Talk:John Lennon/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Death Section Lead In

Right now the lead in reads like this: "It was this temperature in NYC, John was doing this, then then this happen, then this other thing happened, something else happened..blah blah...." Frankly, when the reader begins reading the section I don't think the pressing details he/she's eager to know is what the temperature was in NYC and what John was doing during the several hours before the event. I suspect the reader wants to know how exactly he died, when, and by who, why, etc. You don't even find out any these pressing questions until late in the 3rd paragraph. I suppose if we were writing a novel and building the suspense, it would be appropriate but I wonder if is so for an encyclopedia. So I'm wondering if perhaps we should have these details in the first few sentences, then follow with the more elaborate details? Kevin77v (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we can cut the entire section down to:

On December 8, 1980, John Lennon was shot dead as he returned home from a recording session with Ono. The killer, Mark David Chapman, calmly waited for police to arrive. On Decmeber 14, Ono called for a worldwide silent vigil. Chapman later pled guilty and is serving his 20-years-to-life sentence at Attica State prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider a suggestion that above mentioned short version is used as short summary followed by detailed description as it is now. So then those who look for quick facts are satisfied and not lost in large paragraph, while those deeply interested in details are satisfied too. Similarly I propose that also in the case of "Early Years" section there should be short summary followed by detailed description. By the way I am a bit surprised that after recent "cleaning edit" (described as "cleaned up a little of the intro section") there is no longer mentioned e.g. that John Lennon was born in the Oxford Street Maternity Hospital in Liverpool during the course of a German air raid ... and other valuable facts were removed too - though properly referenced. IMHO the article should be definitely better arranged keeping all the referenced facts and not just simply cut down. Sort it - not purge it. So let's make above sugested "trade-off" (summary + details) so everyone is satisfied. Thank you. --Bluewind (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is booged down with too much minutia for a biographical sketch. Not even in World Book is the birth hospital mentioned. Then, in sections like solo career, so many things were omitted and had to be brought in). we're still missing lithographs, sutcliffe's death, how i won the war... which is valuable info -- but how long can this thing be? the 57-70 section is a horror. excrutiating detail about nothing (so paul stole ciggies, so what?) Then it trails off into nothing.

I say we beat it into shape and talk about adding and subtracting the extraneous afterwards. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem exists especially with "Early Years" paragraph booged down with too much minutia. - Though it may be uneasy for someone I propose to left it there until so called "main article" about early years is properly set up (it is one of few paragraphs without own main article). When that main article is started then we just simply move all those detailed minutia into that specialised article, but until it is created the minutia should not be deleted. And in paragrahs where the main article exists nothing should be deleted before it is carefully moved to that specialised article. Keep on mind that it took too many years for too many editors to gather such huge amount of referenced facts about John Lennon. Therefore we should think twice before we delete something - what may be not so much important for us may be on the other hand valuable for many other users of Wikipedia who want to learn something rather "unknown" or "special" about John Lennon. And I agree that it is shame that topics such as Lithographs, Sutcliffe's death, How I Won the War are not mentioned enough.--Bluewind (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So I hope you now little bit uderstand why I am about to temporarily/provisionally restore those deleted parts of Early Years paragraph (e.g. about place of birth etc.) UNTIL the main article is founded where all those detailed and properly referenced facts will be moved as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. --Bluewind (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, instead of reiterating my spelling errors, you might want to proof read the "booged down" paragraph you added to "death" Hotcop2 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right - I must confess that my English grammar (e.g. prepositions, word-order, etc.) is very poor because my native language is Czech. Thank you for correcting my mistakes. --Bluewind (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why stop there? There's so many more things you could've thrown into that paragraph:

Lennon's last day was unusually warm for December in New York City. Lennon, wearing jeans, a red t-shirt, a white button-down and the black leather jacket with the faux fur lining that he bought from the Gap that previous October, first went to the Cafe LaFortuna for his usual double espresso, chocolate-filled cannolis and Gitanes (this is back when you were permitted to smoke in a New York cafe), and then to Vis a Vis, a hairstylist on Broadway (next to his pharmacy, which still bears a photo of Lennon in their window) to get a Mullet hair-cut before returning home. He then did an interview for the RKO Radio Network before a photo session with Annie Leibovitz (which originally took place Friday, 5 December, but Lennon didn't like those photos and wanted to cut his hair, but the photo of him sitting on the bed with Fender Stratocaster on the inner sleeve of the John Lenon Collection is one from the December 5th session) with one of the takes used for famous cover of Rolling Stone magazine #335 while others were used as covers for The John Lennon Collection album, The John Lennon Video Collection and the re-issue of Happy Xmas (War is Over).[156][157] Hotcop2 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and common sense. - The photo session with Annie Leibovitz is very significant and so is the famous interview for the RKO Radio Network, these two events are thoroughly described in many Lennons's biographies. Even that new hair-cut is significant for John Lennon - he changed his image this way for the last day of his life - after many years he gave up his usual long hair (for the first time since Dr. Janov therapy), and this his only "true 80's style" appearance is evidenced only by photos made by Leibovitz and Goresh - so thats why there are links to that images. So I think that these facts are well defendable as they comply with notability guidelines. On the other hand your microscopic description of his USUAL breakfast and COMMON clothes is your handsome ironic exaggeration, but it would unfortunately make that sub-paragraph unbearable for Wikipedia (ROFL). --Bluewind (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Though there may be some misunderstandings about some edits) I am clearly aware that John Lennon article is now systematically improved especially by andreasegde and Hotcop2 in order to reach good article status and then featured article status. So I hope my edits will NOT dissrupt that improvement efforts. --Bluewind (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're talking to the person who put the RKO and barber reference into the article in the first place. And that's exactly what he was wearing and had for breakfast that day. You forgot to mention the new plastic frames he sported (since May 1980). As the roundwire-rimmed were his trademark, it's important to note that he changed that look too. With four pair of plastic glasses -- one clear frame with a bluish tint; the other honey blond tortoise shell. The honey blonds had one set of clear lenses and one 80% gray. He left the house wearing the "dark" lenses and was shot with the clear (which ended up on Ono's album cover). His optician was Spring Street Optical, in Greenwich Village. Valuable facts, no? Hotcop2 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was not me who put there the facts about barber and RKO, but I just want to keep some rather publicly not well known facts in the article if they are verifiable. I think that it is that needed "spice" that will help (altogether with other improvements) this article to reach GA and the FA status. But of course there should not be too much spice in it. And I just read your talk page and your detailed knowledge of that backstage facts is usually known only by members of inner circle of friends or staff of Yoko, Sean, May Pang ... so it is great that we have such informed editor here. If it is verifiable then this knowleledge will help this article very much. I think future generations will appreciate it as witnesses of John Lennon are dissapering and soon there will be no one to tell the true story about him as it is already long 27 years since 1980. --Bluewind (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to keep this from becoming the John Lennon trivia page, is my point. There are so many important things that weren't included (and still aren't), that for reading purposes I weeded out what I thought wasn't that necessary as more "meat" was added. After I did the "death" section, a couple of folks pointed out that perhaps there was too much detail; so I edited what I wrote. Altho, most people go to the backs of books and read the ending first are like "ending" details a lot more than the begginings. I can assure you that no one can add more "trivia" to this article than I can; but I was trying to go somewhere else with it.

And as far as the other "encyclopedia" language complaint goes, when Lennon died, the World Book entry concluded with: "Yesterday was so very far away for all the lonely people who thought that all they needed was love." O.K., besides the fact that most of that was Paul lyric, it shows that even "real" encyclopedias allow for some (creative?) writing. But everyone has their "thing" on here, so enjoy. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I agree that article should not be based mainly on trivia or even gossip, but Annie Leibovitz photo session and RKO interview are not trivia or gossips, they are basic corner-stones of Dec. 8, 1980 and should not be removed. Where else in the world they should be mentioned than in Wikipedia article about John Lennon? I don't like uptight deletionists who delete whole paragraphs or pictures without explanation - as I mentioned above Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I hope we will find the way how to get more verified facts into the article and defend them in discussion. I wish to help you and definitely not to dissrupt your improvement efforts. But first I mistakenly thought you are simple "deletionist" but only today I thoroughly read history of your previous talk entries and edits. I was astonished especially by the depth of your knowledge about May Pang and other people who worked and lived with John Lennon. --Bluewind (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki thing is a group effort. So, when I re-did the "death" section, some folks liked it and others thought it was too much. So, in keeping with my "cleaning up" bit, I thought I'd take out some of what I put in. Personally, I prefer it in. I was setting up what would've otherwise been a good day for Mr. Lennon. That's why I wanted to go thru this article section by section. So far, no one has agreed with my "too much info" critique, so it can stay as is. But I do think this article gets up and running from the Solo career down, leaving the beginning in need of major tightening up by comparison. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice addition of illustrations Bluewind

I removed one of the two complete addresses for Record Plant (we only need the one). Hotcop2 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles 57-70 Section

I'm beginning to add some meat to this section, which will take a few days. As it'll be done a little at a time, feel free to knock into shape is there as it comes, in terms of ciations, etc. It is not my intention to overload, so I may edit it out myself when I see how much is actually put in. I will not go into detail of every Beatle album, just key moments in Lennon songwriting, and solo projects while with the group. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Genres

His musical genres are listed as "Rock, pop, experimental." Shouldn't it be more extensive?

His music, with the Beatles as well as solo material, touched on blues, rock n' roll, swing, jazz, doo-wop, and funk, in addition to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.218.43 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about the influences of other styles, but it seems Lennon always kept his material within the loose confines of "Rock, pop, and experimental" (however you choose to phrase it.) He never really did pure blues, or pure jazz, etc. Did he?

It's like the comment requesting that, under the "Instruments" heading, we include every instrument Lennon had any competency on, including all variations on the three already listed. For example, "slide guitar" is a style of guitar playing, not a separate instrument (tough to learn, but still an ordinary guitar). And just about any piano player can be considered an organist.

But the commenter wanted to inflate the list of instruments Lennon played to emphasize how incredibly talented he was. This is understandable, but unnecessary.

Likewise, it's tempting to say Lennon played in umpteen different styles, but unnecessary. "Rock, pop, and experimental" covers a LOT of ground.

--63.25.97.7 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nose

In the last years of his life, the shape of Lennon's nose changed significantly -- not for the better. Is there any verifiable explanation for this? Was it from snorting cocaine and/or heroin? Was it a botched surgery? I think people might come to Wikipedia to find out. (I looked through more than 30 Google results for "Lennon's nose" before I found anything about whatever-it-was-that-happened.) If there's a solid explanation, it should be added. Agreed? --63.25.97.7 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no solid explanation; between age and cocaine, it caved in. But, since this is "uncitable" we cannot include it. If anything, folks will come to Wiki to learn about Ringo's nose. Then there's the "issue" of Paul's front tooth... Hotcop2 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

'Oxford Street Maternity Hospital'

There is no such place, it was known as Liverpool Maternity Hospital after it opened in 1926. See here:[1]

I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuwile (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A little more research or a quick google would be nice.

"John Lennon was born on October 9, 1940 in the now-closed Maternity Hospital on Oxford Street, adjacent to the University of Liverpool campus." [Look at this... ] --andreasegde (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was born in the Oxford Street Maternity - how my life has mirrored Lennon’s. I will dig out my birth certificate. --Patthedog (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that then, I guess. I actually live in the building now, the plaque outside states Liverpool Maternity Hospital. [See this image] Tuwile (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nip out and stick my name on it. I’d always heard it referred to as Oxford Street Maternity - could easily have been Liverpool Maternity though. Cheers--Patthedog (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checked and the stamp says “Liverpool Maternity Hospital, U.D.” if that's any help.--Patthedog (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, one user was born in it, and one lives in it? What if --Patthedog was born in, and Tuwile is sat typing away in the same room as Lennon was born? (If they had rooms and not wards) That would be spooky... --andreasegde (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be! I think that place would have had two, possibly three delivery rooms. I’m intrigued now, perhaps there are old plans somewhere. Cheers --Patthedog (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just born in the same country, town, area, hospital, house, but the same room? You could dine out on that story for years, as they say... P.S., you've got a 1-in-3 chance! --andreasegde (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am led to believe Lennon’s first words were “Goo goo ga joob”. --Patthedog (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Lennon's aunt Mimi, his first real words were "Awopbopaloobop Alambamboom", to which Mimi unfavourably commented that Lennon would "never make a singer with total gibberish like that".[17] Julia Lennon made no comment, as she was screaming along with the new-born Lennon.[19][23]. --Wot me lie? Never... (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol! The laundry room down in the basement is the old mortuary. Scary eh? Tuwile (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Delbert McClinton was also present at the birth. When asked why there was a was a female straddled across his face, he replied “that’s our Monica”. I thank you.--Patthedog (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On an entirely different note, it would be interesting (it's a boring life, but someone's got to live it) if any other editors live in houses/dwellings that were once occupied by Beatle people. I can see a whole new project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lennon once sat on my toilet, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lennon's Log books and owners of second-hand vehicles. Ahhh, boredom is the mother of creativity, or blind stupidity... :) --andreasegde (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence Tuwile (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"in the Liverpool Maternity Hospital, Oxford Street, Liverpool". I think that makes everybody happy, no? --andreasegde (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I’m just waiting now for Epsom Registry Office to crop up in George’s discussion page, as I was married there. Actually, I’ve just taken a look at the article which says “Harrison married model Pattie Boyd on 21 January 1966, at Leatherhead and Esher registry office”, but I don’t think such a building exists. All my books state Epsom. Perhaps I’ll raise a query. --Patthedog (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Liverpool/Beatles connection

Good grief, Patthedog, born in the same hospital as Lennon, married in the same registry office as Harrison and Boyd... Have you put a deposit on the plot next McCartney's mum? :) With a few more references/connections you could be a walking-talking Beatles tour all by yourself! :) All I've got is that the area around Macca and Mimi's houses look exactly the same as where I grew up in East Leeds. It was quite depressing when I finally saw them. --andreasegde (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! It’ll probably end with me being shot to death. I’d better not mention my connection with Twickenham Film Studios! I have been back to Liverpool quite a lot over the years (mainly to watch the Reds play - my mum grew up in Anfield Road and the house is about to be demolished), but I never got round to doing the Beatle tour. Have you?--Patthedog (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they started after I moved abroad. I was outside the houses as I said, but I have the feeling I may be disappointed if I did the whole thing. Wait a minute, your mum didn't live in Ringo's street did she? (of course not, but just a thought - family tradition and all that... :) --andreasegde (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My mum’s older sister used to cut Cilla Black’s mum’s hair. That practically makes me The Fifth Beatle! Actually, you wouldn’t have a copy of “A Cellarful of Noise” would you? I’m trying to do a little research into Isaac Epstein (Brian’s grandfather). Any info would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,--Patthedog (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Try Eppy's page. That's all I know from the books. BTW, I said that it could be a family tradition: Patthedog - The Walking-Talking Beatles' History Tour. "Roll up, for the Magical Patthedog tour..." :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW (again) I started a new header, 'cos this is really getting interesting and because I wanted to. Complaints should be sent to Patthedog, because he made me do it - honest! Would I lie? :)) --andreasegde (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, (again and again) exactly why are you doing "a little research into Isaac Epstein" (Brian’s grandfather)?. Is he related to your mother's uncle's cousin (twice-removed)? I am interested (seriously). --andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there’s no relation! But there is a nice little story regarding my late father (who grew up on the same patch as my mum) as a very young child playing in Isaac’s house. I just want to verify a few things first though. There must be thousands of this sort of tale out there - most of them embellished in lots of ways unfortunately! On a different note, I think you keep your light under a bushel - am I right? --Patthedog (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look at Spitz's book again for anything more, although I think most of it went into Epstein's page. As for the light and the bushel (nice phrase) I am not sure what you mean, old chap. :) I once owned a torch, and played hide and seek under various bushes, but I am being obtuse, and I should stop it (ouch!). :)) You're English of course, which means being interested in Sherlock and Agatha, which is a peculiar trait of all us that was born on the island, like. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GA

When is this going for a GA? --andreasegde (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Use this page to check for broken links in this article There are one or two. --andreasegde (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. This kind of thing: "Epstein did go see the group at the Cavern and was instantly enamoured." (No reference) Good grief. --andreasegde (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put a of lot of 'citation needed' in. This is strange, because I remember getting rid of them and spending a lot of time putting in references. What the *#*# is going here, one asks oneself... --andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Something for everyone. --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't even bother looking at it, as it was a complete waste of time. I have the feeling that the bible-bashers will never forgive Lennon (or his relatives, bless them) for saying that The Beatles were bigger than "John's Chest". Slight typo there, methinks... --andreasegde (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought John said the Beatles were bigger than Rod (Stewart). Rod was alright, but the Faces were thick and ordinary. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from sly Ronnie, who managed to get himself a gig with Keef and his bag of prescription medicine. :) --andreasegde (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreadable

This pseudoscientific^ approach renders this article# unreadable.

--Pinguïn2 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say every sentence does not need a in it, someone got alittle bit to happy and now this article looks aweful, so awful that I stopped and came to this talk page just to say something about it. Knight Whitefire (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to get John Lennon to GA standard, and if you know the process, you will know that it's not f'+*ing easy. GA articles are hard to come by, and we think John deserves one. If you want to complain about , then add some citations. We would all be happy about that, would we not? (I wrote this in a friendly way, and I wish you the best. You can help as well.) --andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do, but getting to know Wiki rules comes as a shock sometimes, as it did to me some time ago. --andreasegde (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We all would be happy getting it to GA standard, I just don't think this is the way --Pinguïn2 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how are we to know what needs a citation? Any suggestions? --andreasegde (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Undisputed facts don't need a citation --Pinguïn2 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You try telling that to a GA reviewer - they'd have "your guts for garters" as the saying goes. You seem to be a new user, so you'll find out soon enough that there are literally hundreds of people waiting to disagree with you. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this: "On 24 January 1962, the Beatles signed Epstein as their manager, at 25% (only after he secured them to a recording contract)" is wrong. It doesn't have a citation because it is wrong. Having a citation means it has been researched, and hopefully by more than one reference. --andreasegde (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have submitted this article for a peer review. Click on the "request" tag at the top of this talk page to see it. --andreasegde (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Official MySpace profile

MySpace reports that the URL currently included in the list of external links is an invalid friend ID. --anon. 70.23.195.40 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA

If nobody says otherwise, I'm going to put this up for GA.--andreasegde (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done it (GAN) and have also archived all the last few months stuff. --andreasegde (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

References

PLEASE: Check footnote #126, it refers to a book by philosopher Stanley Cavell, and I doubt it had anything to do with John Lennon's death. The bot might have did that by mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.144.232 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither the text of the article associated with note #126 nor the source have anything to do with John Lennon's death. They both relate to Yoko's miscarriage. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been through all of them and fixed everything, I hope. These 'automated bot' references are not good.--andreasegde (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am putting as many references in as I can. Let no stone reference be left unturned. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Double links are also being worked on, as there are quite a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GA - again

This article is slowly looking like it has a real chance of getting to GA.--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it cursorily, this seems like a good featured article. This is just amazing! Great job! Kodster (Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GA, again and again

It has been nominated.--andreasegde (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I truly believe that it is now ready for a GA review. There are always a few little things to do, but it's there, at long last.--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding instrumentation used by John Lennon

After having a brief discussion with LessHeard vanU (talk) , I've added instrumentation used by John Lennon as a small article to be linked from the main. Steveshelokhonov 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one.--andreasegde (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

Hello all. Listen, I've been a little under the weather for about two months, and wasn't able to finish a small portion of the 57-70 section. I'd like to do so; I'll write it out and we can all find the "notations" needed for it after I add the info (I'll do my best to asnwer the "citation needed" requests.... Then, I believe, we'll have a good flowing, comprehensive article on Mr. Lennon which should definitely be G.A. material Hotcop2 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the missing info 57-70

so let's work on making it wiki-worthy, with all necessary source notations. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen up

I went through this article and checked that the references were in place where they should be. I now see sentences/paragraphs are creeping in that have no references. They have been deleted. This is waiting for a GA review, so PLEASE don't add stuff without references.--andreasegde (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It can't be a GA unless it's complete, which I attempted to do. I did say that we would cite the sources after the facts were down, which ANYONE can feel free to do -- I didn't write anything that most Lennon fans don't know. I'm also on painkillers and won't be "well" for another month, so try to work with the facts rather than deleting them. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll begin citing sources tomorrow. We will get our GA. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just as easy to collect the facts and references, and then put both of them in together. Don't put the cart before the horse, as they say. As for being complete, it probably never will be, so let's just get it to GA first.--andreasegde (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some as you might have noticed. It's not just as easy to do both at the same time, because I have all the Lennon stuff in my head and only write the things I know we can source. But after it's written, I read and see what needs to be cited (tho not as extenselively as you ;-) and try... Also, I'm not feeling too well, so I'm trying to get this all in while they're reviewing it. If you think anything else (within reason) needs a source, as for a citation and I'll take care of it. It's basically done and looks pretty good, don't you think? Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks the best it ever has. They can't fail it for lack of references, but they might home-in on POV stuff. That has to be carefully watched...--andreasegde (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

May Pang

I understand that she was involved with Lennon for a year or so, but is it really necessary for her to be in the introductory statement? Usually the intro is used to define stand-out moments in ones life. If McCartney doesn't merit inclusion in the intro, how does Pang? Following this logic, his relationship with that Thelma "Pickles" girl prior to Cynthia should also be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I just read the rest of this article. Who the hell posted SO MUCH info on May Pang? You'd think she was the 5th Beatle after reading this. It appears that her inclusion is just an attempt to boost attention towards her book. I've read a lot of books on Lennon (I mean TONS), and I've never heard of Pang playing this LARGE of a role in his life. If she gets her own section, then so should Julia, Paul, Nilson, Spector, Martin and Klein. I'll check again later for a response, if not I'll take it out. Cheers.Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

Well, the period that Pang was in his life was the most prolific period of his solo career. It was also a period of historic importance as he mended fences with his son, Julian, and the other Beatles. I agree that she can be removed from the top intro paragraph, but "her section" only shows how productive Lennon was during that period. Unfortunately, the TONS OF BOOKS you've read have whitewashed this period, probably in deference to Ono, but the productivity cannot be denied. So that will remain. There was basically no real info in this article until Andreas and I started going at it. Then several other editors joined in and we beat it into factual shape. Now, it's comprehensive and, with the observations you made that are quite valid, it is even moreso. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the intro paragraph and removed the photo of the Instamatic Karma book cover, which was a good observation. There is no mention of the book in the article. Lennon had three major relationships, they're all represented fairly in this article. Cheers back. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks way better. But, I still don't feel she deserves an entire section. According to Pang, she was "white washed". I doubt the big Lennon biographers like Guiliano and Coleman would back this claim up. Lennon was still married to Ono at the time and I'm sure he wasn't exclusively seeing Pang and no other women during this period. Also, as far as being "the most prolific period of his solo career", I really have to disagree with that. Despite the work with Elton, Bowie and Nilsson and the successful Walls & Bridges (plus my personal fav Rock N Roll), album sales and any respectable review sources would deny that statement all out in exchange for his early singles (Turkey, Karma, Xmas) and albums (Ono Band, Imagine). Lennon had a lengthy relationship before Cynthia with a girl in Liverpool that far exceeds the time he spent with Pang and I also believe she does not merit a sub-section either. Cheers. Lemme know what you think. Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

Who was this girl that had such a long affair with Lennon before Cynthia? Putting a childhood girlfriend against Pang is taking it a bit too far... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thelma Pickles (yes, that really was her name... wanna bitch, bitch to Mr Pickles about it) was Lennon's girlfriend before Cynthia; there's a picture of her in Ray Coleman's biography, and I believe she was interviewed for Hunter Davies's book. She broke up with him with the words "Don't take it out on me, just because your mother's dead!" Zephyrad (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

May Pang's time with Lennon was in the middle of his high profile career. There is nothing in that section that isn't cited, nor related to Lennon's career. Biographer Coleman lived with Ono in the Dakota for two years and had her blessing and cooperation on his books. He gives the lost weekend two sentences. Giuliano's book on Lennon's diaries does discuss Pang's affect on Lennon. When we state that "the lost weekend" was the most prolfic period, we're referring to the 18-month span in which he released three albums, worked with many other artists, had his only #1 hit single and was very high profile. Cold turkey, Karma and Happy Xmas are over a span of three years. When John was married to Cynthia, and to Ono, he was "seeing one woman" too. It comes up in their sections because they were wives and "other women' played major roles.

What we've done here is fill in the holes of a period that, as you yourself said, is never written about. You might not like Ms. Pang (and perhaps you should read other books)-- but it's written quite comprehensively, chronologically and cited. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" -- when you say you never knew Pang played such a large role, well, you've learned here she did.

And most of the "big biographers" often reprint the myth that the Lennons reunited at the elton John concert; which did not happen. Instead, on this Wiki page you have a pretty well laid out timeline and our page is factually correct.

Prolific doesn't constitute a "quality" judgement; there has never been a period (much less an 18-month period) in Lennon's post-Beatle career that so much was done. Three songs with Ringo, one for Johnny Winter, one for Keith Moon, producing Mick Jagger, four songs with Elton, David Bowie's hit plus three Lennon albums and three singles. It's not my opinion that he was most prolific; it's a fact.

Your critique of the intro paragraph and the new book were spot-on, and that's what's good about Wiki -- the fresh sets of eyes. But we're not deleting the section. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, either way you cut it, she was still a messed up bitch. Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

And you Sir/Madam, are probably as blissfully unaware of the facts of history as the comments you make show. To reply in your parlance; you ain't go no idea no-how, an' I'll bet yor sweet butt you don't read betwen the lines. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Son, I don't think "Hellobeatle" even reads the lines, much less between them. (I don't care HOW many books someone reads, if they learn nothing by doing so, which is becoming more and more painfully obvious as I read his posts, here and elsewhere, and not just about this topic.) I don't see how someone who encourages the man she's LIVING WITH (so much for "I'm sure he wasn't seeing her exclusively", though John did have a fling with another woman while he was with May) to stand on his own, stop abusing himself and others, admit his mistakes, settle unfinished business, and reconcile with his child and his old friends, qualifies as a "messed up bitch" in any way. - Now, compare that to someone who isolates her husband from virtually everyone he knows, plays on his fears, backstabs his relatives (e.g. selling their houses out from under them, after they were promised they could always live there) and is royally spiteful (and litigious) toward them when they complain, gives his son by his first wife cash instead of heirlooms, while she sells her husband's memory out to the highest bidders... shall I go on? (And I actually liked her music.) Zephyrad (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, who whispered "John" on "#9 Dream"? It sure weren't Yoko.--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, what section had to be reduced in order to be made a GA? Yeah, that's right.. so piss off... Maybe you can define prolific or explain what an encyclopedia is to me again... 139.57.44.211 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, big mouth. Read what the reviewer actually said...--212.241.67.98 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence in paragraph 2 in the section 1940–57: Early years Talks about John, after his parents made him decide if hew wanted to stay with his Mummy or Daddy, John picked his Mum. After he started to see his Mum walking away, he ran after his Mum and went on to be with her. It would have been nothing but the truth if the closing line read, " and John never stopped running his whole life since then."