Talk:Mark David Chapman

Some dumb petition?

...the wording of this article makes it sound like some online petition has been a major factor in denying parole, where there's where there's nothing marginally verifiable to back that up. nothing really to suggest the parole board was even aware of the petition. if this is common knowledge, it needs a source. if it's not, those sections need to be rewritten. at best, i'd suggest that the petitions are one barometer by which an observer can gauge public opinion on the matter.

Contradiction

In the John Lennon article it says he shot John 4 times, yet here it says 5 times, can anyone clear this up?

Thanks.

It is simple: five shots were fired, but only four hit the target, so one shot missed the target --Bluewind 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about clearing that up in the article? Doesn't really matter if you only clear it up on the discussion page.n88819 —Preceding comment was added at 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article should not be expanded at all. As far as improvement goes, it can probably be greatly improved by simplifying the history and story of this disgusting worthless piece of vomit to just a simple explaination of his actions ie: The last paragraph basically. Vermin like this do these things for recognition and fame. Why do we amplify their actions with a "in depth" article. ED jan06

This page is a little too positive, given that Chapman is the worst human to have ever lived. --B. Phillips 17:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, should be neutral, or at least lean towards the negative aspects with more empathy for the public whom were shattered by this poor sods actions. WE still need John Lennon, and undoubtedly so do those that knew him personally. Why did Chapman do this? What if he hadn't. --Haruki 09:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• The article is fairly neutral as is; I don't see any overt praise for Chapman's actions. Of course, the world lost one of the greatest musicians ever, along with the music that he could have made for the past 25 years, sadly. But I see nothing offering tacit approval of Chapman's actions. Leave the article as is, and I suggest that if people edit it they either post future edits here for discussion or first or make darn sure that it's NPOV - this article could go off track VERY easily. The Chief 00:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Just picking nits...is it really legitimate to refer to Holden Caulfield as antisocial? (At least by comparison with a murderer like Chapman.) (I don't think the page is too positive, however, as I think the first user on here is a little too biased himself - Chapman the worst human being ever? Really?) Also, would it be at all relevant to refer on this page to Steve Lightfoot who argues, as shown on this page that John Lennon was actually killed by Steven King? Edonovan 02:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this is an emotional topic, more so with the 25th anniversary (of the murder) soon upon us. However as a Beatles fan, I view the article as neutral (as the article should be) GoodDay 01:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Personnal comment with no interest for the discussion - removed by --nunocordeiro 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your opinions on the matter really have no place here and should be kept to a personal web site or blog. Please keep your comments devoted to factual information regarding the subject at hand and be sure to sign when you do contribute on the talk page (adding four tildes after your comments). Remember, Wikipedia is for educational growth, not for the advancement of personal grudges and agendas. As for the article itself, I believed it to be about as neutral as it can be. David.Filkins 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Release?

This man committed the crime in 1980 and was sentenced to a 20-year term. Will he be released soon? --Zoot11 02:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

20 year MINIMUM, maximum life. He needs to pass a parole to be released, which he has failed to thrice till now ChiLlBeserker 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

An edit of mine was removed, regarding Ono's pledge to never allow him to be released although Lennon and Ono said after the Attica Prison riots that all the prisoners should be released and all the guards locked up. Why was this removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.175.191 (talk • contribs)

Just guessing, but it's probably because such juxtapositions are editorial rather than informative, and we're supposed to be writing a factual article rather than an editorial on whether we feel Ono is a hypocrite or not. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha! If he ever got released, he would be killed within days.

That may be true, but I wonder what Lennon would think of his Killer being imprisoned for so long... Has the killer suffered more for the crime than Lennon did in the instant of his death? I don't meant this to be provocative, just a thought that I had. I don't mean to imply a judgement either. Are there any campaigns for the release of MDC? That would make an interesting addition. Again, I'm not advocating his release per se, just think that it would be interesting to learn the justifications and logic behind such a movement. --N88819 (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand this article

This article is way too short. Even though this guy is one of the most infamous and hated persons in history, the article on him is tiny comapred to the size of other articles that deal with less important persons and topics. I would like to see something on the claims of a conspiracy. --Mb1000 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone, somewhere, has come up with a conspiracy theory does not make it encyclopedic. The section at present is already far too extensive and far too biased. References are sorely needed...and reputable ones, not references that prove only that someone has an ISP and the ability to create a web page. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Stop reverting my edits into something even more inconceievable. If I must cite sources, then I will. But don't you dare go vandalising my work. Give me some time for citations and you will have them. Comprende??

I didn't "revert" you. I edited the article. Don't make threats, and feel free to re-add your "conspiracy" after you have citations. In the meantime I've moved it here for your convenience. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

May I echo, Nunh-huh's comments. Understand that verifiability is very important in our encyclopedia. It is needed to prevent people from adding original research (their own theories) to wikipedia. Since we are an encyclopedia, not a source for original thought, we cannot accept original theories no matter how well thought out or evidenced they maybe. A requirement for a theory to be included in this article is that it be acompanied by citations. In addition, please be more civil in your comments. Nunh-huh is not vandalizing your work. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

what rubbish. it's a theory and nothing more than that. a suspected theory can surely be added to the page for what is, can't it? I never stated that it was factual. Just like there is neither factual evidence nor citations on the page proving that Chapman was insane! i charge you, mr. braniac-cum-wikipedia-geek, with the task of VERFYING that Chapman was motivated by insanity and not conspiracy. I want solid proof. either way, this conspiracy theory deserves a place on the page as it is an integral part of the Lennon murder and the contention surrounding Chapman. It deserves credit for what it is, not for being factual solid proof.

The public and wikipedia users should be aware of the presence of conspiracies (suspected or otherwise) when investigating the Lennon murder and Chapman's case. doing otherwise is depriving them of essential viewpoints.

You are supposed to be civil, or pretend to be, when contributing here. Please don't add unattributed theories to the encyclopedia article. Unattributed theories don't belong there. Feel free to add it when you can provide a citation and attribute it to a theoretician. Until then, it doesn't belong there. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Please note that adding it for a fourth time would be a violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Although it is widely-held that Chapman's actions were motivated by mental instability, a small minority has claimed that he acted as a tool in an anti-Lennon conspiracy implemented by the emerging Reagan government. According to John Lennon.com, United States anti-extremist movements, installed and influenced by former president Richard Nixon and FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover, saw Lennon as a "threat of the worst kind" and labelled him a "dangerous radcal that needed to be stopped".

This minority concludes that Chapman was, inexorably, either a part of this conspiracy or was in some way influenced by it. Some have claimed that his apparent deranged mental state was a facade, a scapegoat installed by a government mastermind to cover up the true horror that lay behind Lennon's assassination. These proponents point out that Chapman was, in fact, deemed mentally rational and stable by courts at the time of his hearings, and that several psychiatric evaluations documented his normal psychological state. Some are of the contention that Chapman had connections with an anti-Lennon CIA movement headed by free-wheeling special agent and emerging CIA chief William Casey.

Whether or not this conspiracy even existed, launched an anti-Lennon project, or whether Chapman was involved in any way is indeed debatable, but the fact remains that Lennon was viewed as dangerous by the US governments of his time. He had encountered extreme difficulty in obtaining a United States green card, and it is broadly accepted that he was stalked by government agents and that his phones were tapped. The idea that Chapman was related to a conspiracy is merely a logical merging of two stories that appear inexorably connected.

Sources (2 SO FAR)

John Lennon.com

Astucia, S. (2004), Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination:The FBI's war on rock stars (see link).

I've actually wrote a dissertation on this subject, part of which involves a conspiracy theory which is backed by credible references. When I get around to finding my old report, I'll post some information that may shed light upon this story without using any sort of personal theories. I'll probably stick it under a headline such as "Assassination Conspiracy" or something like that. We should all remember that conspiracy stories often surround assassins, and if they're backed by witnesses and evidence (circumstancial or not) then it should be presented in a professional manner. If this "conspiracy" rule was common throughout Wikipedia, we'd have to take out the "assassionation theories" section out of the JFK article. --MadameArsenic 14:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am the same user that added the Conspiracy theories to the page. Again, I stand by my previous statements: conspiracy theories are an essential part of the controversy surrounding the Lennon murder and Chapman's motives for carrying it out. If you've heard of conspiracy theories surrounding this subject elsehere (and you will have), then surely they deserve some mention (not as proven facts, but as conspiracy THEORIES). Sure, some of the claims require verification, and I will provide them, but there is still a thorn in my side here:

I also edited the entire article, placing it into categories. I ADDED information to the description of the murder. This information was derived from the same reliable sources from which I learned of the conspiracy theory. You did not debate said (unverified!) information for a second, yet tore away the conspiracy theory altogether until I could provide verification. Clearly, you are not combating unverifiability at all, rather, you are removing any topic that you deem CONTROVERSIAL and/or UNCONVENTIONAL. I find this appaling given that other users had a) already requested that conspiracy theories be added, and b) pointed out that the article was in dire need of expansion. Please, see the error of your ways, and republish this vital piece of the Lennon assassination puzzle.

The concern is whether or not your conspiracy theory is original research. That is why we are demanding sources for it. Even if unverified the other information can be tracked down when someone with enough gumption endeavors to do so. However, it is impossible to refute a claim that "someone said x, y, z" Therefore, when such claims are added to articles we demand sources for them from the get go. If you have been able to add other such information to this or other articles, that's a shame, but it is hardly reason to add this too. If you have a reliable source, I'm confused by your refusal to provide it. Wouldn't it be simpler to provide it instead of arguing about whether you should have to or not? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Added the improvement and expansion templates. Conspiracy theories and the like are desperately needed here. TydeNet 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory above looks very legitimate from what I have read, and the sources appear perfectly verifiable too, but the content per se is in need of rewording. Following this, it should be posted. It might do some good adding it to the John Lennon page too. I will be watching this page closely and may do some rewording of the theory myself to make it less subjective and more encyclopedic. Citing exact quotes could take some time. TydeNet 10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

I deleted the parallel with the life of Holden Caulfield (which was a stretch) and the "synchronicities" that were anonymously added. I did so simply because they were trivial, unsupportable, and a distraction from the factual nature of the rest of the article. Also, as I just realized, they probably constitute original research (individuals trying to come up with parallels).

I think the article as it stood back in October of last year was good; perhaps a few good things have been added since then (the movie info for example is essential), but the rest is actually what's causing the article to go downhill. Sometimes more is less.

I may have gotten carried away though, deleting the sentence about Yoko Ono pleading for him not to be realized as have many other Chapman-hating Lennon fans. It was the tone of the sentence that got to me. It seemed a little "hot" rhetorically. Simply say that Yoko Ono has petitioned for Chapman never to be released (or better yet get a quote) and leave off about the Chapman-hating fans. They're too amorphous a group to mention - I think it's pretty obvious that people don't like Mark David Chapman.

Finally, more specificity about the Christian group or groups who want Chapman released would be good. Evan Donovan 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Medications?

Was Chapman under any sort of medication while stalking Lennon? If so, it should definitely be included. The0208 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding his motives...

I was always under the impression that he actually hated John Lennon, and before killing him he would call him a hypocrite just like those found in Catcher. (I've seen this claim on a program on the History Channel.) This view isn't mentioned--although if it's flat-out wrong, I can see why (= Any word on this? The article only seems to support the fact that he was a fan, although I've heard he only pretended to be.

JoeTrumpet 21:35, 02 May 2006 (UTC)

See the article again, and read Fenton Bresler´s book. None of his friends/family/girlfriends thought/heard about the fact that he was a fan. They thought he was Todd Rundgren fan. He was also sent/wanted to go to Lebanon to serve time working for the YMCA. Strange place to go in the 70s... How many killers in history can you find that "drop into a military stance", fire bullets into their victim, and then sit down and wait for the police to arrive?

andreasegde 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He fell short of criteria for psychosis ?? The Ubik 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

does it not say somewhere that he is as hated as adolf hitler???

is this true or no?

this's true.

Sthow 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's completely impossible to verify or qualify a statement that Chapman is hated as much as Adolf Hitler. How do you decide objectively how much you hate one person compared to another?09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly statement. Not only is it unverifiable but many people in the world don't even have a clue who Mark Chapman is. Speedything 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should narrow the scope to 'amongst beatles fans'. I've never heard of the guy until today. I bare no ill will towards him, nor Hitler. Go me! Jachin 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You "bare no ill will" ? Is that supposed to impress others for being so compassionate, or baffle others for being so stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.171.140 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

hollow point rounds

removed sentence: "The bullets were hollow pointed, and would explode into various pieces on contact, which would inflict the most damage."

that's not what hollow point bullets do (explode or break into pieces, i mean), but regardless you can click the hollow point link i added instead Bantosh 9 June 2006

External Links

I really think this link (Free Chapman Blog) must be there on a page, because article seems to be more objective with this link. It shows some other way. Let's talk about that.

This blog may somehow offend somebody it's doubtless, but on the other hand all that links to petitiononline.com and boycottchapter27.com really offend people who stay for mr. Chapman's freedom.

Let's be reasonable.

Sthow 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the content, but I do object to it being a blog. Without some external demonstration of its importance I don't see why it should be included. I don't think boycott ch 27 or petitiononline should be there either. I suggest removing all three. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We talk here not about mr. Lennon (who's obviously dead) but about Mark Chapman. The encyclopaedical principle in this case works different (doesn't it?) just becase he's still alive. We have some information about people who somehow make petitions and that blog shows some of those people - that is why i think link should be there.

(i don't really know if i sound clear or not, excuse my english) Sthow 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand. How is it relevant that Chapman is still alive? Either way, not everything should be linked that pertains to a subject, only those things which contribute to the encyclopedia article. There are two concerns with this link: (1) I don't see how this blog helps people to learn things about Chapman and (2) I don't see how this blog is notable and thus worthy of a link. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion appears to have stagnated, I am removing these links. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

uuh, you tear my heart apart. i have had some problems so i couldn't put attention on talk page. God knows i had alot to say. Sthow 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some excellant points made on this page, but all I have to say is that I pray to god this man is never given parole. Lets hope the justice system sees fit to keep this man in prison until the day he dies. I would like to know how many people agree with me. (Lennon4eva 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

mr. Lennon wouldn't agree with you. Sthow 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article. Please let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. The only concern we should have here is whether or not the blog should be listed in the article. So far, I have heard no argument why it should. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now i see, i read what Wikipedia is not so now i see. Yes, i was wrong. i'll work on it. Thanks, bye.

Sthow 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could anybody tell my how Lyrics to "December 8th 1980" relate to topic and why is it so important to put it as external link? Sthow 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to the BBC Website's "This day in history" for the assasination. Reason, that page has video for BBC news reports of the event at the time it happened, shows Police Briefing with the press, detailing Mr Chapmans actions. Also shown in the video is the public's loss for John Lennon. Coolkama 16:23 6th Nov 2006 GMT

Esquire magazine hatchet job

Just prior to John Lennon's murder, Esquire magazine pictured John Lennon on its cover and ran a critical and somewhat cynical or sardonic essay on Lennon's subsequent/recent life as a very wealthy and, (according to the essay) unapproachable celebrity if not proto-upper-class/incipient establishment mainstay who had forsaken his art and his former counter-culture life style for a more affluent mode of behavior and mind set. The tenor, and content, and especially, the literary style of the essay would have shocked a simpleton like Chapman (in my considered opinion). I tried the essay out at that time on a naive friend (gave it to a friend to read) who was very surprised and deeply offended by it. If Chapman were obsessed with Lennon and lionized him, it is not unlikely that he saw the magazine, e.g. diplayed at a newstand or some other public place, bought it, or picked it up, and read it. He would not normally have read Esquire and was very unlikely to be at all familiar with it, nor with the level of sophistication found in a magazine like Esquire, nor with sophisticated thought at all. Thus, like my friend, he would have been shocked and angered (way beyond being non-plussed). His former worship and attempted identification with Lennon would have been destroyed or seriosly perverted; and, this may have had a drastic effect on his already weak and floundering ego. Does anyone else know about the Esquire piece, and whether any influence on, or nexus between it and, Chapman's crime has ever been detected or suggested? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.178.36.136 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

• Comment Do you happen to have the issue number or month/date of publication?

• • Actually, Esquire is for the middlebrow scum of this orb. --194.82.45.23 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I do not have the issue month/date of the publication, but recall that it was on the stands just before Lennon's muder. I may try to do a search on line. I took a look at a current Esquire and found it to be puerile and senseless. Bear in mind that it is not the same magazine that it was before Murdoch got a hold of it. Despite the fact that it was written for pretentious wannabe's and pseudosophisticates all along, Esquire published much good and original fiction and non-fiction in it's day. (Besides there are those of us [myself at least] who find pseudo-sophistication, properly done, to be an artform in it's own right, a point I toss out, but am unwilling to debate on-line.)

Nature of Chapman's Mental Illness

Emotions aside, I feel that the topic of Chapman's mental state needs to be better addressed. Was he under the influence of any drugs at the time of Lennon's murder? Was he suffering from a recognizable mental illness at the time, such as schizophrenia? I don't know enough about the man personally and as such I felt that a legitimate NPOV reportage of the known facts should be expanded upon concerning his state of mind leading up to and during the murder. The mention of "depression" that he recovered from during his time in prison seems more than a little vague and insufficient. Having said that, I still miss Lennon myself, given that I'm writing this on the anniversary of his death.--Phil Wardle 11:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to see what I can verify about this and hopefully create a section on it. Perhaps a section on his psychology or motivations, rather than solely in terms of mental illness. Also I just created a new section on his parole hearings & opposition to his release, some of which was in the life in prison section, hope this is OK, not sure if there's too much detail there now. EverSince 18:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you've done looks really good to me and is extensively sourced. Good job! I remember reading a book a few years ago that had information on his mental state . . . I'm going to try to remember the title and see if I can find some useful info. janejellyroll 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've finished, not all perfectly neat I'm afraid but run out of steam for now, phew. EverSince 19:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a lot to the early life section, which is mainly based on the one source, I hope this is OK. Also added to other sections. I hope it is OK to have done so much editing without too much discussion, please feel free to revert anything of course. I removed the no sources tag (and added two more subject categories), although I guess they should be more fully cited. -EverSince 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, thank you for all the copyediting & sorting out the references and tidying the motive/mental health section. I've found a source about the Lennon Christianity attitude & Chapman anger, so I'll reinstate that bit but with different wording, assuming that will be OK. EverSince 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This section has been much improved. Well done people. :-) --Phil Wardle 06:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"the man known for being convicted of murdering"

"In light of the irrefutable circumstances, it is found by the jury to be imperative to conclude that the evidence, taken in totality and completeness, indicates that there is a high probability the defendant in question has, in fact, murdered his man." --VKokielov 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that's too wordy. Just wanted to leave it clear here that Chapman never had a trial because he was allowed to plead guilty EverSince 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling out and dropping into combat stance

Chapman called out, "Mr. Lennon!", dropped into a "combat stance" and shot Lennon four times

That NY Times article does quote the NYPD chief as saying "combat stance" (although the phrase "dropped into" isn't in quotes and may be journalistic licence - what is a combat stance anyway, does it just mean holding the gun properly in a solid stance??). But the article doesn't specify where the NYPD chief got this from - from one of the witnesses you would assume - and it isn't clear whether this is exactly what was said or is loose paraphrasing by the detective. A better source would be actual witness statements. Chapman, in actual fact, has stated in his competency hearing and media interviews (e.g. this one that he did not call out, and Lennon had his back to him and did not turn around or have any warning. Chapman talks of standing, taking a few steps, turning, aiming in Lennon's direction and firing 5 times[1] (1 missed; 5 casings were found). He reports having then stood there with the gun by his side, until the doorman shook it from him hand. Doesn't sound like any particular dropping into stances going on. It is the case that he had training in firearms when becoming a security guard.

I think the current wording, which perhaps comes from conspiracy theory circles as with the preference for the term "assassination", needs some caveats and balance, given a single vague second-hand journalistic source, and the existence of other contradictory sources.

EverSince 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Could anyone help with what images are OK to use, in addition to the 1980 mugshot already included. There's more recent mugshots:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/chapmanmug1.html

Also this one apparently of lennon signing for chapman, which actually says it "stolen" off Wikpedia (don't know where from):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adverb/307399577/

And also Chapman as younger man:

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/10/06/inside-chapman.jpg

How establish if free use? (I've tried some detective work on the HTML or URL's to locate the original articles or copyrights, but no luck EverSince 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

EverSince 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. and could anyone advise on what class this article should be, assuming not start class?

Quality and Importance

I'm planning to up the grade of the article to B-class unless any other suggestions. I also have a tentative intention to upgrade the importance to moderate, since the actions - and therefore life and motivations - of this man seem important (in this wikipedia sense), as does the possibility of his release. EverSince 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Crime Library references

There are a lot of references for Crime Library. Should a bunch be removed? Kamope · talk · contributions 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In those I added, I linked to the particular page that supported the particular bunch of claims just made. But I do agree actually that it should probably just have the one link to the first page, for e.g. the whole of the early life section. EverSince 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature

In this it says that he signed the book with "The Catcher in the Rye" and wrote "This is my statement". I believe he actually signed with "Holden Caulfield" (the main character from the book). Could someone please clear this up? --60.228.9.163 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Parole

It's curious that this man doesn't make parole. It's clearly because he killed a celebrity, because far more heinous criminals walk free not only with smaller sentences but earlier parole dates than Chapman appears to have had handed to him. I'm truly surprised that no civil liberties groups have addressed this issue, further it's odd that Beatles fans wouldn't take a more dharma approach as John Lenon would probably have expoused himself and forgiven the guy.

Perhaps addressing the obvious paradox of this scenario in a sub-section on bail, specifically not just a transcript of his bail applications and how beatles fans the world over responded with craploads of signatures and letters of complaint, because as it reads at the moment it's very POV 'keep him locked up'. We need to ask ourselves, if it was John Smith and not John Lenon, would this man still be in gaol? The answer would be no. Jachin 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, though perhaps here's one more. Even after all this time, how long would Chapman survive if he was released? (without some for of guaranteed anonymity, which would be unlikely to be provided for him). Perhaps by keeping him inside, the parole board is not tempting some crazy old Beatles fan into becoming a murderer himself? POV of course and not suitable for the article...unless that possibility was to be brought up during a parole hearing. --Phil Wardle (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the other reasons that Chapman hasn't been released on parole yet (apart from the fan-related reasons) is that he's still media-grubbing, looking to become famous for what he's done. Although this is probably definately Original Research, I think it's alluded to in the article... no? 58.161.67.66 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'for his own safety issue' is mentioned in regard to the parole hearings. And I've restored the sourced reference to the board calling Chapman's granting of interviews "continued interest in maintaining your notoriety". Though it's also the case that he was never orginally able to give a proper account of why he did what he did, both because he was delusional and because he was allowed to plead guilty without trial, while busy reading out extracts from The Catcher in the Rye to the judge. EverSince (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There was also a slight reference to him / the assassination on Family Guy.

(nt) Peter says something along the line of, "don't make me do to you, what I did to John Lennon"; it follows with a flashback of him introducing Lennon to Ono.

-- Mik 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It was Stewie Griffin who makes the John Lennon reference and subsequently appears in the flashback sequence, not Peter Griffin. --Kepiblanc 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of your mentioning the Family Guy reference here, Mikhajist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.171.140 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT Expand this article

Mark Chapman is not worthy of an entire biography like this. I agree he should be noted on Wikipedia, and it should be kept neutral and not negative, but like two lines of text and the picture will do, with perhaps an own article about the murder itself. This is obviously POV, but it's everyone and their grandmother's POV too. Attention is exactly what this guy wanted, and now they're making movies and documentaries about him and having him interviewed and whatever. I boycott everything out of principal, but it's still annoying when you every once in a while hear about him in the media. My point is that you shouldn't waste too much time on this article, plenty of others that needs contributing to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hst20 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your point of view. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. It's not for discussing why you don't feel he is "worthy" of an entire biography. If it bothers you to see the article, don't visit the page. If you see unsourced POV in the article, feel free to fix it, remove it, or mention the specifics here... --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, this isn't the place to shout about it. What I meant though was that I just don't think this guy has done anything that signifies a biography of his entire life, but that's just my opinion. --Hst20 05:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We can appreciate that, but the fact is, he did a pretty horrible thing that had significant repercussions, and a fair amount of readers want to know what sad little monkey in Chapman's head led to the murder.

Removed Trivia

I've removed a ton of trivia from the article. First of all, none of it is cited, which means it gets removed immediately from a BLP. Secondly, not all of the trivia references Chapman directly, and is therefore irrelevant to the subject of the article. Maybe some of it can find new homes in other articles, but not here. Please do not re-add this info to the article without citations from reliable, WP:V|verifibable]] and noteworthy sources.

Removed Trivia list A new name 2008 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

mark david chapman loves fiber

"It has been suggested that, before firing, Chapman called out "Mr. Lennon!" and 'took a fat dump' while in a "combat stance",[8] but this is not stated in court hearings or interviews."

At least I didn't do it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.55 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about year of birth of Chapman's wife Gloria

The Infobox states that Chapman's wife Gloria Abe was born in 1979. She would have been a year old when he killed Lennon. Gloria was obviously not born in the year 1979.

Anthony22 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that means he's been married to her since 1979. ;) --72.219.28.26 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what it's apparently meant to say, but it's a very bad way of presenting that information. - Nunh-huh 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sign

At one point, Chapman signed as "John Lennon". Initially, the FBI mistook him for another Mark Chapman, who was not responsible for Lennon's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.79.38 (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hatred?

Yes, I understand that everyone hates him, and I guess I get that. I do think it's a bit sad; I don't hate him (althogh I am not a Lennon fan, Lennon really rubs me the wrong way). Chapman does have mental problems, but I feel he is sorry for what he's done and is not looking to "cash in" on it. I think he regrets his actions, and now is a beter person because he turned to God. That's just my opinion, and I do think this article is NPOV on another note. People, just give him a break. Yes, he committed murder, but I believe he is sorry. And that's what's so great; you can be forgiven. 69.85.27.2 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Protect this article?

I mean, Capote, F.Scott F., Lee, and so on could not describe in their perfect, articulate style what I could do to this man. But I could. And sadly, it hurts me so much to say this, I think this article should be protected, yet I guess how anyone born from 1940-1985 could be neutral on something like this, I still should say it should be this way, for the sake of decency(even though if Furman vs Georgia was not passed by than, and even though I am theoretically against it, I would have voted "yay") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.127.126 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Denied parole again?

Wow I thought that was a practical joke addition at first, i had a vague idea the next hearing was scheduled for october, did they bring it forward?

Can anyone explain how this is working? He was apparently at least somewhat delusional at the time of the crime, even by the harshest standards. He didn't resist arrest, he pled guilty, and he had no priors. He was sentenced to 20 years to life, rather than 25 to life. He was apparently supposed to get psychiatric help in prison. He's apparently had an exemplory disciplinary record. Yet he's now going to be in prision for at least 30 years. How is it constitutional to keep someone in prison partly on the grounds that it's for their own safety? Don't the police have a duty to protect those who have served their time but potentially have hate mobs after them? Or if it's on the grounds of safety of others, how is that being evaluated in a 36-minute hearing? Guess will have to wait to see the transcript. EverSince (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They could let him go, but how long would he last? Maybe they should let him go and put him in an apartment next to where you live? :) Both suggestions don't bear thinking about.--andreasegde (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks from the transcript[2] that he's been offered work/residence on an upstate farm, and Chapman seems to want to take the risk. And the board seemed to be considering the details and feasibility, and it looked from the final comment that he was going to get the chance - Commissioner: "At fifty-three, there is a far better life for you out there. We hope that you can achieve it and wish you good luck in doing so." The rationale for the subsequent denial seems to be two sentences: "However, during the interview, you stated that you planned and conducted the premeditated slaying of John Lennon with an essentially clear mind. Your conduct thus precipidated a horrendously tragic event, which has impacted on many individuals." It doesn't explain the reason for concern for the "public safety and welfare", other than that his release would apparently suggest the "instant offense" (what does that mean?) wasn't serious and would "undermine respect for the law" (what about the original lack of a proper trial or evaluation of competency to plead guilty, and these cursory opaque parole decisions, undermining respect for the law...)

What Chapman actually seemed to be saying was that he felt "under compulsion", but was very clear in mind in the sense that "I knew that I had a weapon, that I wanted to kill this person...". And also said he tried to get help beforehand, that he was "confused" and "obsessed, I couldn't get away from it". Yet also seems to go along with the view that he did it partly because he felt like a nobody and wouldn't be afterwards (though what he doesn't say is that he apparently thought he would be famous for helping change the world for the better as per Catcher in the Rye). The whole mental status exam is blocked out...but the decision doesn't say it's based on that. Guess can add a brief summary to the article, and mention again the submission of the thousand+ objections to his release. EverSince (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How did he get the gun from Hawaii to New York?

Weren't there security screens in domestic airports in the 1980s? It wasn't explained in the film Chapter 27, and I don't see any explanation here.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bigger than Jesus?

Toward the beginning of the article, it states that he laughed about Lennon's "bigger than Jesus" statement with his friends, but at the bottom, in Motivation and Mental Health, it states that he was angered by the statement. The latter isn't sourced.

Slicedoranges (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assasinate vs Murder

I have changed the references to "assasinate" to "murder". My reasoning is below.

1. There were no sources to verify that anyone but wikipedia calls it an assasination. According to biographies of living persons policy all unsourced potentially negative information must be removed immediately. Assasinate in my mind is worse than murder.
2. Two other articles, Death of John Lennon and John Lennon (both listed as good articles) describe Mark David Chapman's actions as murder and do not mention the word assasinate at all.

We should maintain consistency about these actions across wikipedia articles and since it is not sourced they should all say murder as they do now. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A simple Google Books search returns an extensive number of sources which refer to Chapman as an assassin. (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, I could go on and on.) In addition, media sources, including The New York Times [3] have regularly referred to Chapman as Lennon's assassin ever since the killing. In this case, "assassinated" is a better word than "murdered" as it is a more specific, descriptive word. Anyone can be murdered, not many can be assassinated. We should strive to be as accurate in our language as is pertinent; Chapman's killing of Lennon wasn't just a murder, it was an assassination. If consistency is a concern, then the other articles should be changed. faithless (^speak) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to correct you, but you're right. According to wiktionary, Assassination is "To murder someone, especially an important person, by a sudden or obscure attack, especially for ideological or political reasons.". While one could argue that he did not have ideological or political reasons, the attack was certainly sudden, and Lennon was certainly an important person. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)