Talk:John Lennon

Time of death

Why is the time of death here marked with 11:07? In other documents, his death certificate is also linked here. That reads time of death "11:15" not "11:07". Is there a reason for 11:07?

Parsec9 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrite?

Lennon wrote: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow", yet claims to be a Marxist? I'd say that means he's a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.28 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He first said that was the key line of the song, but later stated that he regretted it. also, mao murdered thousands of people in the name of the revolution. Esen O (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxism does not equal Maoism (or Stalinism etc.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

John Lennon's name

It's simple, yet, I guess it might be important, too. I think it should be written as: "John Ono Lennon, born John Winston Lennon" as he later gave up the name Winston -given after prime minister Wİnston Churchill- and took up Yoko Ono's surname. The Ono surname can create confusion and giving up his middle name was an imortant thing. Esen O (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a statement would require reliable 3rd party sources to verify your statement. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it was reported at the time that he had changed his middle name from Winston to Ono, legally he could only add Ono but not remove Winston so his legal name was John Winston Ono Lennon. Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No legally you can drop part of your name. Not sure if Lennon did that though 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken references

I fixed some broken {{Sfn}} citations in this article (thanks to User:Ucucha/HarvErrors), but couldn't fix those to Clark 2002 (current ref 189), Mismo 2002 (ref 190) and Songwriters Hall of Fame 2009 (ref 253), because the full citation for none of these is listed. Could someone add those citations? Ucucha 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean Lennon

A brief note should be added the Sean Lennon section that his godfather is Elton John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprod1 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in Sean's article, which is where it needs to be. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the person he choose as the godfather of his child (I assume in a legally binding way) would not be notable in his article. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that? - you can ask anyone to be a godfather to your child. All they have to do is be present at the baptism and say that they'll be responsible for the child's spiritual welfare. Richerman (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Typically a godparent is someone who agrees to take legal and financial responsibility over a child in the event of both parents dying. What I meant by saying assuming its legally binding, was that since Lennon and Elton John are celebrities, it is possible that it was simply a statement made for publicicty and he was not actually the godparent of the child in a real sense. But if he is it is certainly notable, especially considering the fact that one half of the parents did infact die and the possibility of a godparent being needed was very real. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

MBE

Should he still have MBE following his name considering he returned it? Jefe (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that although he returned the physical medal he received, the actual postnominal title remains and can only be revoked not renounced. freshacconci talktalk 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Seaman

Obviously the Fred Seaman stuff about how Lennnon switched to conservatism at the end of his life but didn't tell anyone but Seaman should be edited to include that fact that Seaman stole hundreds of personal items from John Lennon. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/28/arts.artsnews 68.188.25.170 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet... Hotcop2 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the Goldman quotes from the Yoko Ono section

I submit that the inflammitory Goldman quotes should be removed at once, and I seek consensus for said removal. Goldman's book is largely unsourced sensationalism, and reliance on it for material about Ono's use of "gigolos" is highly questionable, in my view. Jusdafax 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Given that this is a WP:BLP issue we need to be careful with sources like Goldman's which are highly questionable and discredited. If other sources could corroborate anything he claims, perhaps then we could use it. But as it stands this is one man's claim with very little backing it up. freshacconci talktalk 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. It doesn't add anything. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Radiopathy •talk• 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Goldman's book is not a reliable source for controversial information on Lennon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Seeing no objection and substantial support, the Goldman material has been removed. Bravo, all. Jusdafax 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

John Lennon = Reagan?

As I'm sure you've all seen reports about John Lennon reconsidering his leftist views and becoming a fan of Reagan, I'm wondering what you all think about including this in the article? 108.48.29.250 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Find a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The news of Lennon's possible political transition to conservatism is significant. I would think any Daily Mail reference should suffice. For instance, I wrote the following based on its 30 June, 2011 article by David Gardner. ___ On June 30, 2011, David Gardner reported in the Daily Mail that Fred Seaman (58), a personal assistant to Lennon, claims in a recent documentary that in his later years Lennon was actually a “closet conservative embarrassed by his radical past.” Seaman was Lennon’s personal assistant during the last year of the singer's life. Additionally, Seaman maintains Lennon was a fan of Ronald Reagan. “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on Jimmy Carter.” Seaman also believes Lennon was embarrassed at his past leftist radical ideologies. “By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naiveté.” He also added, “I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist. He enjoyed really provoking my uncle. Maybe he was being provocative but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.” Seaman worked for Lennon during the year leading up to Lennon’s death in December 1980 at age 40. [end] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.2.58 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of term "assassination"

Although this doesn't apply to this article (with the exception of it being included in the category "Assassinated English People"), one odd aspect of Lennon's murder is that it is frequently referred to in media as an assassination. The term assassination, however, is generally reserved for the killings of political figures - JFK, Malcolm X, Anwar Sadat, etc. I wonder if this should be discussed in the article - is there a reason why some refer to Lennon's murder as an assassination? On a related note, he probably shouldn't be in the Assassinated English People category, since the category is otherwise populated by politicians and Thomas Becket. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on lead image change before an edit war happens

Hotcop apparently doesn't like my recent change to the lead image. Well let's have a discussion. Here are my reasons for the change. 1. It is the most recent image of Lennon taken weeks before his death. 2. It shows his face, something the previous lead did not. 3. The previous lead is more useful in the section about Give Peace a Chance which I moved it to when I changed the lead. 4. It is a higher resolution image than the previous lead. 5. The previous lead went through heavy editing, such as re-coloring, cropping and so fourth. Lowering the quality of the image.

I gave five reasons for discussion about the change. Seeing as HotCop has had discussions about this image in previous encounters I fear the only reason he dislikes the change is more about personal dislike of the photo instead of what is best for the article. I have been overseeing this article for almost 4 years now and I know the only reason the previous lead was used was because there was never a better replacement. Now there is and I hope that HotCop will put his personal dislike for the photo aside and do what is best for the article. PositivelyJordan (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give my reasons again here. altho I don't love the Lennon with acoustic photo, it's more representative of "iconic" Lennon than the b/w, which goes perfectly in the Yoko Ono section. So let's have more discussions folks. (P.S. -- I got permission from Bob Gruen to use the NYC T-shirt photo, but that was vetoed as well. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"iconic" Lennon is opinion. The point about the b/w being in the Yoko Ono section is fine, but seeing as there is already a picture of Yoko in the section it would be redundant to have two photos in the section. Meanwhile the Acoustic photo is perfect for the Give Peace a Chance section. PositivelyJordan (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is redundant; I would've taken the solo Ono picture out. We'll need opinions as to which of these two best represent the opening of the article. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "iconic" Lennon is opinion. Having a recent (and by no means obscure) pic in the lead, with others in their relevant sections would seem an encyclopedic approach. Uniplex (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hotcop2's conclusion. The "acoustic guitar" image is a superior choice for the lead, for three primary reasons:

1. It shows Lennon much closer to the prime of his career.

2. It shows Lennon performing music, the activity on which much of his notability rests.

3. It shows Lennon and Lennon alone.

These factors, in my view, readily outweigh the ones enumerated by PositivelyJordan at the top of this thread. The fact that Mitchell's is "the most recent image" readily available of Lennon is not a positive, it's a neutral. Showing him at or close to the height of his career is significantly more valuable. The utility of the image elsewhere is again not a pivotal consideration; the replacement image is also useful elsewhere and it is highly debatable where the acoustic guitar image is "more useful".

The other considerations enumerated by PositivelyJordan do carry some weight—though there is the gross exaggerated claim that the "acoustic guitar" does not show Lennon's face. Of course it does, just not as much as the Mitchell duo portrait. The image quality of the Mitchell photo is unquestionably superior; however the image quality of the acoustic guitar image readily meets our standards. Given the other factors I've enumerated, it remains the superior choice.

The acoustic guitar image should be restored to the lead, and the Mitchell image brought into the "Yoko Ono" section, replacing the mediocre image presently there. DocKino (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As already mentioned, ‘iconic’ and ‘prime’ are opinion—your points could equally describe the 1964 pic. Uniplex (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "Iconic" is not a word I ever used.

2. Sure, "prime" is opinion--like virtually everything else that's been said here, not least by you. Guess what, it's called the exercise of editorial judgment and pursuit of consensus.

3. You're absolutely right that my points could equally describe the 1964 pic. I didn't consider it above. Given its quality and the fact that it shows more of his face than the acoustic guitar image, it might be the best choice of all. DocKino (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your points don't have any validity to them whatsoever. You even agreed yourself that the Mitchell photo is far superior in quality, and shows much more of his face. I take much more weight in those two points and the fact that it is more recent. Than what your opinion is on when John Lennon's prime was. PositivelyJordan (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So now you're throwing a hissy fit ("Your points don't have any validity to them whatsoever"), baldly distorting my words for your benefit (I did not call the Mitchell photo "far superior" in quality, just superior; I did not agree that it shows "much more" of his face, just more), and apparently fantasizing that my views are "opinion" while yours are, what, objective? Guess what, you've been reverted. No consensus for the change. DocKino (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: When other viable free media is available, it is simply inappropriate to lead a biographical article with an image that gives equal prominence to a person who is not the article's subject. Second: If there is a viable image that shows the subject performing the activity for which he was famous, that is almost invariably a superior choice to a static portrait shot. This is not a tough call. DocKino (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one throwing a hissy fit here is you, and from your past violations of name calling and incivility I won't even begin talking to you any further. However I would agree to the notion of the 1964 image being better than the Rehearsal photo as the lead, as it applies every one of your points about the rehearsal image, AS WELL as being in better quality. PositivelyJordan (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to stop you from whining and misrepresenting what your fellow Wikipedians have said, we're very grateful. As for our past behavior, since you've suggested that's in some way pertinent, I'm proud to say that our fellow editors have awarded me six Barnstars, while you have...uh...awarded yourself 19 userboxes, including ones declaring your devotion to "WikiPeace" and "WikiLove". That would be funny, if your behavior didn't make it so sad.

Back to substantive matters: Either the 1964 (Beatles) or 1969 (Give Peace a Chance) picture is a viable choice. On balance, I prefer the 1969 image: it shows Lennon as a solo artist and I believe better conveys his individual character (in part because he's not in a group costume). PJ clearly much prefers the 1964 image. Other opinions? DocKino (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the good Doc. Like I said, I had gotten permission to use the NYC shirt shot, but it was removed. It's an article about LENNON so we don't need anyone else in the lead photo. Finally, he looks pretty horrible, but that's just my opinion -- and, as we all know, it's just my opinion. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

From the lead sentences of both the lead and legacy sections, it seems that Lennon’s notability stems primarily from his work with the Beatles, so that would suggest the ’64 pic. Uniplex (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

change the principal picture

i think the best picture should be the firsts in appears when you write " john lennon" in google, there are a lot of options. (and PLEASE CHOOSE A PICTURE OF LENNON ALONE, like in any other article, that souldnt be in discussion) Alex gnpi (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They're certainly are lots of pictures but they are all copyrighted and can't be used. The one in the article is used with permission from the copyright holder. If you think you can get permission to use one of Lennon on his own go right ahead. Richerman (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the copyright issue , but no all the pictures are copyrigthed, although is true that is dificult to know the pictures that have free rigths. In any case in this link is the same picture that the principal but with out Yoko: http://www.actualidadmusica.com/2009/10/29/john-lennon-el-trailer-de-%E2%80%9Cnowhere-boy%E2%80%9D/ Alex gnpi