Jump to content

Talk:Imagine (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.250.190.224 (talk) at 06:51, 8 December 2012 (→‎FA?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleImagine (song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 8, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted


Citation

  • One of Google's Most Popular Searches, 'Imagine The World As One', which is an online project of The Freedom, Independence & World Democracy (FIWD) Institute, London (OA/OWB), is a website that provides an extensive listing of Criteria for Imagining the World as One, as John might have envisioned.[1][2][3]

This does not seem plausible at all. It would seem that the particular company has simply added themselves to the page for some sort of promotion; The citation is just brings you to the Google search of "Imagine the World as One". It does the same with Ask and Alta Vista. To be frank, there is no way of telling Google's most popular searches, so this is definitely sabotage or self promotion. I have not deleted this incase I'm wrong, but I'm rather confident that I am correct.

FA?

Hello,

this article does not describe of what utopia John Lennon is believing in. He believes in an atheistic, nihilistic world. Yet the article says he dislikes denominations and wants a united religion. This is utter nonsense. The article does not have a criticism section despites its controversial lyrics. Whoever promoted this and supported its promotion is not quite right up top. It easily fails the 1 b, comprehensiveness. Nowhere is it comprehensive. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song says not to believe in heaven or hell and religion. Nothing about God, which has nothing to do with religion. THe message is live in in peace for today. And, by the way, there's nothing in it about "no superstitions, too" Hotcop2 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are writing is simply self-contradictory and utter rubbish. His message is to live without religion, thus the lyrics hope for an irreligious life. Allmusic states the following (perhaps originally from John Blaney): "with no gods, possessions, or classes, where everyone is equal." And looking at Gbooks, I was right. There is more to say about the themes. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So this shouldn't be FA because it doesn't highlight your personal interpretation of the song? There's a direct quote from Lennon that explains what he meant by the song, especially the religion sections. Do you have evidence that Lennon was lying when he said what he said about what he meant? --Jayron32 14:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia articles shouldn't have isolated criticism sections. If you have some negative reception to add to, say, the "reception" section, no one is stopping you, so long as the negative reception comes from well-respected, reliable sources. --Jayron32 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a criticism section once, which was removed, because it offered nothing more than zealots criticising the message. It is what it is. And, in the immortal words of Maude Findlay, "God'll get you for that!" Hotcop2 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article hoping to find a serious discussion on the lyrics and critical reaction to them. Instead I found a fan page. Jayron32 makes a fundamental mistake above in thinking the author's interpretation of the words is particularly significant. I'm no literary student but I'm sure some of our more literary editors would be able to give a name for that mistake. What the author said in an interview isn't even necessarily an accurate description of what he meant by the words when he wrote them, if he even had a strong grasp of what he was writing in the first place: plenty pop songs are essentially nonsense with more importance on the rhythm and rhyme than word meaning. The words are what they are, and what the world interprets them to mean is vastly more important than what someone long dead claims they meant to him.

Lots of folk hate this song with a passion. A recent example, widely reported is British folk singer Frank Turner. He says "it’s so utterly vacuous. It’s a Hallmark card set to music. There’s a pretty high dose of hypocrisy in here as well" ... "it’s a kind of fall-back “favorite song” for people who don’t have any interest in music. It’s a default setting for the tasteless. I’d respect people much more if they just said, “You know what? I don’t really care about music,” rather than pick this song as a favorite. It’s so beige.". If you search hard, you'll find this isn't an uncommon view among folk who think about music. Many religious people find it offensive but this isn't noted in the article. Many also considered its choice for the closing ceremony of the Olympics to be trite and incongruous: a games where the separation of the world into countries is celebrated and where many of the contestants and viewers will be deeply religious. The authors of this piece need to work harder to find and include views on the work that don't already align with their own. There should be some academic consideration of the song and its impact too. -- Colin°Talk 13:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of folks love this song with a passion. Lots of folk hate this song with a passion. Lots of folks like "My Dingaling" and others find it offensive. Who cares? It's an article about the song. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Who cares"? Well if the song causes such conflicting responses in many people, why doesn't the article say so. What meagre criticism is present is swatted away with some quotes or biographer-comments about what Lennon "really meant", as if that is hugely important any more or even factual. An FA is expected to be comprehensive and all articles on WP are expected to be written from a neutral POV. This article is neither. It's what I'd expect to find on a Lennon fan site. Colin°Talk 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, you put your comment in this different section. Anyway, I don't see anywhere in this article where it states it's the greatest song ever, nor do I see fawning reviews. It's about the song. I'm not big on biographer's quotes and opinions, but most of the info on Wiki is sourced by biographies and, unless a bio was at the scene or with the person, it's all heresay, opinion and literary license. The quote from Lennon should suffice. Whatever any thinks of any art, it's subjective opinion -- good or bad. "But some people don't like it" (which can be said of any song or art or person or place or thing)n't really add anything, Hotcop2 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Colin raises a valid point, and a closer look should be taken at this article. Reviewing this article's FAC, it doesn't appear to have received strident review from experienced reviewers, and it does appear to have received fan support at FAC, leading one delegate to question whether the song was universally received with favor after the FAC already had four supports with little critical content. Perhaps a trip to a library is in order, but I strongly encourage editors of this article to endeavour to achieve some neutrality, so that a trip to FAR can be avoided. (Disclaimer: I am a Wikifriend of Colin and I happened upon this discussion because I was checking Colin's contribs to see if he is still editing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, take a look here. 4 Minutes (Madonna song) was kept after its August 2012 FAR, yet I don't see any criticism of the song anywhere in the article whatsoever. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of the lyrics:

However, Lennon's lyrics describe hypothetical possibilities, offering no practical solutions, lyrics that at times seem contradictory, asking the listener to abandon systems while encouraging a system similar to Communism.[4] Critics have indicated the hypocrisy in his encouragement of listeners to imagine living their lives without possessions: Lennon, the millionaire rock star living in a mansion. Blaney described Lennon as "more than a little confused", and the song's lyrical position as isolationist, in contradiction with the "global oneness" they would seem to endorse. Blaney described the song as "riddled with contradictions. Its hymn-like setting sits uncomfortably alongside its author's plea for us to envision a world without religion."[4] Authors Ben Urish and Ken Bielen wrote: "the listener is, in a sense, deceived into absorbing the song's message."

  • Criticism of the music:

Authors Ben Urish and Ken Bielen criticised the song's instrumental music as overly sentimental and melodramatic, comparing it to the music of the prerock era and describing the vocal melody as understated.[6] Blaney described the song's melody as "apparently incomplete ... a simple motif that cries out to be developed and extended."[4]

As far as "a trip to a library", I'm curious, which books should I research that are not already listed in the sources? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think Sandy remembers when folk like User:Wadewitz would have given this a hard time. Anyway, let's not worry about the FAC/FAR situation but deal with this article. You aren't getting the point. The song "Imagine" is part of the English-speaking world's collective literature/music. Like Auld Lang Syne. It isn't remotely comparable with some forgettable Madonna song. Why do people play it, listen to it? Why do the words appeal to so many? Why also do many dislike the words or despair over its popular appeal? These issues will certainly have been studied by scholars, by journalists, by theologians and other religious writers, by capitalists and communists, by conservatives and liberals. The sources used here consist of web pages and popular biography books. You need to search scholarly works (and it may surprise you that scholars write about popular music), newspaper archives, religious texts and articles, etc, etc. This is the The Da Vinci Code of the pop world: hugely popular but ultimately an offensive crock of shit to anyone with any higher brain functions. More research required... -- Colin°Talk 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The song is called "Imagine" (you know, it's not real). So for my final two cents, obvious (and clever) opinions against taking the lyrics LITERALLY vs. Lennon's lifestyle, and by religious zealots, really still comes down to a matter of personal beliefs or taste. We can add this to the third paragraph in the lead section, for balance: "Although the song has been criticised by scholars, theologians and zealots for it's blasphemous assumption of a world without religion, and other scholars, biographers and reviewers for the hypocritical hypothesis of a millionaire espousing the thought of picturing a world without materialism which borders on a all-out endorsement for communism, "Imagine" is one of the top 100 most-performed songs of the 20th century." Hotcop2 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out a lot of the litcrit before coming here and seeing this interesting conversation... Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my count there are at least 178 words in the "Imagine" article devoted directly to criticism. 178/2671 total readable words = 6.6% of the article is devoted directly to criticism of the song, or about 1 out of every 15.15 readable words. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcat, per your comment: "Allmusic states the following (perhaps originally from John Blaney): "with no gods, possessions, or classes, where everyone is equal." And looking at Gbooks, I was right." Right about what? Blaney is not available on Gbooks and Allmusic does not provide any sourcing information. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let the record show that, as of this writing, no one who is complaining of a lack of reliable, well-respected criticism has actually lifted a finger to fix the article, excepting a minor effort to insert an unsourced, personal opinion about the meaning. If the criticism people are noting is so widespread, and appears readily in reliable sources, then why is no one doing anything to place it in its proper place in the article (which is the reception section)? Hm? There's nothing stopping anyone of you from making this article better, you know. --Jayron32 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, you're an admin so should know better than making personal attacks on other editors. If you'd tried that "lifted a finger" line at FAC you'd have got a bloody nose and rightly so. I understand you guys are defensive. You should be basking in FAC glory and someone comes along, late to the party, saying the article isn't up to scratch. I spent last night studying textbooks on myoclonic epilepsy for WP but it wouldn't have been your concern if I had spent it watching TV. All that matters is this article text and what anyone who has an interest in it wants to do about it. We're volunteers so what you want to do about it is up to you. Do folk here want to write one of the best articles on Wikipedia? Or are you happy with a fan page that scraped through FAC on fan support? I'm not interested in GabeMc's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS search results. This song isn't remotely comparable to them. I note the delegate wrote "but is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour"

I see there has been improvement to the critical analysis of the song's words since my first post. That's great. It is good to have scholarly analysis of the words. How about some scholarly analysis on the popular impact the song has had? A quick Google turned up this which is typical of a thoughtful journalist response to Imagine. I'm sure there will be deeper analysis if you search.

I note that the song is widely regarded as a "secular hymn", but this is not mentioned in the article. In fact, if you search "imagine lennon secular hymn" it turns up some interesting material. Speaking of hymns, check out the amazing grace article for some scholarly analysis. Now clearly that song is in a different league to Imagine, but there are similarities wrt their popularity and anthem status: one for Christians and one for atheists. Perhaps Hotcop2 thinks this is just a silly pop song like Hey Jude. It really isn't. And the article should reflect that. Colin°Talk 09:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some material from the source you provided above, thanks for that. By my count, there are now about 270 words devoted to criticism, or about 10% of the total readable prose in the article. Do you think this is enough now or should I add some more? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 10:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a bit too much from Berg and his pastor. I'd drop the paster/9-11 story as being too much of a personal anecdote. I think it would help to give context for Berg's comments (he didn't just decide to write an article on Imagine out of the blue). This would also satisfy the popular impact (postive or negative) aspect. For example, "Dave Berg, writing in the The Washington Post, reflected on the song's choice for the New Year's party in Times Square in 2011. He considered it an "insidious and a horrendous choice" and found it strange that this "sad and depressing" song had "achieved the status of a secular hymn." Berg says "atheists have embraced the song as their own" and gives the example of an "Imagine" themed advertisement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation." -- Colin°Talk 11:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Colin: Your mind-reading abilities fall a little short, re: what I think. Like any other song, pop or "serious" -- some people like it, some people don't. I'm happy you got all the words opinions of criticism in here; I'm not fond of opinions in these articles, whether they're good, bad, pro, con or indifferent. Opinions are like... (read my mind) Hotcop2 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get you don't think it should have opinions. Just facts. That you don't think other people's opinions are worth reading. You're in a big minority on that one, and we expect an encyclopaedia to cover more than just that, to give an analysis of the piece and its impact. Colin°Talk 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I've now trimmed the Berg material as you suggested above. Please let me know if this resolves your concerns or if more needs to be added. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved considerably here. I still suspect there is scholarly analysis of the song, its impact and cultural usage outside of the books you have. I don't have the kind of literary-journal access that some folk on WP have but you might consider finding one of our literary folks and see if they can do a search for you. I'm satisfied enough with the changes and thanks for researching and adding them. Despite my criticisms of the song, it is a hugely important one, more so than any of the songs listed above, and for that reason merits thorough analysis, even if that analysis notes how vacuous it is :-) Colin°Talk 11:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I was the "whoever" with regards to promotion, I feel that I must offer some defence of my action as delegate. First, the version that was initially discussed in this thread is not the one I promoted. Second, although I concede the FAC review lacked depth, there was a clear consensus to promote. My colleague, Ian had already commented, and had I done likewise, we would have had to find someone other than the active FAC delegates to close the nomination. Putting this aside, there is no shortage of academic sources that are critical of Lennon's imaginary and naive vision of utopia. Maise has this to say, "“You may say I’m a dreamer,” sings Lennon, “But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us,” suggesting that reaching a stage without these alleged evils is realistic enough to be action-guiding. Yet Lennon’s is not a dream in which we ought to join. We cannot imagine what he asks us to imagine in any action-guiding way".[1] I first heard the song when it was first released in 1971. I liked it, but I was 19 at the time and very easily pleased. But even then Lennon's hypocrisy was evident to all - driving his psychedelic Rolls Royce and living in in his mansion. The historical and cultural contexts are important: The Vietnam war was raging as were the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the conflict in the Middle East. These must have influenced the song's popular appeal. But support for Lennon's sentiments was superficial - he was a difficult man to take seriously in any case - a few saw his vision as actionable or even desirable. We have to make it clear in our article, while adhering to our policies, that Lennon was not without his critics at the time as he is now. It is an important song, but this does not make it a great song, which it is not, lyrically or musically. It is important in the context of Lennon's canon, his life and death and the popular zeitgeist of the early 1970s. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice analysis by Graham there (I was 21). Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included some scholarly criticism from Mathias Risse, so thanks for that link Graham. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - By my count there are now 346 words in the article devoted solely to negative criticism of the song's lyrics, music and message. 346 words out of 2790 words of readable prose means that about 12.40% of the readable prose is criticism, or about 1 out of every 8 readable words. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it should be at least 12.41% :-). Nobody is going to say there should be 15% negative and 10% positive and 5% meh. The judge is to look at the serious literature that is analysing the song, the world's reaction and usage of it, etc, and weigh up what balance to include. Btw, talking of WP:WEIGHT you really need impartial sources to judge what cover versions or performances to list, if any. You can't use the artist's own website, for example, to decided that it was a "notable cover". So Madonna performed it a concert. Big deal. Did that change some world event? Did folk write about it specifically the way we say Berg write about the Time Sq performance? That's the degree of impact a cover/performance needs in order to be included, I'd say -- that someone unrelated to the performer wrote specifically about that cover/performance. Colin°Talk 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the word "notable" from the "Performances and cover versions" section header. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong way of dealing with it. WP:WEIGHT says we should cover things in proportion to how other reliable sources are covering it when writing about the subject (which in our case is Image and covers/performances). So, for example, Madonna's performance has zero weight because nobody is writing about her performance: it is merely present in a list of songs. It would be above zero if someone wrote about it in the context of Madonna but might still not enough to bother a mention. A stronger case is for someone who wrote an article specifically about that performance or who wrote an article/chapter/some paragraphs on Imagine performances and included Madonna's performance as especially notable. This section needs a trim and better sourcing. Without such WP:WEIGHT guidance, this section will just accumulate all sorts of WP:LISTCRUFT with a nobody on X Factor or Susan from Accounts doing karaoke down the local pub. Colin°Talk 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per: "Madonna's performance has zero weight because nobody is writing about her performance", 1) why do you keep bringing up the Madonna cover and the supposedly "poor" sourcing? I used a book about Madonna and the Billboard website to source the bit on her cover, so what's your specific issue? 2) "nobody is writing about her performance" is not accurate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one example. I don't have the book but those sites merely mention the cover. Like a credit listing at the end of a film merely mentions the actor: not quite the same as someone singling out their performance and writing about it. A mention is not enough. So many people have covered this song, one might as well say that Madonna once sang "Happy Birthday to You" to someone. I've not got a big problem with merely mentioning Madonna, et al, in a list of highly famous artists who have covered or performed the song (like the lead does), but telling the reader which concert, which year, which DVD is all adding absolutely nothing to their understanding of this article's topic. Trim the cruft and you'll have more room for the relevant stuff and keep hold of the reader's attention till the very end. As I said, Madonna is just one example. Sourcing isn't just about verifiability, it is also about weight. -- Colin°Talk 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per: "not quite the same as someone singling out their performance and writing about it." Kinda like this? "2004: Madonna went throwback, all the way to the sexual revolution of the 1700s, with the Re-Invention World Tour, the highest-grossing tour of the year. It included an anti-war statement with "Imagine" sung over a montage of war imagery." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you are saying and I've trimmed out a few of the least notable examples. Let me know if you think I missed any that should also go. Thanks again for taking the time to make specific comments that can be addressed. All I want is for the article to be as good as it can be, for the sake of Wikipedia. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


(EC) Getting the balance right was always going to be challenging, but I think recent edits have been an improvement. Criticism of the inclusion of the song in the closing ceremony of the Olympics is a red herring IMHO, but apart from this, I found Colin's comments useful to improving this contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I appreciate Colin taking the time to help us improve the article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well perhaps it needs more. I really don't think it is healthy to go comparing. Make this article the best you can based on what the best sources say. Does "Like a Rolling Stone" lecture the world on how we might live? Do folk play and sing it like a hymn? Do people identify and relate to it? It is a far more personal song and that limits any criticism. And, you know, perhaps it is a much better song? Perhaps the adulation is deserved? Colin°Talk 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "perhaps it is a much better song", which is a subjective opinion that has little to no encyclopedic value. Scholarly sources widely agree, "LaRS" is far too long, a valid criticism the article somehow turns into a compliment, painting its excessive length as "innovative". The lyrics are at times quite nebulous. According to Rolling Stone (who ranked the song #1 all time) the lyrics were likely inspired by Hank Williams' "Lost Highway" and the music progression, Dylan himself admitted is a knock-off of "La Bamba". The article does not mention these important points. Also, the stiff musical arrangement is likely due to Dylan acting like a bit of a tyrant during its recording. Dylan: "I told them how to play on it", including telling blues guitarist Bloomfield: "I don't want you to play any of that B.B. King sh--, none of that f------ blues." Colin, are you asserting that if the adulation of the song is deserved IYO, then the article does not need to include any criticism? As far as "I really don't think it is healthy to go comparing", I am merely pointing out the seeming contradiction/hypocrisy of Sandy's comments here, including: "I strongly encourage editors of this article to endeavour to achieve some neutrality, so that a trip to FAR can be avoided", when she herself promoted "LaRS" not long ago with virtually zero neutrality and no criticism of the music or lyrics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"LaRS" was ranked #2 most overrated song of all-time by Breitbart, where Dylan and the song are described as follows: "He sings like a cat being run over by a nail-studded steamroller. His lyrics are lazy and stupid – he doesn’t bother for rhyme scheme ('home' and 'unknown' do not rhyme), or even that the words scan with the music. The song itself makes no sense. What is a 'mystery tramp'? Why should you 'turn around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns'? Are they sad clowns? What does a 'Siamese cat' have to do with anything? And then he articulates these nonsensical lyrics as though he has no front teeth." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist slags off genius, yawn. And have you seen what he puts at nº 1? Rothorpe (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I did. Does "Journalist slags off genius, yawn" apply there as well? FTR, I never said I thought "Imagine" was the greatest song ever, I never even said I liked it. I was asked to improve the article in hopes of having something suitable for TFA on 8 December. I never attempted to make an argument that the song is beyond reproach, it isn't, not by a long-shot. I just don't appreciate the innuendo and double standards (read hypocrisy) from former delegates. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't resist! Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think we can agree that journalists are not always the best music critics. I do think its humorous that in Shapiro's lambasting of "Imagine" he embarrassingly misuses the word "pretentious" to describe the piano chords which he then labels as "completely boring". How can a basic Cmaj7 chord imply Lennon is attempting to impress? Talk about rubbish. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, I suggest you retract your allegations of hypocracy and innuendo wrt former delegates. That's just as unfair and rude as Tomcat's suggestion that Graham is "not quite right up top". The delegates are limited to a degree by the reviewers they get. As Graham said, it isn't always possible for them to intervene, and articles can change considerably from when there are promoted (and during FAC too). The original Hey Jude FAC was in far simpler times, predating Sandy's FAC time too. Sandy's threat of FAR should not be regarded as imminent (that wouldn't happen anyway as recently promoted FACs don't go there). She is simply making sure you take the criticism of lack of comprehensiveness and neutrality seriously, rather than defensively thinking because it just passed FAC it must be great already.

You really must stop comparing this article or FAC with others. That path leads to jealousy and feelings of unfairness. We're just discussing words on a page, not your personal achievement or the good or bad character of various FAC/FAR delegates. I'm pretty ignorant about Like a Rolling Stone so you read too much into my "perhaps" it is a better song. If it is widely criticised, and this is missing from the article, then it would be great if someone could address that. Moaning about it on this talk page achieves nothing. You were getting over concerned about the percentages of negative wording in the article. My point is that one can't say that both Imagine and LaRS need 15% negativity or whatever. It might be the reliable scholarly and popular sources give quite different weights to positive and negative aspects of these songs and that is something only you and other editors with sources can work out by looking at the literature. See WP:WEIGHT -- which makes it also clear that your or my opinion on the +ve/-ve things don't count too (they can be at best an indication that perhaps the article is unbalanced). But I do feel that sourced opinions are an integral part of an encyclopaedic article on a song or any literature or music. Facts are interesting too but nobody got married, voted or went to war over facts. Folk need to take those facts and form opinions, and as a species we value the opinions of others very highly. Colin°Talk 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto ... as Colin says, please stop engaging OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and make this article the best it can be. I don't think that "Like a Rolling Stone attracted the same kind of critical review that Imagine did, but if you're aware of some, please bring it forward on that page. What you may be missing is that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1 displays real engagement by knowledgeable FAC reviewers, while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagine (song)/archive1 shows a lack of critical review that led one delegate to question the review so far, which was followed by support from two involved editors who did not declare their involvement. (Folks, please read the FAC instructions and if you have a prior involvement with the article, declare it.) Delegates can only do so much if reviews are less than complete, and at some point they have to promote if reviewers don't speak up: my point here was that Colin did speak up, and if you want this article to be the best it can be on mainpage day-- and if you want to be sure the wider exposure of mainpage won't result in a debacle where someone questions FAC or demands a trip to FAR-- you would be well advised to heed Colin's concerns and make sure you have sought out scholarly sources. Name calling won't advance your cause or help you have an easier time on mainpage day if the article turns out not to be up to snuff and the wider exposure of mainpage day brings deficiencies to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, just look above at how much effort you have put into this thread, but have you ever made any effort to improve this article, or do you intend for your involvement with it to remain purely and vaguely critical? When have I resisted its improvement? Look at the difference between the article on 31 August, before I had made my first edit to it, and the article right now. Please, try to balance your insulting and critical attitude with a crum or two of encouragement and compliments. You've never said a kind word to me in three years. If you treat FAC as a hazing, then TFAR as yet another hazing, then I think we can all stop wondering why prolific editors are leaving Wikipedia at a record pace, because it likely has something to do with the excessive tedium and condescension that content editors are regularly subject to with virtually zero positive reinforcement. Remember, we are all unpaid voluteers trying to do our best, so please try to be kind to us once in a while. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc, you might not have "resisted" the changes suggested but you were very defensive in response to criticism: giving long lists of other articles that have the same flaws, or worse, and counting words of negative prose to try to see if that was "enough". You've picked out other FACs for comparison and unfairly called Sandy a hypocrite and you now expect her respond by lavishing praise on you? You are right that people react better to getting some praise along with criticism. Some people are natural praisers and encouragers. Some aren’t. And really that is an aspect of someone’s personality that is extremely hard to change. You just have to accept that if there are problems with the article, or with your attitude here, then folk will respond to those and not everyone will step back and sprinkle some sugar on the pill. One does need a tough skin to take an article to FAC. If you want uncritical praise for your efforts, show it to your mum. The article is a huge improvement on what was there before, you’ve got a bronze star and may appear on the main page.
Please don’t make the mistake that the only worthy effort on Wikipedia is actually editing articles. Indeed the main issue at FAC and peer review is lack of reviewers, not lack of content. I haven’t edited this article either but have spent quite some time reading it, looking at sources and trying to guide you wrt policy on weight and my opinions wrt coverage of critical analysis of music and literature. I don’t have the sources you have and aren’t steeped in the subject the way you are. Sandy’s concerns regard your attitude to the other FACs and trying to prepare you for main page, which can be unpleasant if the article isn’t in top shape. We are all volunteers and that goes for reviewers and delegates too. Colin°Talk 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I don't see the need for you two to "double team" me here, Sandy is an adult who can answer for herself I assume. I'm sorry if I wasn't as open to the criticism as you think I should have been, I think the delivery was unnecessarily harsh, cruel even. I have always been open to constructive criticism and to suggestions for improving articles in general, but when someone pounces on me or an article I've been working on with 100% negative feedback without a shred of positive, I may lose good-faith in that editor. Is it so hard to preface a critique with something like: "hey, its looking much better overall, thanks for all your efforts, there's just a few key points that should be tightened"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well aware that "we are all volunteers", that's why I try to be encouraging to those who are working to improve the project. A little kindness and a sprinkle of encouragement would go a long way toward improving editor retention. Also, people are much more likely to be receptive to criticism when its balanced with some positive comments. Remember, after "complexity", unpleasant exchanges with Wikipedians was ranked as the number 1 reason editors stop editing Wikipedia. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, do you approve of my restructuring of "Performances and cover versions" and does it resolve your concerns about the section? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GabeMc, if you want to be treated with kid gloves and showered with encouraging praise like a primary school child, then I'm not your man. Sorry. Unwatching. Colin°Talk 08:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a massive surprise. Just as soon as all the issues are resolved the critic washes his hands and disappears without so much as a "well done". Kids gloves? That's funny. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the bloke who said "is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour?", I've just been asked by Gabe to comment on the article's latest version WRT criticism of the song. I should add that Gabe had pinged me on my talk page shortly after this discussion began but I didn't feel I had the time to properly contribute. I'm sorry to see that passions have become inflamed over this, but for now at least will restrict myself to the question at hand... The article certainly appears to offer a more rounded discussion of the song than it did when I posed my question a while ago. I brought that up not because I was aware of any specific criticism of the song (the only thing I'd heard was a quote from Lou Reed deriding "all that 'possessions' crap", but for all I knew he could have been completely out of it when he said it) but because I figured there must be more scholarly criticism of the song than was apparent in the article at the time. Oddly enough, the only passage that jars with me is the Shapiro quote. I say "oddly" because I personally agree with it almost entirely (except for concerns about atheism) but it reads like a cheap shot. If it were me I'd probably include a few words or a sentence, but no more -- by all means get other opinion on this, however. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you think there is currently enough criticism in the article? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think I've effectively answered that by saying the article appears to offer a more rounded discussion of the song's qualities or otherwise. What we should be striving for is not certain percentages of praise or criticism, but an encyclopaedic reflection of published commentary. Not having myself surveyed the literature on the song, I can't comment on whether the balance in the article is absolutely fair, but I can see that most of the commentary included, whether praising or criticising the song, seems to be thoughtful and from reliable sources. Again, though, I'd trim the quote from Shapiro (his name should be wikilinked, by the way). Personally I agree with him that it's overrated, and that "it commits the worst musical sin: it is completely boring", but I'm not a music scholar, or even a professional critic, and I suspect neither is he, so that doesn't really belong. On the other hand he is a conservative spokesman, so the stuff from "we have to examine the lyrics" down to "despicable as politics" may be valid to include as a conservative viewpoint on the song. No doubt one could find a quote from a liberal commentator praising the song's lyrics, as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might've opened another can o' worms by removing "notable" from the covers heading. As this is one of the most covered songs, this kind of invites anyone to add their own personal favorite cover to the list. Did "notable" stick in someone's craw? And I don't think we need every criticism ever voiced of the song, scholarly or not, because it's still just personal opinion. We don't want this to become the biggest section of the article (or do we?) Hotcop2 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin expressed concern that all the covers weren't that notable IHO. Any silly additions can and will be removed as they occur. I'm fine with the current level of criticism but I don't intend to add any more. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a quote from Ben Shapiro in an article on a song by John Lennon? He is neither a music critic, nor an authority on John Lennon; he is insulting a song because he disagrees with its vision. If anything, that should be included in a 'reactions to the song' section, but criticism? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.190.224 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think it's representative of critical reception of 'Imagine' for the last line of the section to be 'Despicable as art; despicable as politics'. This might be better classed as 'hysterical and highly ideological reactions to Imagine'

Best-selling

Best-selling (adj): selling in great numbers. "The selling in great numbers single of his career..." is not what is meant. "best selling" without the hyphen is usually regarded as a synonym for the hyphenated version, otherwise you might get away with it. "commercially successful" would be best but this is used later in the paragraph with regard to the album. "Highest selling" is a compromise; the best option would be to reword that sentence.Yomanganitalk 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget superlative 'the'. 'The best selling' (unhyphenated) means the same as 'the highest selling', so I think it does get away with it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but to me, "highest" has a much different connotation than does "best". I agree that "commercially successful" is even better, but as Yomangani points out, it is already used in the next paragraph. In song lists, they usually use "best selling", whereas a movie is typically described as the "highest grossing". Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more notable performance

In 2003, Liel performed the song with former President Bill Clinton and a chorus of 40 Israeli and 40 Arab children. This was cut, but is pretty notable for the symbolism, and should be included, he said. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I can't seem to easily find a WP:RS for it. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Collectivist positivism"

"Collectivist positivism"? Really? In the second sentence of the article? When I read articles about John Lennon or his songs, I often find myself wondering what John's reaction would be. I tend to think his reaction to the second sentence of this article would be similar to his reaction to the review of one of his early songs that said the tune contained "Aeolian cadences." He didn't know what those were, nor do I suspect he would have a better reaction to "collectivist positivism." It might be better to say that the lyrics of the song envision a world where everyone is interconnected and living and working together. Or we could just leave that out, since the next sentence basically says the same thing, using normal everyday words (just more of them, but that's okay.) I kind of wish I had seen this before this was on the Main Page. If nobody else cares, I'll just let it go, but I had to say something. Neutron (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Collectivist. - Lennon: "'Imagine' ... is virtually the Communist manifesto".
Ono described the lyrical statement of "Imagine" as "just what John believed: that we are all one country, one world, one people."
  • Positivism. - Lennon: "['Imagine' is] [t]he concept of positive prayer ... If you can imagine a world at peace ... then it can be true".
Rolling Stone described its lyrics as "22 lines of graceful, plain-spoken faith in the power of a world, united in purpose, to repair and change itself." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Positivism doesn't seem to mention anything about "positive prayer"; what is the source of "collectivist positism" (I can't find it cited anywhere in the article, and the lead should summarize the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, someone's confusing positivism with optimism. I'm changing it.Coolazice (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC) On second thoughts I prefer 'idealistic collectivism', since the lyrics are a tad too uncertain to be optimistic 'I hope someday'... idealistic is a better fit, but I agree with collectivism. Also this avoids confusing 'idealistic' with 'idealism' (philosophy).Coolazice (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think the text needs to reflect what the sources say; let's not replace one glaring error with another by making it up as we go. The source says "concept of positive prayer". Also, the lead should be a summary of the body of the article-- where is this in the article body? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Imagine The World As One (google.com)".
  2. ^ "Imagine The World As One (altavista.com)".
  3. ^ "Imagine The World As One (ask.com)".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imagine_(song)&oldid=526985657"