album. John exclaimed, "As the New York Sunset disappeared, I found an empty garden among the flagstones there, Who lived here, He must have been a gardener that cared a lot."

Hmmmmm... Methinks it would be better to be a bit clearer on this subject; Elton John and John Lennon. For a weird moment I thought Lennon was talking from beyond the grave about Elton John's song! I suggest changing "John exclaimed" to "The lyrics" or something else.

Who agrees with me on here? Or am I just being thick - it seems to me that somebody could get the wrong impression or think it was a mistake. Liamshaw 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Liamshaw, you are totally right — change it. Should it be, Elton John sang?... andreasegde 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself; I changed it, but I think it needs a citation. andreasegde 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - much obliged. Memo to self: BE BOLD AND DO IT YOURSELF! I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. I've added the citation.. I think. Liamshaw 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about, be bold and do it TO yourself? andreasegde 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

It seems that the image at the top of the page has been removed, would there be any chance of a replacement being posted? Doobuzz 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with File:Lennon 01.jpg. It's a bit low in resolution, but fine for the article. Husky ^{(talk page)} 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this is an ugly picture of John. We can get cuter pics then this!

Picture

JOHN Lennon was shot 5 times not 4.

Change the Image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

This user is known as a vandal. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We didn't start the fire

He's not good enough to mention in there(death).--69.113.131.124 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Instruments John Lennon Played

John Lennon did play piano accordion to some degree as is mentioned in other parts of the encyclopedia. Dr accordion 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

True. It is quoted in Julia Lennon that she taught him the piano accordion. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA

This could easily be a GA if a little more work was done on it. It was started in 2002, BTW... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Typical. Where is the "smaller group of people" when you need them? "Workshy" is the word... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are poor sections in it, yeah, but you're right.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What was John Lennon's belief?

Was Lennon an atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a humanist or what? Is there anything known about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.196.244.74 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

"God?" John Cardinal 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The best answer to the question "was Lennon an atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a humanist or what?" is "yes". Raymond Arritt 04:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's 38th place

Can I suggest that the inclusion or exclusion of this fact is discussed here, rather than by reversions to the article with or without edit summaries? Once consensus is reached, reversions can refer to this discussion. This is an issue with POV ramifications and likely to be controversial, so definitely should be done by consensus. --Dweller 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a well respected resource and the quote had been in some time before someone felt affronted about a supposed lowly placing. It should stay, since the argument of "Well, I don't like it" is facile.LessHeard vanU 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone listing is meaningless nonsense and shouldn't be included. Frankly I'm mystified how on earth they reached that conclusion. POV is irrelevant, Lennon was clearly more important to the world of music than 38th place. He was the leading member of the Beatles for God's sake!!! You don't have to be an obsessive fan to realise that. Please remove this ridiculous, mind-numbingly annoying citation... it makes my blood boil every time I look at this page and see it there. The BBC citation which comes before this is fine, just use that one. Wjfox2005 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Sam Cooke, The Ramones and Bo Diddley are more significant than John Lennon...... er, yeah right. Wjfox2005 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Wjfox2005, we are recording evidence, not facts/truth. No one really knows how influential Lennon was or is. He may be #1 in your book and others, or a lower number to other people. It's notable that RS—one of the leading magazines during Lennon's career—put him at 38. Right or wrong from your POV, the RS ranking should stay. John Cardinal 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"we are recording evidence, not facts/truth." Like, you're kidding about that, right? 212.241.67.98 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Well then, since the Beatles were #1 in that list, can't we add a small bit at the end, so it reads - "In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked Lennon number 38 on their list of "The Immortals: The Fifty Greatest Artists of All Time" and ranked the Beatles at number 1."

or...

...just leave out the "38" figure altogether so it says "In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked Lennon among their list of "The Immortals: The Fifty Greatest Artists of All Time".

Please... I'm begging you here. Either of these 2 compromises would be fine with me. Wjfox2005 11:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I am fine with mentioning the Beatles' place on the list. It probably had an effect on lennon's ind. position, tho we should let the user decide on his or her own about that. John Cardinal 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For balance, this fact should be included. Even if they'd placed him 383rd, it should be included. Excluding it is POV that the journal was wrong or misguided. --Dweller 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you don't object to my first option? Wjfox2005 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I think it's the very essence of balance! --Dweller 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'O' Level Grades edit query

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

Eric Clague

Regarding young John’s bereavement when his Mum was run over and killed by a drunk copper, I quite fancy putting in the copper’s name into the article using a bit more detail. It was a life changing moment (certainly for Julia), and probably accounts for a lot of Lennon’s anger. Can we do this, or would it be slanderous? --Patthedog 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be libelous, truth would be the defence, but I cannot see the point. Lennon would be 67 had he lived, and it thus happened 62 years ago. As I recall from my reading of "Shout" the copper was a senior officer which meant he would have been thirties minimum and more likely forties... If he was still alive he would be in his nineties at least, and he is most likely dead. I don't think it would bring anything to the article, and those interested can find the references and the name. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lennon must have been older than five when Julia died. I think?--Crestville 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m not saying war crimes and witch hunts or suchlike. I was only concerned that his name might have been deliberately left out. If so, why? Lennon was fourteen when it happened. Anyway, sleeping dogs and all that. --Patthedog 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more pertinent that he was a police officer, and never prosecuted, than what his name was. Giving his name indicates the source has been read, but giving a cite to the reference means the same thing. Just my opinion. Perhaps name and cite?

Yeah, sorry about the age thing. I was so chuffed at managing to do my sums I completely fluffed on facts.... LessHeard vanU 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you’re right, leave it alone. I couldn’t do it anyway, as I can’t trust my motives. I get angry whenever I look into it. --Patthedog 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Put in reference cite to name, low key.--Patthedog 11:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. The truth is served. LessHeard vanU 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't John Lennon donate bullet-proof vests to the NYPD not long before he died? If so, that seems significant in light of that. Apparently he tried to let go of any anger towards police in general. Brentt 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heroin Addict

Shouldn't there be some discussion of his heroin addiction? It seems to have been pretty significant. The whole article has a whiff of hagiography to it, which leads me to question why it was left out. Whatever his merits, he was clearly a deeply troubled individual, and it seems there ought to be more discussion of that.

There is much information about Lennon's consumption of drugs in Albert Goldman's book, The Lives of John Lennon. Perhaps somebody can write a summary of the facts from this book. Onefortyone 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by some Albert Goldman fan

There's an unregistered user by the name of Suzulu who's attempting to insert Goldman's allegations regarding Lennon's sexuality into this article. Goldman's book was discredited years ago, and any "information" taken from his book is essentially rumor. This same user has also been playing around with the Elvis Presley article, it appears. I've reverted Suzulu's most recent edits here, but other Wikipedians will probably have to keep an eye on him/her. J.R. Hercules 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any former celebritiy who wasn't allegedly gay?Alleged' gayness just automatically comes with reaching a certain level of stardom it would seem. Brentt 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he really didnt just "dabble" with it and was probably addicted as late as 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.194.241 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Change the Picture Please!!!!

That main pic of John is awful-it needs changing! Yuck!TammiMagee 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, does anyone have a higher resolution, maybe colour photograph that can be used as the main picture?

It needs to be a free image, so if anyone has one, upload it to Commons. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John's death controversy

Nothing about the suspicions on who could have orchrested his assasination? Nothing about the CIA wanting John out of the scene? Does everyone here really believes that john was just incidentally shot by a random lunatic? He was quite a political activist, he moved a lot of people in protests against the war and government actions. He had lots of money he could have even be supporting antiwar groups. Do you relly believe that no one but this lunatic would have wanted him dead? I'm not asking to discard the offical version but also include some alternate reflexions or facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huguinvzqz (talk • contribs)

"Does everyone here really believes that john was just incidentally shot by a random lunatic?" In a nutshell, yes. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ps. Please sign your posts.

Don't include me in that "everyone". I read Fenton Bresler's book, and that stop-over in Chicago was interesting, as well as the YMCA stuff in Lebanon. egde 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that Fenton died in 2003? Am I really the only person who believes he was silenced by Secret Squirrel operatives concerned about a book he was writing about the expense accounts of the Austrian Embassy (in London) staff, as supplied by a Mrs Stoggs (the former Major Redvers Bludknott, hero of the Malaysian Emergency and the lesser known Stirling Not Too Pressing Problem)?

Evidently, I am! LessHeard vanU 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll believe he's alive and well when I see a non-doctored photo of him with a copy of today's newpaper, obtained without the need for grave robbery. Of course a lunatic might want to kill John Lennon, he's a lunatic. He has no time for logic. Why would they kill Lennon - who was only a minor player - and let little hellions like David Peel run loose?--Crestville 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon guys, nobody is advocating poison darts from umbrellas here, or plutonium sushi, but why was the FBI tapping Lennon's phone? (That is a fact). I do not like the idea that if we can't prove it (hook, line and sinker) then it must have been a loony. To negate the idea that there might have been just a little something going on is to stick one's head in the sand, and also says that we trust everything we read. We have the idea that because we have the right to vote, we can somehow control who governs us. In an English court of law it's all about "reasonable doubt". I would go with that, even though it doesn't mean the issue is true or not. It's also called democracy (which is forbidden on these pages) and the right of free speech. BTW, I'm not going mad, I'm just a bit bored... egde 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

True as it is that the FBI and other agencies were making his life more difficult, the gunman just sat there and read. He shot him and sat down, he was apprehended and confessed without a fuss. Why would a man serve 20-to-life for some minor grudge with his politics? I remain pretty convinced this guy was a loon, now I don't know if he was somehow pushed or encouraged to go this route but without some amazing new information I've got to conclude that John was murdered by a fan in the truest since, a fanatic. 75.111.37.174 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did he not have a sexual relationship with Brian Epstein.

I think not enough of his drug use and promotion are mentioned here. Xavier cougat 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

His promotion? Is that sexual? Do tell... egde 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes? Perhaps, "Pips on his shoulder"? "Scrambled eggs upon his chest"? "Major Drama"? Encyclopedias, they are so full of innuendo... LessHeard vanU 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoko's new revelations about Dec 8

Editing in AP article details. Yoko says they came home instead of going out to eat as John wanted to see Sean before he went to sleep. Also Yoko says John did not say any "dying words"[1].Piperdown 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This was said at the time of his death in 1980 as well, so why it was treated by the media as a "new revelation" escapes me. Even in Ms. ono's "John & Yoko: A Love Story" movie for CBS in 1985-6?, the Lennon character says he wants to skip eating to go home and see Sean.

Hotcop2 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

English Atheists

I really don't think Lennon should be on the list of English atheists. He was never entirely clear about his religious beliefs, and they seemed to change from one year to the next throughout his life. He seems to have been an atheist in the early 70's (though even then he refused to give a straight answer when asked whether he believed in God, and seemed to imply that he wasn't sure what to think), but his later statements on the subject seem to suggest he believed in some concept of 'God', in his own words he said his beliefs were similar to Zen Buddhism. As far as I am aware, he never stated that he was an atheist or that he firmly disbelieved in God, and many of his statements on the subject throughout the 70's do not appear very compatible with an atheist outlook. If anything, he appears to have been some kind of agnostic with a belief in some sort of spirituality. Having him labelled an 'English atheist' is probably very misleading. It would probably be wise not to label his religious beliefs at all. MarkB79 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to see Lennon placed in this category. I've never seen any statement to confirm Lennon was an Atheist. I agree with MarkB79, Lennon went through various phases in his life regarding Religion, even been 'Born Again' at one point during the 70's, something which didn't last. - Tom 17 June 2007

John Lennon sure was not an atheist for any significant portion of his life. The problem mainly stems from people who heard Imagine and believe that Lennon didn't think there was a heaven and hated religion. Ug. CynicofWiki 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for backing me up on that. The various athiest categories appear to have been removed thankfully. I think Lennon is kind of held up in the United States in particular by all sorts of secular humanists and athiests, including people in the sciences, as some kind of major athiest artist and commentator, largely because of 'Imagine' and the Plastic Ono Band album. Socialists often highlight Lennon's apparently athiest sentiments in 'God' and 'Imagine' approvingly, and while all these people are well-meaning and some might actually be aware of Lennon's ambigious attitude towards the question of a God and merely approve of the sentiments, I think most actually do believe he was an athiest. If Lennon was truly an athiest at any point, it was around 1970-72, when he and Yoko were heavily influenced by Janov and Marxism (and even then, as I say, when interviewed during this period he refuses to give a straight answer as to whether he believed in God). The fact is Lennon's stated views in later years are not indicitive of him being an athiest, as I say he appears to have had a belief in some concept of 'God', and stated that his spiritual beliefs where similar to Yoko's Zen Buddhism. Lennon was probably added to these categories on here by well-meaning athiests/humanists/socialists but it is very misleading to call him an athiest. It should be ensured in future that his name is kept out of these categories. MarkB79 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In May Pang's upcoming photo book, John is seen quite clearly wearing a crucifix. He also took Sean to Riverside Church several times. I wouldn't put him under the category of athiest. True, he would go for "shock value" is songs, but he also ended his life singing "God bless our love." Hotcop2 19:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

May i add that Buddhism does not require a belief in a Deity since the founder of Buddhism (Buddha) Never mentioned one.

So i do not see how John Lennon being a Buddhist excludes him from being an Atheist.

Tomorrow Never Knows

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

"Fat Elvis period" - when was this?

When Lennon once had put on a lot of weight and had been drinking heavily, he said, "I was eating and drinking like a pig, and I was fat as a pig, dissatisfied with myself, and subconsciously I was crying for help. It was my fat-Elvis period."

The article doesn't say when this actually happened, though, or what period of his career this was, and it's a quote from a booksource. Can anyone fix this?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it'd have to be not long before his death as Elvis didn't get fat until the mid-70s, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Lennon was talking retrospectively about 1965-ish.--Crestville 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added that to the article, but yeah, much of that section "Humour" is quotes and needs cleanup/transwiki to Wikiquote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's Humor - "Band Manager" Quote

Reporter: "What is it about your music that excites people so much?" Lennon: "If we knew, we'd form another group and be managers."

That was actually Ringo -- I just watched a great VH1 documentary last night called "Imagine", and they had footage of the interview where Ringo said this.

Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly -- first time wiki-user... just wanted to pass this along. thanks!

ps - Lennon's "fat and disgusting" period was ~65, right around when he wrote the song "Help!"

I have it on tape that Lennon said, "If we knew, we'd form another group and be managers." I think Ringo nicked it. --andreasegde 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture Takin on Day of Death

On the Annie Leibovitz page there is a picture of the Rolling Stone cover from the photo shoot she did the morning of the shooting. Someone should consider putting this on this page.

Thanks for adding it.

The photo from the album "Lennon Collection" was also taken by Leibovitz on 12/08/80.

Hotcop2 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Since when has John Lennon been an Acadamy Award winner?

Since 1970. The Beatles won Original Song Score for Let It Be.

Early Years

Shouldn't this be a bit more specific?: "He also picked on anyone who was in anyway different, using his quick wit and sense of humour to bully them."

Anyone who was "different" how? Different from him personally? Different from some sort of perceived social "norm"? And is it truly accurate/NPOV to suggest that he "picked on ANYONE different"? I haven't read the source material but this particular passage seems like it could use some work. If anyone has access to the source material, I'd suggest touching up this bit of the article. Ginnna 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

MBE

I think that Lennon's returning of the MBE actually does negate the award as a refusal or delination of the honour. I am not sure we should be mentioning his MBE in the Lead. Is there confirmation that the MBE was returned? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While the physical award can of course be returned, there is no official provision for a recipient of a British honor to renounce said honor, so technically John Lennon OBE is still correct. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite that, Faithless? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I've never seen any proof, it's just what I've heard. Now that I'm looking around, I'm no longer so sure that this is the case. This is the best info I've found so far; I'll post here if I can find something a little more specific. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasonI ask is that a number of entertainers have refused or returned their honours. Bowie refused a nubmer of times as had Helen Mirren. I feel uncomfortable having it in there unless we are sure he is in possession of it. Is there a list by which we can check? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure he's no longer in possession of it. ;) Seriously, I don't know if there is such a list, though I haven't stopped looking. I do know that he accepted it in (I believe) 1964, and mailed it back to Merry Ol' England in 1969. Personally, even if a provision does exist whereby one can return the honor, I doubt Lennon would be bothered to go through the appropriate legal channels to formally renounce it. His returning of the medal was much more symbolic than anything else (which is why he [or his publicist or whoever] made sure that we all knew about it). Of course, this is just my opinion. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

As per the request of another contributor, I have looked over the section below and note that it is largely uncited. As per WP:BLP, a greater level of citation is necessary. As this has practically no citation whatsoever, it cannot remain in the article. However, there is the chance that the information can be cited, and therefore, it has been placed here until that time. Without proper levels of verifiable, reliable citation, it cannot return to the article.

May Pang and the 'lost weekend'

In 1973, Yoko approached May Pang (their personal assistant) with a proposal. Ono, who thought May Pang would be an "ideal companion" for Lennon, asked her to "be with John, help him, and see that he gets whatever he wants." Yoko then kicked Lennon out of the house. Lennon and Pang moved to Los Angeles - a period which has been dubbed the "lost weekend", though it lasted until the beginning of 1975. During their time together, Pang encouraged Lennon to spend time with his son, Julian Lennon, and she became friends with Cynthia Lennon.

After arriving in Hollywood, Lennon reunited with producer Phil Spector and began work on recording and some of their efforts were eventually released as part of his 'farewell' LP Rock 'n' Roll. However their work together was ended by interpersonal conflict -- some sources blame this on Spector while others cite Lennon's increasingly out-of-control behaviour in the studio, which led to Lennon being banned from A&M Studios in Hollywood after the studio was repeatedly vandalised.

During this time Lennon often caroused with an assortment of his drinking/drug buddies including singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson, Keith Moon, Ringo Starr, Alice Cooper, Micky Dolenz and others, who dubbed themselves the 'Hollywood Vampires'. One of the most oft-repeated incidents was that in which Lennon and Nilsson were ejected from The Troubadour club after repeatedly heckling comedians The Smothers Brothers during their act. During the evening, a drunken Lennon was also reported to have gone into the women's toilet and emerged with a sanitary napkin on his head; when challenged by a waitress, he yelled "Don't you know who I am?" -- to which the waitress famously replied, "Yeah, you're an asshole with a Kotex on your head!".

Though Lennon's public drunkenness had been the subject of gossip during 1974, Pang said that he was usually sober in his private life and recorded a large body of work. One notable session, captured on the bootleg recording A Toot and a Snore in '74, had Lennon and his friends jamming with Paul McCartney. Others included on the session were Harry Nilsson, Stevie Wonder, Jesse Ed Davis, and Bobby Keys.

Lennon's relationship with May Pang ended once Yoko Ono began to fear that Lennon would divorce her for Pang. It has been said that Lennon went back to Ono unwillingly, claiming in phone messages to May Pang that Yoko was forcing him to stay with her.

Despite Lennon's love for May Pang, their relationship was violent on occasion. In her book, May Pang describes a time when Lennon actually threw her across a room in a rage. Upon doing this, he had burst into tears and fell to his knees beside her, begging her forgiveness.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP? Seriously? Lennon's dead, and this section focuses mainly on HIS actions and behaviour, not that of May Pang.... Liverpool Scouse 20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lennon is dead, but the other two folk cited in the passage - Yoko Ono and May Pang - are still amongst the living, and that the passage doesn't paint anyone in a favorable light. It requires rock-solid citation, my friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see that. Liverpool Scouse 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the section as a whole is not verified or cited. However, the part that CLEARLY has never been proven is the conjecture in the passage:

Lennon's relationship with May Pang ended once Yoko Ono began to fear that Lennon would divorce her for Pang. It has been said that Lennon went back to Ono unwillingly, claiming in phone messages to May Pang that Yoko was forcing him to stay with her. Despite Lennon's love for May Pang, their relationship was violent on occasion. In her book, May Pang describes a time when Lennon actually threw her across a room in a rage. Upon doing this, he had burst into tears and fell to his knees beside her, begging her forgiveness.

- (unsigned post by user:63.115.59.2)

The Lost Weekend Remains on this page

First you vandalize Ms. Pang's page, and now you're re-writing Mr. Lennon's history? Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There are many vandals hovering over the Beatles-Lennon-Pang pages. They are being watched closely. 00:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

To being with, removing the May Pang info is not vandalism. Please ask an admin to explain the difference, and how unsourced info cannot remain on a BLP article. Period. It isn't a maybe situation. It is an absolute. Frankly, that anyone would want to preserve something that is completely uncited is boggling to me.

Secondly, this is considered a content dispute. If you wish to escalate this matter by reporting my removal of the unsourced, info, please go to this Admin noticeboard. I am pretty sure they are going to back me up on this, though. You could also simply read BLP and WP:CITE, and avoid the embarrassment. I am not trying to prevent good information from being provided to the reader. I am - and will - keep unsourced info from making it into the article. I am not trying to keep anyone from adding solid, verifiable, reliable, non-OR info to the article; I am preserving wiki policies here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost Weekend Removed Again

Citing Ms. Pang's "trashy tell-all," which violates POV issues, Acrayne is attempting to eliminate the May pang entry both on this page and on May's own page. This period of Mr. Lennon's life is fairly "common knowledge" and the fact that he produced three hit albums during this period should not be ignored. The "Lost Weekend" is well documented in movies, interviews and books other than Ms. Pang's. Please beware this attempt and revisionism. Hotcop2 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if the editor above could focus on what my actual difficulties were with the account, and perhaps stop making bad faith assumptions about my intentions. the article is largely uncited. The parts that are cited are from a "trashy tell-all" (as per the London Times review when it came out) and a collection of reminiscing by a revisionist journalist pal of Lennon's. Maybe someone could roll up their sleeves and start finding citations for the statements made that don't draw from either of these books like - oh, I don't know - actual reliable sources?

It doesn't sem like too much to ask. However, to hear all the whining and complain ing and conspiracy theories being bandied about, you'd think I was asking them to produce the Lost Underpants of Jesus™ or whatnot. It isn't revisionism. It's the need for citable sources, and more than two, highly biased ones. No one is trying to suppress anything. We demand that it be provided with sources, as per Wikipedia policy. That which is not cited in a BLP is to be removed immediately. I am being polite in removing the statements to the Discussion page, giving folk to find more citations for them. Know with absolutel assuredness that many other editors could and would remove the passages with utter impunity and without a word.

This works one of three ways from here on out, and the people who want the passages can either ignore these three options, but understand that they will happen with our without you. That may sound harsh, but there it is. 1) You can continue arguing the point until you get blocked or banned for edit-warring (one or more of you are sitting on 3RR as I write this), and an admin will come in and remove the passage completely as unreliably cited. 2) You can use this time to find citations for the passages that extend byond Pang or Kane's books (hint: newspapers and magazine articles are excellent sources for this sort of stuff. You might actually have to go to a library, as I don't know how many articles are going to be available for those without college-library abstracting resources). 3) You can work with people like me who are trying to help you find a way to keep it, rather than picking an editorial argument that you will almost certainly lose, 'coz I'll simply get you blocked/banned after a while.

So there are your choices, fans of the Lost Weekend. Find more sources, or it is gone. Thank the less civil amongst your number for making me less willing to work with keeping it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Will someone explain to the above editor that deleting entire entries at the insistance of someone else doesn't 'help create a better page' nor does insisting every source in 'biased' and 'sensationalist' except for those he chooses to cite with such inflammatory comments as "trashy tell-all" and interviews with people who give negative opinios about Ms. Pang -- who never met her nor Mr. Lennon, but wrote books in cooperation with Elliot Mintz and Yoko Ono. Kane's book fairly and impartially talks to both Ono and Pang, yet this, too, is not credible, according to the above editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 03:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Just add citation tags where need be and I will cite them as I did on the Pang page. Sixstring1965

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

From WT:BLP/N

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

re Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject} and Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) revert warring

I have issued both editors with a 15 minute block, with the comment that they should discuss (with others) the best way to edit this article, and reach consensus. Further edit warring will attract longer blocks. LessHeard vanU 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A more cincise "Lost Weekend"

Just shortened it a bit, added a few facts, made it more Lennon-focused. WAR IS OVER (if you want it)

Hotcop2 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But you added no references or citations, and the section includes what are purported to be direct quotes. Where I grew up you don't put direct quotes into a paper, article, piece of writing without saying where those quotes came from. This goes beyond BLP concerns - this is basic Writing 101. I added a "unreferenced section" tag and several "citation needed" tags next to the more egregious unreferenced items. And I am questioning the placement - once again, I think May Pang and the lost weekend should be included in an article about John Lennon, but I preferred when it was part of "Personal Life". I recognize that some of the section is talking about her role in his personal life and some of it is talking about that time period in his career, so maybe the two can be separated - I'd like other editors' opinions on this. Tvoz |talk 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them. Wiki went crazy this morning and I couldn't even access this discussion page. But certain things do fall under the realm of "common knowledge" such as the Troubadour incidents, as they were covered heavily by media. But I get the citations.

20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by hotcop2 (talk • contribs)

If they were "covered heavily by media", then get some citations. Actual, real citations - newspaper or magazine articles, with titles, authors, dates, url if available, or page numbers in books - real citations. Just saying that a subject is covered in Larry Kane's book or Cynthia's book in the text does not substitute for actual citations. WHat if I want to llok it up? Give me page numbers. And as I said earlier, direct quotes need sources - who said that the waitress said that? Where is it cited? This is basic stuff - it has nothing to do with BLP. "Common knowledge" is not a good enough answer. I deliberately put a tag on the whole section as well as some individual tags to point to the particularly problematic places. Please don't remove the tags until you replace them with real citations. Tvoz |talk 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And it took me 2 minugtes to locate the Rolling Stone interview - the actual one, not an unreliable reprint. Please go for better citations, not the easy way out for others to fix. Tvoz |talk 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennons notability does not rest on what he didn't do (aka The Lost Weekend) but what he did as a Beatle, as a solo artist, as a private individual, and how he died, and the effects on pop culture at those times. The Lost Weekend provides an insight into the person, but is only noteworthy in context of what he achieved at other stages of his life. It should be noted that May Pang is only part of that period. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Why the replacement of the subject image?

There used to be a free image of Lennon in place int he article before it was swapped out for an old Bealtes one. Anyone know why? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Not finding any reasoning forthcoming, I will be removing the non-free image and replacing it with the free one that better represetns Lennon as an individual, and not a Beatle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Free use trumps non-free every time. LessHeard vanU 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that the other Beatles' articles do not use press images from album covers/press publicity shots as the Lead photograph. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too.Tvoz |talk 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the Lost Weekend

I have said this before, but since there appears to be a fresh start, so to speak, i will voice my concerns again. The inclusion of the Lost Weekend information both here and in the May Pang article (where Hotcop, Sixstring and myself also contribute) is largely uncited information. A good, hard look at any of the FA articles for musicians (indeed, for almost any individual with an FA article) indicates that dozens of sources are required to create a comeplement of interlocking sources. Lennon's article contains multiple citations from the same source - a source which was called a "trashy tell-all" by the London Times when it was published.

Wikipedia clearly states that in the case of extraordinary claims that extraordinary proof is required. I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to see two sources (one a biography and one a reminiscing journal) to consider this to rise to that particular plateau.

Wikipedia also states that defamatory material cannot remain in a BLP without strong citation. While Lennon is in fact dead, the other people referred to in the passage (Yoko Ono and May Pang) are in fact living, and BLP extends to protect them. In fact, we are enjoined as editors to remove it immediately. It is notable that the Lost Weekend passage appears not at all in Ono's article.

In short, the header under which is discussed the Lost Weekend needs better citation than the books by Kane and Pang. They simply do. Without it, the article won't be considered for FA or even GA - and frankly, that is the point of even having an article in WP. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are arguing per WP:Undue weight. There are enough Lennon biographies that cover this period to provide a neutral POV for the article. This does not mean that the Pang book need be discounted, but only as one of several sources. LessHeard vanU 00:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read through a bit more of the article again and had forgotten that the section "1970-75 Solo career" already covers May Pang and the lost weekend. So why do we need this separate section at all? I think we should remove it and make sure there are adequate citations in the 70-75 solo section that could include Pang's book, Kane's, the Hamill interview, and whatever else we can come up with, and be done with it. In context I see no particular reason for adding the section, and in fact it is redundant and perhaps more detailed than needed. Tvoz |talk 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Fair enough. It reads better, but I made some factual corrections in that section. I can cite the pages in the Kane book, which I have done on the Pang page. The quote Pang would be the "ideal companion" for Lennon was made by Elliot Mintz in the 1988 Warner Brothers documentary, Imagine. Ono's explanation in Kane's book is lengthy, humorous, but essential conveys the same point.Hotcop2 03:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about this 'cn' tag that Cop removed, citing that it was a bootleg. Is the reasoning for the revert was that it was a bootleg that the event wasn't reviewed or covered by any press outlet? It would seem to me that it would be fairly easy to find a reference of a review, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a bootleg that some people liked because of its historical signifcance and others didn't becasue it sounds like caca. Is a review of either a bootleg or an offically released album (or book, for that matter) pertinent to an encyclopedia entry? Bascially, some people like things and some people don't.

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

It's fine, but the only person to ever mention this session (who was present at the session) was May Pang. So, even if a reviewer would add some insight, it probably would have come from Ms. Pang. The only tidbit that's a Wiki exclusive is the name of the bass player (which should be cited as original research, and if i had the slightest idea how to create citations, I would do. Even the bootleg is incomplete as it doesn't include "Midnight Special"

Hotcop2 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Lennon book coming

Sometime in 2008, a new day-by-day account of John Lennon's life will be published. This will help answer some of the "citation" questions. Hats off to the authors who undertook this most tedious task, but they've spoken with many Lennon/Ono staff and friends in putting together this daily account. This should help with citations throught the article. Hotcop2 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good news - when we have the citations we can remove the "citation needed" tags. Tvoz |talk 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the operative word there is when. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I said. Tvoz |talk 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Header Image

Someone keeps removing the lead image for the article - an image which is a free image as defined by Creative Commons, and replacing it with images from Lennon early in his career - first as a Beatle and then with a professional pic taken sans beard. Perhaps it would be nifty that the editor in question discuss a proposed replacement of a guaranteed free image with one whose status is at best murky? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture in question is available for free to the public, to download from the official John Lennon website. It is a fine picture where John is looking straight on and not a partial face obscured by hair and beard, looking like a Howard Hughes wannabe. The image is free from any legal dispute.Sixstring1965 14:59,

4 September 2007 (UTC) Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Actually, the image is not free. It is a cropped image from the 1998 album Lennon Legend. The image rights revert back to both the record company and the photographer. In fact, the image description (as you uploaded it) marks it as non-free. As you will receall, Wikipedia stresses using free images over non-free. As the image currently in place is free, it gets preferential treatment to non-free. As for the 'Howard Hughes wannabe' comment, I think that's rather invalid as both a jibe as well as an assessment. Everyone knows that all the former Beatles were part of the burgeoning hippie culture, and that meant hair, hair and more hair, ie, let it all hang out. And the comparison to Hughes is simply uninformed, as Lennon was not at all impressed by wealth, and Hughes is only thought to have a long hair and beard due to portrayals in popular, current media.

If you happen to come across another FreeCommons wiki image of Lennon, we would be delighted to consider it as a possible replacement image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "we" whom are you referring to? You aren't an admin are you? If you check the Lennon site, you'll see three free downloads, one being the shot used for the Lennon Legend cover. What do you think? www.johnlennon.com Sixstring1965 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Just bc an image is available for download doesn't automatically make it free, Six. Anyway, the image of Lennon with a beard is just fine. Yes, he was in the Beatles, but he was more than just a Beatle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the picture is representative of John though his life or career. It's plain horrible. The picture was put on the Lennon site for the taking, so what's the problem? Why are you in love with the picture? I'll need a better explanation before reverting the picture back to the"Legend" picture. Sixstring1965 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixstring1965 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best reason is that the bearded image is a FreeCommons pic, and the other one has fair use issues. I am not in love with the picture so much as I appreciate the stability of its free usage. I don't understand why you hate an image that he was apparently quite comfortable with. I am telling you quite frankly that I will revert the reinsertion of an image that is not as or more free than the image already in place. You might want to consult an admin on this matter; clearly, you aren't processing the free use argument I have provided for you, instead attributing some odd love or hatred of John Lennon (which has grown tedious, I must say). Just ask an admin, as they are pretty familiar with the rules on image usage. They canhelp square you away. - 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you say "More free"? The Legend picture is a free use image. Unless you provide me with proof that it isn't, It will go back up. Sixstring1965 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's called wit. What I meant is that you cannot find a free-er image than one that is free (unless you actually took the picture yourself, and surrender rights to it). The proof that the image is here, after I reinserted the non-free tag you removed a bit earlier today. You uploaded a non-free image and then removed the tag; that's called a disruption to make a point, and can get you blocked. Let's not see that again, okey-doke?

So, let's look at the image you want - a non-free album cover (which according to the licensing you yourself provided, was to be used solely to illustrate an album cover), and a FreeCommons picture. If you are having difficulty understanding the whole free image vs. fair-use image, please locate an admin and ask them about it. They are helpful sorts, and will be delighted to explain it to you.

Of course, as free images trump fair-use images in Wikipedia - to whit, "fair use images cannot be used when a free image of the subject can be found" - it would be inappropriate and disruptive of you to insist upon violating Wikipedia image policy. I'm sure you understand. Again, if you are having difficutlies understanding the policy, please feel free to consult an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not the album cover, that's why I took off the information. It was supplied by the Lennon website for free use. I simply put the wrong tag on it and removed it. Again, there is no such thing as more free. The image is free to use. If you find a problem with that, ask admin about it. The picture will be back up soon. Sixstring1965 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring, Wikipedia has a stringent - sometimes too stringent in my opinion - position on images. This is not a matter of Arcayne liking or hating a picture - I doubt you even know which picture he likes better. It's completely irrelevant. He's not speaking from his own taste, he's telling you what Wikipedia will or won't allow. I assure you if the pictures are not free as defined by Wikipedia, they will be removed by any one of dozens and dozens of people who patrol for this type of thing, in fear that Wikipedia will be sued for copyright violation. A picture on Barack Obama's Senate website - senate.gov.us - which one would think should be free and clear for citizens to use, was removed from Wikipedia because of an alleged claim by the photographer. It's still up on the senate webpage though. Copyright of images is a very touchy subject around here, and I'm not the best person to explain it because I find it arcane, I don't agree with some of it, and I'm just not. But there are lots of people who are, and you can start by looking at WP:IMAGE, WP:IUP, WP:NONFREE, and I'm going to ask an admin to pop in and perhaps explain it to you better than I could. But just understand it's not a question of what picture editors like or don't like - it goes beyond that. Tvoz |talk 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm told Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy is a good place to ask questions, and maybe to find someone who can evaluate these images. Tvoz |talk 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent advice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz has got it right. Perhaps "free" is a confusing term. For image use on wikipedia, "free" is used to descibe the downstream use of the material (it can be repackaged and either sold or given away --as opposed to the fact that the image didn't cost you anything to obtain or upload). Basically, Wikipedia's policy is to use pictures that are free, meaning that they uploaded with a redistribution license (such as cc-by-sa-2.5 or GFDL, for example). Hope this helps. R. Baley 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So could we possibly find a worse photo for the header? Perhaps a close-up of the back of his neck? Or maybe one that's so blury you can't make it out? (My Point: The header photo is really quite poor.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.114.202 (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is also a free image, which trumps perhaps better, but non-free images. They are rather stringent about that stuff... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Licensed Image

This image is licensed with Creative Commons and tagged. Sixstring1965 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 Sixstring1965The Beatles Wikiproject

Yeah, I saw. Might I ask where you found it? I don't recall seeing it in the Commons index, and it looks like it was just uploaded. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(Re: this image) Sixstring, you need to provide a link to the original license and author information, which is required under the CC 2.5 license. Otherwise the image will be speedy deleted. Also I should warn you that providing false licensing info is not wise and could, among other things, invite scrutiny of any photos you upload (and possible blocking, but I don't have enough experience in this area to say for certain). R. Baley 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the image is from here. As indicated on the page, the image is owned by AP, and they never fall under the category of free or Creative Commons.

And folk get banned for those sorts of misrepresentations. My suggestion is that since you have claimed to know people who know the Beatles is that you ask them to find a personal photograph that they would allow to be licensed under Creative Commons. Otherwise, you might have to live with bearded Lennon, which of course is a free image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The image wasn't from there. It was from a Creative Commons Flickr site. look it up. Sixstring1965 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to re-read the earlier posts. The image is owned by AP, and the never offer up Creative Commons pics. Sorry,. the image cannot remain. You do understand that uploading a picture and marking it's licensing as Creative Commons isn't the same as the image really being free. You get that, right? The image isn't free; it belongs to AP. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made the effort to find the site. The picture is from here. Look at the licensing info Sixstring1965 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That image link shows a Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 license, which is not allowed by wiki policy see this page. R. Baley 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC) You might also want to see this page. R. Baley 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, fair enough. Sixstring1965 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, image stuff seems to have gotten pretty complicated here of late. In the future you might also want to make sure that the photos on Flickr appear to be self-made (that particular user looks to be uploading published/news photos). I know I've looked around for pics on there, so far no success though. Good luck with future editing. R. Baley 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, R. As I said, arcane. My eyes glaze over and I get a headache trying to figure it all out. Tvoz |talk 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of the woodwork

Okay, now Jenny Kee is claiming to have bedded Lennon before Pang and Ono. Surprise, surprise - she's got a tell-all book coming out, too. Maybe we should ad her as well...- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit unfair here, Arcayne. I don't know who Jenny Kee is, and certainly would not accept her "tell-all" book, if that's what it is, as a sole source. Unless her claims are backed up by other sources she's problematic to be included. I assume your reference above is to May Pang - well, I don't think we should use only her book as a source, but Kane's book backs her up, and there is at least one Lennon interview quoted that talks about some of the things she talks about, as apparently does Cynthia in her book. I haven't looked at the list of sources recently, but I don't think this is an apt comparison. I disagree with your rejection of Larry Kane's book as a source - again, I would hope it's not the only source, but you haven't demonstrated why (if?) you think he should be rejected out of hand. I said a while ago on Talk: May Pang that at that time I felt her article was more about her book than about her, and that it needed more sourcing. Again, I have taken a few days away from heavy immersion in these articles, so I don't know offhand where that one stands right now. Are you suggesting that the separate article be deleted completely? If so, bring it to AfD - but you'll have to make a case for why she's not notable or what's wrong with the article. If not, maybe you can do some research work too, to try to build a better article. Tvoz |talk 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, Arcayne is using Wikipedia to spew his hatred toward anybody who goes against him. It's a power trip thing (which he doesn't have). No matter what you say, this person will go against it. Sixstring1965 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, i am not suggesting AfD, as I think the article isn't all that bad, and can be repaired to get it to at least GA. The point was that anyone can claim they slept with John Lennon, and their tell-all book can be cited as a source for inclusion, according to the criteria that have been expressed that allow for the inclusion of May Pang and the largely uncited Lost Weekend info. A good book has references, which allow us to see the origins for claims made within the books. The situation has parallels with Kitty Kelley's book on the Reagans, and the hugely uncited claims that Nancy Davis née Reagan "gave the best head in Hollywood".

I am not suggesting that May Pang or Jenny Kee's claims of relationship be barred. I am saying - yet again - is that extraordinary claims need extraordianry citation. What Pang says happened fulfills the extraordinary claim. Kane (and I'm amazed that folk areeven considering using any remarks from that bottom feeder - if we give him credit, we might as wel include his claim of having been in bed with Lennon, too) does not fulfill the extraoridnary level of citation required.

Frankly, if we give any sort of weight to Kane's comments, we will probably need to offer statemetns as to the purported llaiason between him and Lennon, too. I think Imdb is more reliable that Kane. I'm hoping the point about citation is registering, because we are asking the reader to accept citation based on someone who apparently doesn't even have citation in her tell-all, and from Kane, who alleges a personal téte-a-téte with Lennon himself. I think there are better citations to be found, and if editors want to include those sorts of statements, they need fairly more reliable citations than that. Somebody (other than myself or Tvoz) pull out the ol' search engine and find some hard news stories, or even a Rolling Stone article - I mean, the guy was John Lennon. It isn't like there was a news black-out where he was concerned. Citatiosn can be had. Roll up the sleeves, drop the 'we are Beatles experts' elitism and do some work. Sorry for all the harsh, but I'm getting kinda tired at teaching Wikipedia 101 to editors who should know better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

However, let's bring in User:LessHeard vanU; he seems to know a bit about the subject matter, and let him weigh in.

Yeah, why should we believe Kane. He's only known Lennon since the beginning.Sixstring1965 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's great then. Please make sure to add Kane's claim of having had sex with Lennon as well, please. He did claim as much in his book. Dude, is there some reason you are afraid of doing some basic news stroy searches? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact; Lennon had girlfriends before Cynthia, Lennon had relationships while with Cynthia, Lennon had relationship(s?) while with Yoko. Out of all the relationships other than with his spouses the only one of any note was May Pang - which is only notable because of the supposed tacit approval of Yoko, and was part of the semi-legendary lost weekend. Unless there is a source that independently confirms the relationship (and its extent) with Kee then it is just another groupie trying to cover her pension. If there is an independent confirmation, how important is it to the Lennon story? The other question to ask is; why wasn't this published in 1981, when it would have been a much bigger story? At most this is a footnote - "Lennon was recognised as not always being faithful to his spouses (ref Pang and Kee if claim is confirmed)" somewhere in his bio. LessHeard vanU 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Tvoz |talk 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as the same criteria is used for Pang, I've no problem with that. Kane is not a reliable source, unless we are intending to note that Kane had bumpoed uglies with Lennon as well. I think its worth noting here that the Lost Weekend stuff appears precisely zero times in Ono's article. Odd, considering that she is the one who uncitedly pushed the two together. Storng claims require strong citation. Kane does not constitute that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kane/Kee I agree with, but May Pang is different; there are multiple sources about the fact, and it was an event that most Lennon fans are familiar with - however, it is much more important a factor to Pangs notability than it is to Lennons. LessHeard vanU 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Migt I trouble you to explain that out a bit more? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arc, I know this is a little late, but Larry Kane has never said, suggested, implied, inferred or intimated that he and Lennon had an affair. Check your sources. And maybe you can remove your comment (and mine here) because we don't want to start rumors ;-) Besides the Brian Epstein non-story, the only man ever to claim to have had an affair with JL was Tony Manero (whom Saturday Night Fever was based on) and did so in Albert Goldman's book. 'Nuff said. Hotcop2 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aka Dr. Winston O`Boogie

Is this a citation for this pseudonym? I see where it appears in the infobox, and in the article along wil Mel Torment, but I think a cite would be helpful. I am not sure we need the alias in the infobox, though. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he used the alias for a production credit (Plastic Ono Band?), so it was another identity. Same per Macca's "Apollo C Vermouth". I believe it should be in the info box. LessHeard vanU 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a citation is going to be needed to verify its inclusion. It was mentioned that one alias or another was used to rsign in to hotels. These sorts of things need citation, I think. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I dug out my original vinyl Walls and Bridges

Instrumental credits:

• Dr Winston O'Boogie
• Mel Torment
• Dwarf McDougal
• Rev. Thumbs Ghurkin

Vytal 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a news article. interview or reliably cited anecdote wherein these pseudonyms are noted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to http://www.superseventies.com/lennon4.html and an article on Walls and Bridges, excerpted from Nicolas Schaffner's book The Beatles Forever can be found. (July 1980 bpaperback version, pp.174-175, Bookthrift Co ISBN 0-811-70225-1) Vytal 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. If the other editors consider them both reliable and relatively easy to verify, you should consider citing those artilces alongside the statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Which 'full' name should be used in the lead paragraph?

John Lennon was never known as John Winston Ono Lennon. He changed his middle name from Winston to Ono. To shoehorn the two into a single 'full' name is a crass error.

The relevant section of the MoS (which I referenced both times I corrected the above error) clearly states:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known...

In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

• (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …

Unfortunately, the MoS is not explicit about the case where the article's subject has died. "(born John Winston Lennon on 9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980)" would be wrong, so I've put the dates first in my previous corrections, but "(born John Winston Lennon on 9 October 1940, died 8 December 1980)" would be acceptable. Grant 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain, but I do not think he changed his name by deed poll and thus was officially John Winston Lennon at the time of his death. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against John Winston Ono Lennon. I think he went by John Ono Lennon and so even though he may not have made a legal name change, I'd use that. I think Grant's proposal is fine for referencing the John Winston Lennon at-birth version. John Cardinal 13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's Death Certificate gives his name as John Winston Ono Lennon. Masaruemoto 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A Death Certificate is not a great source for someone's name because the subject is dead and the person who completes the form usually has little or no access to legal documents. A legal name change document would be much better, for example. Even so, I'd probably defer to the Death Certificate if the source for it wasn't the website you linked; I am very suspicious of "conspiracy theory" sites. Is there another source for the Death Certificate? John Cardinal 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The death certificate seems to fulfill the criteria for inclusion. As well, we note that we born John Winston lennon in the early years section. Is there somewhere in the article where it shows he changed his name? Is it possible that Ono influenced the titling of the birth certificate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine the one and only immediate source for the name put on the death cert would have been Yoko. Liverpool Scouse 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says he was born John Winston Lennon and changed his name to John Ono Lennon. The MoS says these should both be given in the first sentence of the article. I requested a citation for the bizarre amalgam that is currently being shown. If you feel that a death certificate overrides the names he was known by during his life (and the only names used elsewhere in the article), then cite it in the article, not in the talk page. Grant 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a citation belongs int he article, perhaps in the section regarding his death. Does anyone object tome putting such a statement in the article with the citation above? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lennon now redirects here

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

can we find a decent picture of john lennon?

seriously. Duff man2007 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree that is a major issue with this page. The photo keeps changing and rarely is the photo chosen a particularly good one. Problem is finding one which qualifies under Wikipedia rules. Ideally I suppose the White Album photo - the famous one from the insert photo you get with the vinyl album - would be the best choice, it's a very common portrait of Lennon seen in a lot of places, but I don't know if that is usuable, probably not unfortunately. MarkB79 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that has been one of the major issues with that. A lot of people don't like Weird-Beard Lennon (frankly, I have trouble seeing Lennon without one, as he seemed more relaxed and at peace with one), but the reason it has bounced a few times is that people have uploaded pictures that had provenance issues. As well, it seems disingenuine to include as the main picture a Beatles pic, as his life tended to encompass more than just that short (yet notable) period. However, I agree that a face-forward picture would be better than one in profile. What is the copyright expiration on press photos or album covers? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied til now, my PC was broke for a time and I've only just looked at this page again. I have no idea what the copyright expiration is on album covers and press photos but album covers seem to be used all over Wikipedia and for some reason seem to be regarded as fair use. I don't know if EMI or Apple hold any copyright on the Lennon White Album photo but the photographer was Richard Avedon, who is deceased. I presume either the copyright expires with his death or passes to his family, I'm not sure which. I don't think it's a problem using a Beatles pic so long as it's not an early moptop shot which I don't think is appropriate. I don't have a problem with a bearded picture so long as it's decent quality. The one that is there now is OK but maybe not ideal, it seems a bit low quality and is black & white but it's OK I guess. There are some great colour shots of Lennon from around the summer of '69 (yeah, I know that's a Bryan Adams song). I recomended the White Album one purely because it seems a very common image of Lennon that it used all over the place and very familiar to people, in addition to being a great photo. I think whatever picture is used, it should be either late period Beatles or Imagine-era, there are a lot of good photos from that time but I'm not great with the legal issues. I know something about music recording and publishing copyright but I've little idea about photos. MarkB79 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some remaining questions

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

Murder/Death

The section that describes Lennon's murder is entitled "Death". I changed this to "Murder" to more accurately describe the information in the section, and it was reverted because it isn't "neutral".

I'm having a lot of trouble with this explanation. It seems like a basic tautology to me, and no one disputes he was murdered. So, how can this be considered POV? Popkultur 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Because section headings are neutral on every biography article. Just like we wouldn't write "Cancer" for someone who died of Cancer; "Suicide" for someone who killed themselves; or "Boat death" for someone who died in a boating accident. The title head "Death" is to signify this is the section where a person will read about how someone died. --David Shankbone 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I still feel intuitively that murder and suicide have an intrinsic notability that makes them different from cancer or accidents, but that opens up a can of worms, so...I guess "Death" will have to do. Thanks for explaining that. Popkultur 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that way, too, and was bending towards allowing it, but then I took a survey of some articles wherein the subject was murdered by someone else. Some of the following has been repeated on your Talk page, here:

"I have found that in the case of public figures, like Abraham Lincoln and Ghandi, their deaths are sectioned as assassination, despite the literal fact that someone murdered them. A lot closer to the subject matter, the singer Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, also simply known as Selina, was murdered by her former business manager, and the section regarding this murder is titled 'Death' in the Featured Article for her. Biggy Smalls' murder is also listed as 'Death', as is Tupac Shakur's. That's the murder of three different recording artists, all listed as 'Death.' My edit, I feel, is in keeping with the neutrality (in this case, defined as avoiding making evaluative statements) that other articles maintain." - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the broader issue is standardization across Wikipedia. We used to have some squirrely headings - the "Personal" "Biography" area comes to mind as having long histories of POV and fluffing. "Death" is factual and lacks emotion, which should be the case for a heading. And for all of our writing. --David Shankbone 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Mistakes

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

It's now reworded as "an Annie Leibovitz photo of Lennon, taken on the day he died...." —Adavidb 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I have put a new photo of Johnny in. --andreasegde 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And while we appreciate that, you've replaced a free image with a non-free image. It cannot remain. It might be better to discuss your proposed changes int he article where it regards images here rather than via edit summary. It is a topic that has come up a few times here before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Geffen and Ono

On 08:10, 31 March 2006, 59.181.28.205 (talk · contribs) expanded the murder section, adding the following statement: Yoko Ono, crying "Tell me it's not true," was taken to Roosevelt Hospital and led away in shock after she learned her husband was dead. David Geffen later issued a statement in her behalf: "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him.[2] Although unsourced, this remained in the article unchanged until 14:54, 7 January 2007, when Andreasegde rewrote the article, cutting the last part down to Geffen later issued a statement, confusing the attribution and making it seem like Geffen wrote Ono's statement.[3] More recently, User:BGC fixed this problem[4], but his changes were reverted by another editor asking for a source. I provided a source on behalf of this user, citing the 2003 book The Rough Guide to New York City, which states that "a distraught Yoko issued a statement immediately" and quotes the same passage. This is easily confirmed in other sources, such as Robert S. Levinson's 2002 book The John Lennon Affair, which on p. 125 describes the "copy of the public announcement Yoko Ono had written for release to the media". Both of these sources can be viewed on Google books. A good web source that also confirms the statement can be found in "The Death of John Lennon in 1980" an article on the Rolling Stone website.[5] —Viriditas | Talk 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an alternative and accurate citation. You happened to reinstate the the one source I happened to know did not include those words. As for the edit summary, I have to admit that i found the term "dishonest vandalism" a bit funny, ever more so coming from you. Nice to see you learned at least something from your block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You write, You happened to reinstate the the one source I happened to know did not include those words. On the contrary, the "one source" I initially reinstated (The Rough Guide to New York City) did indeed include the words, so I don't know what you are trying to say. You can view the statement in the book, here: [6]. —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't realize you were citing an earlier edition of the book. That quote - uncited - in the '04 edition. It isn't in the '07 edition, which I own. Perhaps it was removed from subsequent editions due to the improper citation error. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Another, somewhat more reliable citation was found. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm at the bookstore holding a copy of the latest and greatest January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City in my hands. (ISBN 1843536927) The text in question most certainly appears on p. 212, the same as in the 2003 edition previously cited. Perhaps you own a different book. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(inserted comment) You are claiming to be actually standing in the store with your wi-fi'd laptop all steamed up, are you? lol - not bloody likely. Dude, I own the book, and I have looked at the page in question. The comment is not there. Perhaps you are - yet again - unaware that this is a POINT disruption on your part. An alternate citation has since been found, so I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I've made more than 10,000 edits to Wikipedia from my PPC-6700 cellphone, and I've discussed my use of this cellphone on Wikipedia in various places over the years, including Jimbo's talk page. In fact, I wrote Children of Men from my cellphone. If you actually owned the book in question, you will notice that the information you claim does not exist most certainly appears on p. 212 of the January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City (ISBN 1843536927). No "alternate citation" was found; I merely added a more thorough treatment of the subject from another source. This does not change the fact that contrary to your repeated claims, the material appears in the book. I copied down the ISBN number for you above for you to see and acknowledge your error. You may own a book, but you do not own this book. The simplest explanation is that you own a different book by the same name, which was published as ISBN 1843537532, The Rough Guides' New York City Directions 2. They are very similar, but different books, and have different titles. This actually makes a lot of sense, because that book is only 255 pages and does not include the full 512 page treatment of the city. —Viriditas | Talk 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it hard to AGF with someone who claims info not in evidence. I don't need a cell phone; I own the book, as I have only mentioned three times now - no error. I am not sure that you should be claiming to have written CoM - as it is both wildly inaccurate and you have a fairly checkered history there. Maybe you would like to forget that I own the book in question again, or asume that you are somehow better at sourcing than I am (which we both are fully aware isn't the case) but it doesn't really change the info. You are wrong in this instance. It was most recent editon of the book that you claim to have used the cellphone to find. Perhaps you might wish to stop beating a dead horse, since a better citation was found. Perhaps you can let the matter drop, son. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you have written above. To recap, I have provided the page and ISBN number of the book in question. If you need an administrator to help you understand what I have written, please request one. In the meantime, I will restate the correct reference that refers to the most current version of book, page number and ISBN. I would also ask that you check the ISBN of the book you claim to own and the number of pages. The book being cited has 512 pages, not 255, and the ISBN is ISBN 1843536927 not ISBN 1843537532. Please check your copy of the book to confirm these two details. —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid your failure to comprehend is not really a priority on my part. I asked that you not adjust citations within the article that are inaccurately depicted. I know for a fact that - your cell phone escapades aside - the book you cite is not the correct edition. As there is already a solid source in place that perfectly covers the statement, and you have been told by someone directly that the edition you are citing is incorrect, I would presume that any further discussion not carried out here is a POINT discussion aimed at simply seing disruptive. If you feel this point merits mediation, please consult an admin/mediator and let them sort it out. I am stating here that you have cited a source incorrectly, as I am in possession of aforementioned source, and know your edit to be (at best) misinformed. You are welcome to flog a dead horse further, but you might want to consider how just coming off an edit-war block and edit-warring again might look to others. Please stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The book I have cited is correct and reflects p. 212 of the January, 2007 tenth edition of The Rough Guide to New York City (ISBN 1843536927). Your allegation that I have "cited a source incorrectly" is wrong and should be retracted. Your reversion of a more current reference is also in error, as references should be timely and accurate. I have asked you to provide the ISBN number of the book you own, but you haven't done this. I've also explained how you have confused two different books with similar titles. Your false allegations against me and bad faith reverts are not justified or supported. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you already listed the ISBN for the book you claim has the info in it, it would be rather redundant for me to list the same ISBN and say it doesn't - as I have already done at least three times (maybe this time, you will actually read the post). As for retracting statements, when I am wrong, I admit it son. I am not wrong here, and I stand by my edits. I am not sure why you are citing the book incorrectly, and I don't much care. I have no issue with submitting a photocopy of the page in question to a mediator, but I am guessing you'd end up in quite a bit of trouble for submitting false citation information repeatedly. I am going to advise you to back off your edit. You are wrong, and it is pathetically easy to prove it. Your edit is unnecessary, and you engaging in a pissing contest by repeatedly adding it, Of course, you are welcome to let us all know why you feel your edit is vital to the piece. Go on - we're all waiting.

By the way, you are at your 3RR limit for the day; you might want to refrain from edit-warring. Again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has spent the last three years creating, researching, and citing articles on Wikipedia, I stand by my earlier statements 100%. The ISBN number of the book in question is correct and the content appears in the page cited. I would suggest that you double-check the ISBN number, title, publishing date, and number of pages in your book one last time. You may notice a discrepancy, one that I have discussed and explained above. I find it bizarre that you would continue to claim that I am "citing the book incorrectly", however I am willing to review a digital image of your version of the book and compare it with a digital image of my own which will prove once and for all that the material appears in the book, accurately cited by myself. I would also recommend a consultation with the reference desk, so that a third-party can confirm or deny either of our claims (Subsequent refdesk request made here). I look forward to a quick resolution of this matter. I am willing to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, and I hope you are mature enough to do the same. —Viriditas | Talk 08:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I am the one to have caused a fuss, but I actually don't remember cutting that (Ono/Geffen) bit out. I shall have to look back at my edits and (if guilty) slap myself on the wrist for being so careless. Apologies all round. --andreasegde 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed some minor errors in the above and added diffs so you can look at the edits. —Viriditas | Talk 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project nominated for deletion

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

Lost weekend Diminished

How does a turning point in J.L.'s life vanish into a few sentences? Sixstring1965 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

uh there are several paragraphs about it in the 1970-1975: Solo career section. Also the lost weekend was only 18 months out of a 40 year life. It seems what is mentioned here is fair to the perspective of the rest of his life. L. (posted by User:63.115.59.2)

Okay, I know who you are now. Go find a hole and crawl in Sixstring1965 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Six, who is this person? I added their sig on, but it looked like they haven't had a lot of experience here; maybe WP:BITE might be an appropriate method of interaction? Or do you know them from somewhere else? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem Arc, I do not know this six person. All I did was answer their question.

I am Lucy Lennon 4me. I only made a comment here and I do not know this six person. I have not edited or touched any of these Lennon or May Pang pages. I added my opinion to the talk page. Judging from all the fights and time outs issued to this six person I can only conclude that they like to pick fights with people, and I'm not biting.

Arc, Isn't it strange how she knows my Wiki-history? Don't feed the trolls. Sixstring1965 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, Your "history" was all over the beatles/Lennon/Pang pages for the whole world to see. All I did was point out that the lost weekend was mentioned on this page there are several paragraphs about it in the 1970-1975: Solo career section. That is not offensive or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.59.2 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. You pop you head in as soon as the Lost Weekend is mentioned. Cut the crap. Sixstring1965 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So what? I watch that's all. I don't interfere. Just like you, I would like these pages to be accurate. I have no beef with you Six, or anyone here. Yes, you and others know that I am not fond of May Pang but so what? That is my right to like or not like whom I choose. As long as I am not touching these pages who cares? Lucy

Okay, is the drama over now? Clearly, there are some issues between the two of you - issues I do not want to know about. Six has editied enough with me to know what a taskmaster I can be about things like this. If you are going to add information, make sure it has good, solid, neutral citations. With citations, no one can claim that one person or the other is not being neutral. And when you take that whole neutrality thing out of the equation, there is less to be upset at regarding the other person's edits.
Lastly, try to remember to AGF and stop sniping at each other. This is supposed to be fun, and letting yourself get all worked up isn't going to do anyone any good. Remember: The world will not end tomorrow if the edit doesn't go the way you think it should. There is always another day to seek a new consensus. If you guys cannot disengage,i am pretty sure that an admin will help you do so against your will, and I can tell you from experience that that pretty much sucks.
So, lighten up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem Arc, I do not know Six, have no relationship with or ever spoke to this person. I answered their question and got jumped on. My name is familiar on the net as someone who does not like May Pang, that's all. It has nothing to do with Wiki. Lucy

Are we done now? I have other articles that need editing. Arc will do his job to make sure everything is cited and solid truth is backed up. I just thought the Lost Weekend was a bit weak here. Sixstring1965 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Cut

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

Lennon photo in Section 3

The photo of John in Section 3 has the caption Lennon at Kenwood, his and Cynthia's home. It looks more like a picture of him in the Cavern sometime in 1963, way before Kenwood was ever bought. Can someone who knows the credentials of the photo please change the caption to something more appropriate. Eyebeeuk 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the right caption. I cut out the rest of the photo showing Paul and Ringo looking at Lennon holding Julian. --andreasegde 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Top Photo

And I thought the header photo couldn't get any worse.Sixstring1965 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You really don't dig Long-Haired Lennon, do you? :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I really don't mind it. I just think that set of photos doesn't work for the top. I actually became good friends with David Spindel who took the Double Fantasy session photos. I'm going to ask him if I can have permission to display the "Lennon Acoustic" picture for the top. Sixstring1965 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

LOL Sixstring1965 —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Everybody, I was granted permission for Wikipedia to use the "Lennon Acoustic" picture on the page. Dave Spindel granted permission to use it here. He's sending me a low-res file soon. This should do it as far as the opening picture goes. Horaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!! Sixstring1965 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

I am not as keen on this as you are. It could be almost anybody because of the angle and pose, and the resolution is very low. --John 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This picture is very famous, it is even on an album cover. That statement that it could be anybody is rediculous. Sixstring1965 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may continue, The old image is used further down the page, it was just cropped to John's image for use on the top. The new picture shows Lennon with his weapon of choice which is nice. He would be killed about a month after that photo was taken. Sixstring1965 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo is great because:

• An editor actually managed to contact the photographer and get permission. I have never read this before. Congratulations, Sixstring1965.
• It shows Lennon at the end of his short life, and does not romanticize his image.
• The frame of the glasses is the same style of frame Lennon wore when he was shot (as Yoko released on the cover of the Walking on Thin Ice single.)

Think about the whole article and not just the photos, people. It is still B-class, while McCartney is GA. --andreasegde 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I'm flattered with this. I wish there was an award! LOL! Sixstring1965 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG, it appears that Six was fucking lying about the whole thing, and did NOT have the permission. He's been indef banned. It just goes to show, don't screw with fair-use licensing, and don't threaten to vandalize an admin;s page when he asks you to remove fair use music samples from your user page. Like, ever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Arcayne on the "OMG" comment. Deary me, I'm gob-smacked (speechless...) --andreasegde 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, i've been told that the user formerly known as Six-String has socks all over the palce, and simple checkusers don't help. If you notice a similar style of editing, speak up and loudly. And I kinda feel bad for you, And - you gave him a barnstar...eep. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't remind me... (ouch!) --andreasegde 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)