Talk:John Lennon

Lead image

Original image, reverted to by User:ILIL

Image used from 9 July to 26 August, proposed by User:BappleBusiness

I noticed that User:ILIL reverted my change of the lead image. In my opinion, the image I proposed is a much more flattering image, and it's higher resolution. I also believe the original image is a little bit distorted (I could be wrong about that; he could just be at a strange angle). The contrast/lighting in the original image is also poor. My proposed image also has Lennon facing towards the text, as per MOS:PORTRAIT, while the original image has him facing slightly away from the text. The images were taken within a week of each other (March 1969), so the optimal time period for a lead image isn't an issue when comparing these two images. I'd like to hear your thoughts, ILIL, as well as the opinions of anyone else. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Left image gives the reader a better sense of what Lennon actually looked like. Right image has imbalanced contrast/lighting and, coupled with his glazed expression, makes him look like a Madame Tussaud waxwork figure. It might have a higher resolution, but it's not a higher quality portrait. ili (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, both images are less than ideal, and debating superiority between two poor photos is wildly subjective. But the image in daylight has far less harsh contrast than the other, which literally makes him look like a deer in the headlights, including extra glare on his glasses. As an aside, they are both examples of how he may have looked in 1969, but is that the defining year of his life? Arguably he spent more of his life without a beard than with one. It's a shame we are stuck with using one of these two substandard photos. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's two sixes really, but if you held a gun to my head (btw, please never do that) it would be the one on the right. Patthedog (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of the "portrait should face left" rule of thumb before. A bit silly, since a lot of good articles have portraits facing forward or to the right (including Gorbachev and Diana, whose articles are on the front page as of 31 August). I have to agree with ILIL in retaining status quo: while the flash photography is a bit harsh and the fidelity isn't great the higher contrast and grain serve to make him seem less plastic. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd call the photo on the right the better choice, but would prefer either a later or earlier era than this, which is representative of a relatively short period of how he looked. Jusdafax (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the current one that was reverted by User:ILIL. The other image may be higher quality, but the lighting isn't really on Lennon's face - the image is low-contrast but Lennon is still a little in the shadows. The other is more high-contrast but he's looking at the camera and doesn't look like he's mid-sentence. I imagine sometime in the not-too-distant future, we will find a better candidate but I think that's the best we have for now. Humbledaisy (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• There has been a long-standing consensus for the image on the left. It never should have been changed on the whim of one editor without a new consensus. And it should remain in the infobox unless there is a clear consensus here to change it. That's the way consensus works on Wikipedia. Consensus can change, but it does not "expire" with the passage of time. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder, some 10 years or so ago I obtained permission from Bob Gruen to use one of his iconic NYC photos, but one editor who was warring with me prohibited it. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hotcop2: I have a couple of questions. Was the permission properly vetted by Wikipedia/Wikimedia with an OTRS ticket so that an official statement can be made on the the image's description page verifying the permission? You probably already know that we would need more than your assurance that Gruen granted Wikipedia permission to use the image. Do you have a link that allows us to view the image? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I provided the email correspondence (from his personal email account) in which he "gave permission and would be honored" to have his photo used -- which should've been enough since there's an "I have permission from the author" option. I named him (rightfully) as Lennon's "official" photographer in the article. It was up there for a couple of days and was not removed by him or the image agency he was with. As you know, Beatle related articles are touchy as there are so many 'texperts' on the subject. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hotcop2: To whom did you provide the email correspondence? Did you get an official response from anyone at Wikipedia/Wikimedia that verification was acknowledged? For an example, see "Permission" at File:Phil 1.jpg for a photo that appeared on a cover of Newsweek magazine. Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall, it was years (and a few brain cells ago). I don't much about the mechanics of wiki; I know I uploaded the photo and email through commons, citing all the right options, and then I ended up having to defend all the photos I've put up, all of which I took. I am sure Mr. Gruen would still be honored for his photo to grace the lead in this article so someone should reach out to him.

Hotcop2 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes to great lengths to avoid copyright violation because the legal implications for violating copyright can be severe. It takes more than the uploader selecting the right options. There is an official verification process that the owner of the image has provided permission for free use. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, we had permission but an editor went on a personal crusade against me, so we're stuck with one or two horrible photos. Speaking of Wiki and it's great lengths, every year there's 20 new Beatle books and lots of them contain new "facts" (you gotta have a selling point) which aren't exactly true but since they're "sourced" they're peppered (pun intended) in Wiki articles (often by the authors of said books to increase sales of their books).

Hotcop2 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia (not just you) has documented permission from Gruen for free use and it hasn't been rescinded by Gruen, one editor cannot reverse that permission. An editor may have other reasons besides free use to object to an image, but that is handled through dispute resolution. 14:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

Julian is older than Sean and should be listed first 73.246.51.207 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, Please find a source. Blanchey (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you bother actually looking at the article. Julian is listed first. 23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: don’t know who that question was for, but if it was me, no, I didn’t check. The user who made the request hadn’t provided a source and because I don’t actually edit this area of Wikipedia, I wouldn’t personally know, the talk page came up on recent changes as it had just been updated. Blanchey (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Blanchey: Sorry for the confusion. My comment was intended for the OP, who apparently didn't look at the article before making this request. Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Born: October 9, 1940 Assassinated: December 8, 1980 2600:8807:2D09:900:D7E3:EAC1:8C1E:2BA7 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Lennon's murder is already well-covered in the article, there is nothing to add here. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ashes Scattered

I can't find a definitive source that his ashes were scattered in Central Park. I only found a sources that said his ashes are presumed to have been scattered there. 74.196.122.198 (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the source cited in the article? Sundayclose (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Every year there are 20 "new" Beatle books. A lot of them contain new "facts" which then appear on Wiki as sourced. Unless her way of revealing to the world (and to John's family) where his ashes are was thru this book, it could stay with a grain of salt. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic tone

This article has scatterings of synthesis and OR. I've recently removed a line saying that people are still mourning, which was uncited. The next piece of prose was about memorials. Every dead person is still mourned, this is just fan cruft. It needs to be removed Very Average Editor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I can accept removal of "mourned", but there was no point in removing the link to Death of John Lennon#Memorials and tributes. That is useful information for the interested reader. If you mean that memorials are "fan cruft", I think many people here would disagree. Get consensus to remove that. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the link is fine, and I may have cut more than needed in my edit. It is the "mourned" part that comes across as non-encyclopedic. The existance of memorials is notable, I would agree. Very Average Editor (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct grammy year

Double Fantasy won Album of the Year at the Grammys in 1982, not 1981. Please correct [1] 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)