Revision as of 23:14, 5 November 2007 editHotcop2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,110 edits →Current Top Photo← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:05, 10 November 2007 edit undoMindGuerrilla (talk | contribs)12 edits →Current Top PhotoNext edit → | ||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Well, when he sends me the photo, with the permission attached, I'll send it to you to upload ;-) ] 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | Well, when he sends me the photo, with the permission attached, I'll send it to you to upload ;-) ] 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Why doesn't one of you geniuses email David Spindel. You'll get a response telling how he gave permission to use that wonderful 1980 photo in Wikicommons. His email addy is attached to it. Oh yeah, Spindel is pissed that J.O. Gustafson (a man who lives up to his initials) deleted most of his page. Arcayne, stop being such a Wikicunt. ] 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
==GA== | ==GA== |
Revision as of 00:05, 10 November 2007
The Beatles B‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Discography
It seems that one of his songs is missing, "Pakistanis Go Home" from the latter Apple Trax Album.Bigage 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That track was never released officially, the Apple Trax album will be an illegal bootleg and so the track does not belong in any discography. Furthermore, the song is McCartney's, not Lennon's. And lastly, the song was intended as an ironic comment on Enoch Powell and the growing racist intolerance in the U.K. during the late 60s. It wasn't released partially because the group feared the irony would go over some dull-witted people's heads. MarkB79 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you cite that last part, pls? - Arcayne () 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's in countless Beatles books, the best account is in Many Years from Now. It states in there that "Pakistanis Go Home" was a satire attacking Powell and the rise of the far-right in Britain and it evolved into Get Back, but with a third verse retaining some of the "No Pakistanis" lyrics. McCartney decided to drop the third verse and the whole satire on racism thing as he didn't want the group to be "hostage to misinterpretation". Not that this has anything much to do with Lennon anyway, it wasn't his song. MarkB79 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up.
- Can you cite that last part, pls? - Arcayne () 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Protection?
Why is this page protected? 216.165.96.57 03:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because unregistered visitors like to vandalize it. Sixstring1965 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles
If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Recreation drug usage
This section is in dire need of citations, as fact tags have been sitting there since February. I think the info is needed, but it also needs citation. - Arcayne () 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance of you adding your name to this? :) --andreasegde 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done. - Arcayne () 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
obvious anachronism "dialed 911"
( or more correctly a procronism I suppose ) Towards the bottom of this article, when going into detail about Mr. Lennon's death, the article states that "Hastings ...immediately dialed 911"
Obviously no such thing existed at the time. it is truly sad that this is probably the work of a determined wiki jerk to corrupt content rather than a young contributor who did not realize there was no 911 at the time.
While I'm on it, the quotes that follow have no source and are written in literary style.
tisk tisk. I would have fixed it if it wasn't for douchebags who cause articles like this to get locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.200.2 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be too much trouble to ask you to cite that New York didn't have 9-1-1 service at the time? Or, rather than cite a negative, maybe cite when New York City began using 9-1-1. From the article on the subject, it appears to have been in place during hte time in question. - Arcayne () 06:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to find one for you, but it's really difficult to find anything on 911 and New York as search terms on this ol' internet, thanks to Sept 11. The difficulty here is even though 911 existed in 1980, it was not in common use in most places. It was not wide spread for many years. Can any New Yorkers vouch for this? Was 911 in common use in 1980?
- Might you have been searching "911" as opposed to "9-1-1"? - Arcayne () 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to find one for you, but it's really difficult to find anything on 911 and New York as search terms on this ol' internet, thanks to Sept 11. The difficulty here is even though 911 existed in 1980, it was not in common use in most places. It was not wide spread for many years. Can any New Yorkers vouch for this? Was 911 in common use in 1980?
I'm a little surprised by this, since I thought that 911 became widely used in the early-mid 70s. It should be sourced, but more worrying to me is the use of the word "immediately," as I'm sure Hastings didn't have a cellphone on him at the time, and couldn't have immediately called. faithless () 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hastings would have had a phone in his office. But if so he didn't use it. He had an alarm button under his desk that summoned police directly. Check the Rolling Stone Jan. 22, 1981 articles on Lennon's death. --Bluejay Young 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the substance of the statement to sidestep the issue, and I thank Bluejay for providing the little lightbulb that inspited it. I've changed the statement to reflect that hastings summoned the police, which I think resolved the matter nicely. :) - Arcayne () 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
IRA?
Check this: IRA connection but no money changed hands... --andreasegde 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Current Top Photo
This was taken by Bob Gruen in 1972. It is also seen on the album cover John Lennon Live In New York City (1988). Not sure if it can used here, although someone could contact Mr. Gruen and ask. Hotcop2 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for that heads-up. i think we don't need to contact Mr. Gruen (although, if you got the juice to do that, make sure to get prrof fro the Commons folks). I think we should use the free one (the version that had Lennon in a suit, cropping out Yoko and Canadian PM Trudeau). That omne was free, and Commons takes a while to certify an image. It was the existing image before Six "rec'd permission" to use the non-free image. I am not saying we can never use it, but that we shouldn't use it while its going through the WikiCommons approval process. - Arcayne () 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new image is probably the best used so far, although it may be a little distant, I suppose more of a close-up would be better but I still think it's the best photo used for the main picture so far. If it gets approved, I'd probably stick with it unless somebody seriously disagrees. MarkB79 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear back from Mr. Gruen. Will let you know Hotcop2 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, after the second time of having images from this article pulled for bad or incorrect licensing, I think we should stick to the free image that we have of John Lennon (which I have replaced as the placeholder image). Please make every effor to remain vigilant against another image replaing it without it being discussed to death here first. Any new images are going to have to be agree to by all of us, as we are the ones left holding our puds when the licensing turns out to be "not quite perfect". Thoughts? - Arcayne () 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote to Gruen again. Ialso asked him if we might be able to use the NYC t-shirt shot, which is really the iconic Lennon photo. Hopefully sometime this decade, he'll let us know. Hotcop2 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten the o.k. from Mr. Gruen to use his photos on the page :-) Hotcop2 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's make sure everything is okay before we use it ias a placeholder image. Is there a way to place it lower in the article (likely the section it is most time-appropriate for) for now, and - this might seem excessive - go to WP:IMAGE discussion and invite them here to kick the wheels on all of our images, telling us which ones are weak, which ones are strong and which ones are fantastically cited. If Six's nonsense taught us anything, it is that we cannot neglect the images any more than the cited text. thoughts? - Arcayne () 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, when he sends me the photo, with the permission attached, I'll send it to you to upload ;-) Hotcop2 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't one of you geniuses email David Spindel. You'll get a response telling how he gave permission to use that wonderful 1980 photo in Wikicommons. His email addy is attached to it. Oh yeah, Spindel is pissed that J.O. Gustafson (a man who lives up to his initials) deleted most of his page. Arcayne, stop being such a Wikicunt. MindGuerrilla 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
GA
There are a lot of citations in this article, but it needs a good clean for POV and unreferenced sentences. Can anyone imagine that it could be a GA? It would be nice to see John on the same par with McCartney. --andreasegde 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's so crammed that some things fall out of order. Can we divvy up sections and try to make them a little more coherant? I volunteer for the 1970-75 years. Opinions? Hotcop2 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I just reworded the 1980 section a little for flow and clarity. When we knock this into shape, I know where we can find most of the citations needed, but, have no idea how to put them in (as Arc knows too well) Hotcop2 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Categories: