Talk:John Lennon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleJohn Lennon 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, 2010.
Article milestones
January 28, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 18, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

That horrible photo[edit]

We had permission to use the Gruen NYC t-shirt photo, but someone decided the permission wasn't real. Use a Beatle pic, if necessary. He was one of the most photographed people in the world. We can do better than this lol Hotcop2 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox image? If so, I agree – it's terrible, and several sources remark on how ill Lennon looked in his final months. (And, since we're presenting this late-'80 gaunt look as our main image, its inclusion would appear to invite some discussion in the article, giving an idea of the speculation surrounding Lennon's health and the state of his marriage – contrary, of course, to the public image they adopted for Double Fantasy promotion.)
But the less flattering aspect of the image is highlighted by the fact that it's been so severely cropped. It's a similar problem with either of the cropped 1964 images (here, or from the Beatles' arrival in New York) that we've had in recent months: by cutting away so much from the original photos, we're left with too much "face" for any of them to serve as a good infobox image, imo. For that reason, I'd say even the heavily bearded, Bed-In portrait shot worked better. Although it's not an ideal choice, at least the picture looks like a natural and presentable image, rather than an obviously doctored shot. JG66 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I personally hate that bearded Bed-In photo, mainly because his face is sideways. I also hate that awful infobox picture of George Harrison but since WP only has like 5 photos of Harrison alone I've had to deal with it. Perhaps this one for Lennon's infobox? – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 1969 Bed-In is far from great – but do you get my point that it at least seems suitable for infobox use compared with the overly cropped, face-overload quality of the two '64 pics and the 1980 one we're currently using? I agree about the 1974 pic of George Harrison; he looks haggard and ill (which he was), hard to believe he was only 31 at the time. It's a pity we haven't got access to some images from either side of that year – he looked the picture of health throughout 1973, for instance, and in 1976, post-acupuncture. Anyway ...
And yes, if it's not 1969 Bed-In, then the portrait image of Lennon from the same year would be best, I think. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bed-In photo is more appropriate than the 1980 image, especially since in 1980 Lennon was really starting to look not the best. It's crazy to believe how he would've looked if he was never murdered. But yeah the other 1969 image is better. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the infobox lead photo. Or half-photo as Ono's been cropped out. There's #9 million photos of him, even the USPS stamp. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

CarterLennon, regarding your recent change, moving one of the 1964 images into the infobox, I thought you were in favour of using the 1980 image? Regardless, perhaps you and Beatleswillneverdie might like to join this discussion.

Based on what Hotcop2 and BeatlesLedTV have said above, and going from the current version of the article, I propose we use this 1969 image in the infobox: it's ideally proportioned, unlike the over-cropped, head-filled 1964 images and the 1980 one. Just compare with infoboxes at George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and then come back here to John Lennon, or take a look at other music artist articles – Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Elton John, etc. (Personally, I get a "Whoa, weird – so much face!" moment each time I return to this page, especially with that 1980 image [because it's so ghoulish], but also whenever we've had one of the two 1964 cropped shots in the infobox.) We should then move the 1969 J & Y image up from the Yoko Ono section to "1966–1970: Studio years, break-up and solo work", replacing the one that's relocated to the infobox, and include the full 1980 image of the couple down at Yoko Ono, which I believe we had there for a long while anyway.

This regular swapping around of the infobox image is getting somewhat tiresome, and as far as I was aware at the time, for years we had the 1969 Bed-In picture without any problem. More recently, perhaps over the last year or so, there's been a spate of swapping them around based on individual editors' personal opinion. It would be good to establish some sort of consensus on the issue, and I think my proposal makes sense with regard to the article as a whole – eg, J & Y 1969 is a logical image to include in the text discussing Lennon's move away from the Beatles over 1968–69, and J & Y 1980 fits the relationship-focused discussion down at Yoko Ono. That's in addition to the fact that three of us here have said an emphatic "no" to the 1980 image appearing in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I am so sorry if I caused any weirdness. I just felt that if we use an image of John, it should be one in his prime so I put it there. I think the 1969 photo you decided on would be great and I think it's much better then the old 1969 image that I honestly disliked. The 1980 photo is fine too and I liked it better then the old 1969 image which is why I said I thought it was a good change, but like what's been said on here John was not looking the greatest in that time in his life and it looked a little too zoomed-in. I also didn't really like how you could see some of Yoko cropped from the image. I do agree that the 1969 image that you decided on would be fine. Very sorry for not talking on here by the way, I'll try to talk on talk-pages more often.CarterLennon (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with CarterLennon. I might end up changing the photo. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I say go for the other '69 photo as well. In the choice between the original '69 bed-in profile and the 1980 mess, go back to that. If someone else wants to reach out to Bob Gruen and once again get permission to usde the NYC t-shirt photo, which he previously had given, that's be the best option. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The 1969 bed-in photo doesn't fully show Lennon's face like BeatlesLedTV stated. I think the one certainly being used is the best one. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

McCartney's supposedly different version of Lennon and Ono's first meeting[edit]

Hotcop2, where in that source, Miles 1997 p. 272, does it say that Lennon and Ono in fact met before 9 November 1966 and that Lennon gave Ono the handwritten lyrics to "The Word" in 1965? Ono arrived in London in September 1966. Miles' description is simply referring to McCartney having met Ono a short time before Lennon attended the Indica Gallery show. Ono visited McCartney, along with a few other well-to-do artists in central London no doubt, looking for manuscripts to give to John Cage. Miles says that "not long afterwards" Ono puts the same request to Lennon and receives the lyrics to "The Word". But just because this information appears in the section of text discussing "The Word" and other 1965 songs, you appear to be assuming that this meeting and exchange of song lyrics must have taken place in 1965. In fact, it's simply a case of the author adding the point where it's relevant in McCartney's story (specifically to a song he co-wrote), just as, say, mention of the Manson Family's 1969 killing spree and 1970 trial appears in a section of the book discussing McCartney's songwriting in 1968, specifically songs such as "Helter Skelter" and "Blackbird" that were said to have inspired the killings.

The line that appears at the start of the "Yoko Ono" section here – "Two versions exist of how Lennon met Yoko Ono." – is unsupported editorialisation. The subsequent comment that "The second version, told by McCartney, is that in late 1965, Ono was in London compiling original musical scores for a book John Cage was working on ..." is rubbish, as far as the date goes. And it's original research to say that the point about Ono's manuscript-hunting in any way contradicts the widely accepted story of the couple's first meeting. JG66 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hotcop2: This same point was queried at Yoko Ono in October 2010 (Talk:Yoko Ono/Archive 2#Deletion from section outlining relationship with Paul McCartney) and it has appeared in that article since or before then, I imagine. You defended it as fact there too. I completely agree with Dsnmi's point there that the statement's "misleading and factually inaccurate" but not with the idea that Miles dates McCartney and Ono's meeting to 1965 – he does not.

In page 272 of the book, there's McCartney's recollection of he and Lennon, in 1965, writing out a multicoloured lyric sheet for "The Word". The author's voice then takes over:

When Yoko Ono first arrived in Britain, before she met John she turned up at Paul's house asking for manuscripts to give to John Cage for his fiftieth birthday. Cage collected musical scores. Paul told her that he always kept his original manuscripts, but not long afterwards she asked John to give her one and he chose the multicoloured fair copy of "The Word" as a birthday gift. It is reproduced in John Cage's Notations, a selection of the scores he had been collecting for the Foundation of Contemporary Performance Arts to show the diversity of notation in modern music.

So where in all of that does it say that this occurred in 1965? And where does it claim to present a different scenario to the widely accepted version of when and how Lennon first met Ono? JG66 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now ... You were the one that added this alleged alternative scenario here at John Lennon in December 2007 and at Yoko Ono in April 2010. You were and are wrong; you've misunderstood what the source says and have promulgated a false history for over ten years. JG66 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And I notice you have issues with McCartney recollections in your various edits. If the "1965" bothers you, remove that, altho in the context of the it can be surmised. In another paragraph which you didn't retype here, it clearly states she met Paul before John on her first visit to London (which was not her '66 art show). Hotcop2 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hotcop2: I have issues with McCartney's recollections of the 1960s being accepted as fact, yes, and especially with the idea that Miles' 1997 book Many Years from Now can serve as a reliable record of Beatles history, because it was clearly a McCartney vanity project. All sources should be subjected to some scrutiny, and that one was controversial and continues to be scrutinised by the more discerning Beatles biographers. (And I recently read another editor here slagging it off big time, so I'm hardly alone in my reservations.)
Where in Miles 1997 is this other paragraph that you're saying I failed to include here? It's not on the cited page; I don't own the book, but I've accessed it plenty at Amazon and according to the index at the "snippet" google books preview, Ono appears on pages 272, 329, 345, 491, 530, 544, 555, 574. So, please, where is it? Miles clearly states on the only page cited here and at Yoko Ono (p. 272) that she met McCartney before meeting Lennon, yes – she approached him for a manuscript, that's well known. But where does it say there this was on a previous visit to London, and where are you getting the information that she visited London in 1965? Most capsule biographies of Ono in Beatles books (eg Jonathan Gould, Can't Buy Me Love, pp. 473–75) say she was in Japan from the early 1960s until the autumn of '65, when she and Tony Cox moved to New York; they then arrived in London in September '66 – no mention of a previous visit.
At best, the account in Miles 1997 is slightly ambiguous, but it still doesn't state what you say it does, and no way does it challenge the date for the first meeting between Lennon and Ono. In later publications by Miles, the ambiguity is removed, for the important reason that he's not approaching the subject from the context of a 1965 Beatles song. His book The Beatles Diary (first published in 1998, updated in 2001) gives 9 November 1966 as the date for the first meeting. The only thing Miles questions in the usual, frequently repeated account is the claim, made by Lennon, that Ono had no idea who the Beatles were. Miles writes (p. 246 in the 2001 edn): In fact Yoko knew very well who The Beatles were. She had approached Paul several weeks before, hoping to solicit some original Lennon and McCartney manuscripts to give to John Cage for his 50th birthday celebrations as Cage collected original scores of modern music. Paul said no but told her that John might let her have one.
It's the same situation in an article dedicated to the couple's first meeting, titled "Your Move, Yoko!", which was one of Miles's contributions to the second Beatles Mojo Special Limited Edition title in 2002 (p. 87). There, he gives way more detail on Ono's artistic background and the Indica Gallery, and he writes: In Yoko's official version of the meeting she claimed that she did not know who The Beatles were when she met John. However, by 1966 the downtown Manhattan art world was fully aware of The Beatles, to the extent that one of the first things that Yoko did on her arrival in Britain – weeks before her show – was to approach Paul McCartney for an original manuscript to add to John Cage's Notations collection of contemporary music scores. Paul refused and suggested she contact John for one.
Those two examples, aside from the abundance of sources that recognise 9 November at the Indica as the first meeting, resolve the issue, surely. I simply can't fathom how one editor's interpretation of a passage in one of hundreds of Beatles books, about the first meeting between one of the best-known and most-discussed celebrity couples of the twentieth century, results in a statement on Wikipedia that "Two versions exist of how Lennon met Yoko Ono." Two versions do not exist, apart from on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, weeks before. It was couched in a conversation about while recording Rubber Soul (1965) and the manuscript Lennon gave her was for "The Word" (on Rubber Soul 1965). This is supposed an "encyclopedic" article, not a preserve the myth of Johnandyoko article. McCartney offered his recollection. It should be included. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reproduced the relevant text from the source cited in the article. You said I've missed out another paragraph – as I asked previously: what paragraph? JG66 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

MBE no longer[edit]

John Lennon returned his MBE with an attached nastygram to the queen. There are plenty of sources including that the MBE has been recently discovered and Lennon fans want it made public. Wlmg (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When you say "the MBE has been recently discovered", you mean the actual medal (like this one), but in it's presentation case, with accompanying authentic documentation, yes? After all, being a Member of the Order of the British Empire, in itself, is just an Order of chivalry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Copy of The Daily Telegraph article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Beatles fans call for return of MBE medal rejected by John Lennon
The MBE medal that John Lennon famously rejected has been unearthed in a royal vault and now, 40 years after Lennon sent the award back to the Queen, Beatles historians are calling for it to be dusted off and put on public display.
MBE medal that John Lennon rejected unearthed in royal vault
Lennon's medal was found in a cabinet at the Chancery Department of the Royal Household where it has lain untouched for years Photo: PA 1:44AM GMT 06 Jan 2009
The Fab Four were invested as Members of the British Empire in the Queen's Birthday Honours in 1965, after topping record charts around the world.
But later Lennon decided that he had sold out to the Establishment and returned his MBE to Her Majesty 25th November 1969 as part of ongoing peace protests masterminded with Yoko Ono.
In an accompanying letter Lennon said: "Your Majesty, I am returning my MBE as a protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against 'Cold Turkey' slipping down the charts. With Love, John Lennon."
Years later he was quoted as saying: "Lots of people who complained about us getting the MBE received theirs for heroism in the war.
"They got them for killing people. We deserved ours for not killing people. In a way it was hypocritical of me to accept it. [1] Wlmg (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"But I'm glad I did really, because it meant that four years later I was able to use it to make a gesture."
Now Beatles fans have established that the medal has been located in a vault at St James' Palace and have written to Yoko Ono urging her to retrieve it.
The medal was found in a cabinet at the Chancery Department of the Royal Household where it has lain untouched for years.
It is still in the presentation case bearing the name John Winston Lennon, and has been stored along with his protest letter.
Beatles history experts regard it as one of the most important pieces of Beatles history and are calling for the medal to be exhibited in the city 40 years after it was returned.
It has been suggested that it should be given a permanent home at "Mendips", the childhood home John shared with his Aunt Mimi in Woolton, which was bought and donated to the National Trust by Yoko Ono.
Lennon had originally sent the medal to his Auntie Mimi and she kept it in pride of place on her mantelpiece, until John collected it and returned it to The Queen.
Liverpool Beatles Appreciation Society founder Gene Grimes said: "The Palace are sitting on a unique piece of Beatles history and it should not be left to gather dust in a draw.
"The medal is a vital piece of Beatles memorabilia and should be exhibited for John's fans to see."
A Buckingham Palace spokesman confirmed that it was holding the MBE.
The spokesman said: "The Central Chancery would, without question, return any Insignia to the original recipient if they request it during their lifetime.
"If a recipient had not asked for insignia back before they die then it is assumed that they did not wish it to be returned, and any request from any other person for its return at a later date would be going against the original recipient’s wishes.
"The Central Chancery would therefore only consider releasing insignia if they had a direct approach from the recipient’s legal next of kin."Wlmg (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. A substantial report in a very good source. I would certainly add a mention of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday 2019[edit]

Robert Caryle plays him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:861D:28B7:3E89:9F67:C6B2 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Error in the date he married Yoko Ono[edit]

Title Followthedamntraincj (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)