Talk:Imagine (song)/Archive 2

Yoko Ono
I added Yoko Ono as writer and then noticed it has already been reverted a few times. But given that Lennon has apparently stated that she was a co-writer in an interview, I don't see what further confirmation is required. Horatio (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Could get" is not Encyclopedic, Let wait until we can get "has got" - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you mean. If Lennon said in an interview that she was a co-writer, isn't that a reliable source? What do we care if the record company gives credit or not? Horatio (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your source says "Could get" that does not verify the claim sufficient enough for inclusion. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It says "In a BBC interview with the couple in 1980, Lennon explains that his failure to credit Ono was due to his being “macho”: “[Imagine] should be credited as a Lennon-Ono song ...". If Lennon says she should have credit, that's good enough for me. The National Music Publishers Association can have their own opinion like anybody else. Horatio (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "further confirmation" that's required is the cold bare fact that Yoko Ono is indeed officially credited as co-writer of "Imagine", not just "likely to be". And it's certainly not the case yet according to the Variety article that's sourced at the end of the Composition section, and the NYT piece that's sourced at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. And not in that Guardian article either, apparently.
 * Thank you for raising it for discussion here. I've put in a request for increased page protection on this article. JG66 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are talking about "official credit." I'm more interested in what the facts are, who actually wrote the song? Lennon himself says it was a joint work. Horatio (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good lord no, your own opinion does not matter to Wikipedia. If NMPA recognizes Ono's contribution and lists her name in BMI/ASCAP for music royalty and everything, then it should be added, not Lennon's wish to be added. There are legal obligations associated with this. — I B  [ Poke ] 03:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when was Wikipedia in the business of officially recognising anything? The fact of who actually wrote the thing isn't my opinion, but what was said by Lennon, which is surely authoritative in the matter.. Horatio (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No its not, for song articles WP always goes by what ASCAP and BMI lists as officially recognized songwriters. If third party media reports on any artist as unofficially credited, then we mention that too. But we will not add Ono blindly as a songwriter just because Lennon says so. His opinion in this matter is more biased considering she was his partner. — I B  [ Poke ] 03:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Since when was Wikipedia in the business of officially recognising anything?" … I believe Wikipedia's only in the business of official recognition, at least in situation such as this one. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Lennon said he should have credited Ono, but until Ono is actually credited, no way is it a Lennon–Ono composition. There are countless examples of this in Beatle-land alone … Ringo Starr has acknowledged many times that George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" and "Back Off Boogaloo", but that doesn't mean we credit them as "Starkey–Harrison" songs. JG66 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this seems completely mad to me, and I'd be happy to credit those as "Starkey–Harrison" songs if that's who the authors themselves said wrote them. But I'll leave it at that. Horatio (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but look at it this way: there are no end of late-period Lennon–McCartney songs where one of them is credited but shouldn't be (because the song was written by either Lennon or McCartney, not both of them). But the official credit remains Lennon–McCartney and we can only add mention in the article, with sufficient sources, of the song's true origin. It's the same with producers – the production credit is the official production credit. JG66 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've used this argument many times ---
 * This is an encyclopedia. It has different standards than social media and fansites. Kellymoat (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is just a trade group (NMPA) that recognized two songwriters when giving out an award, not any sort of binding directive or "official" change. They don't have any authority to change someone's copyright. And since this is a U.S. trade association does anything they do affect copyrights or publishing outside the U.S.? I would think only the publisher could agree to split royalties with another author. Assuming the song is still owned by Lenono Music, wouldn't it basically be Yoko herself agreeing to add her name to the copyright? That is, if any change is actually made. I suggest we treat this the same as the many Lennon-McCartney songs where the infobox shows the official credit then it is explained in the article who primarily or entirely wrote the song. Piriczki (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The field is for songwriters, not credited by such-and-such authority songwriters. What actually happened and what we have sources for is what should be in the infobox. Note that Bob Dylan is credited with drums on My Chartreuse Opinion&mdash;it has no place in an infobox. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Posted to someone's talk page which he removed): See Infobox Song. What about blues songs that were stolen by racist white record executives and have deliberately inaccurate listings in some authority somewhere? Should we include those as the writers in the infobox when we know it's false? What if someone has "Yankee Doodle Dandy" registered under his name in Maldives? The infobox is for factual, sourced information, which I've provided. How is my source "inaccurate"? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1980 John Lennon said that Yoko helped with the lyrics and that he should have given her credit. This is already covered in the article and has been for a long time. Nothing has changed since then. Some group made up an award and put Yoko's name on it, that's all. This award, created 46 years after the song was released and 37 years after Lennon died, hardly merits any mention in the article at all. The only entity that can change the songwriting credit is the owner of the song—Lenono Music. So when Yoko goes ahead and adds her name to the copyright, we'll change the infobox. Meanwhile it will reflect what has been indicated on everyone's records, tapes and CDs for decades with an explanation in the body of the article about who wrote what, just like it is in dozens of Lennon-McCartney song articles. And by the way, Lennon is affiliated with PRS, not BMI or ASCAP. Piriczki (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is my point: it's irrelevant what a rights-holding agency says. The purpose of the field is to say who wrote the song, not who is credited with writing the song by some agency. Did you read anything that I wrote above? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case you're only basing it on what Lennon said in an interview. If that's the case you'll need to remove Paul McCartney's name from the infoboxes of the following song articles based on what Lennon said in an interview:


 * Please Please Me; Do You Want to Know a Secret; I Call Your Name; It Won't Be Long; I'll Be Back; I Feel Fine; No Reply; It's Only Love; In My Life; Run for Your Life; She Said She Said; Tomorrow Never Knows; Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite; I Am the Walrus; Revolution; Happiness Is a Warm Gun; Julia (add Yoko "Yoko helped me with this one"); Everybody's Got Something to Hide; Sexy Sadie; Because; Across the Universe; There's A Place; This Boy; All I've Got To Do; Not A Second Time; You Can't Do That; A Hard Day's Night; I Should Have Known Better; If I Fell; I'm Happy Just To Dance With You; Tell Me Why; Any Time At All; I'll Cry Instead; When I Get Home; I'm A Loser; I Don't Want To Spoil The Party; Ticket To Ride; Yes It Is; Help; You've Got To Hide Yourself Away; You're Going To Lose That Girl; Nowhere Man; Girl; Rain; I'm Only Sleeping; Strawberry Fields; Dear Prudence; Glass Onion; Bungalow Bill; I'm So Tired; Yer Blues; Cry Baby Cry; Goodnight; Ballad Of John And Yoko;  Come Together; I Want You (She's So Heavy); Mean Mr. Mustard; Polythene Pam; One After 909; Hey Bulldog; Don't Let Me Down; You Know My Name; Sun King; Dig A Pony; Dig  It.


 * And you'll need to remove Lennon's name from the infoboxes of these song articles based on what he said in an interview:


 * All My Loving; I'll Follow the Sun; Yesterday; Here There and Everywhere; For No One; Hey Jude; Back in the USSR; Why Don't We Do It in the Road; I Saw Her Standing There; Tip Of My Tongue; I'll Keep You Satisfied; Nobody I Know; Things We Said Today; Don't Want To See You Again; I'm Down; The Night Before; Another Girl; Tell Me What You See; I've Just Seen A Face; That Means A Lot; You Won't See Me; I'm Looking Through You; Woman; Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; Fixing A Hole; Lovely Rita; Hello Goodbye; Your Mother Should Know; Fool On The Hill; Step Inside Love; Obladi Oblada; Martha My Dear; Blackbird; I Will; Mother Nature's Son; Helter Skelter; Honey Pie; Lady Madonna; All Together Now; Get Back; Let It Be; Maxwell's Silver Hammer; Oh Darling; You Never Give Me Your Money; She Came In Through The Bathroom Window; Golden Slumbers; Carry That Weight; The End; Her Majesty; Two Of Us; The Long And Winding Road.


 * I suppose you'll need to change the track listings on all of the Beatles' albums too while you're at it.


 * I think a lot of readers might be confused not seeing the Lennon-McCartney credit they've been seeing on their records for decades. Personally, I think it's better to explain this in the body of the article than to expect the reader to know what Lennon said in an interview decades ago. Piriczki (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course, McCartney has stated that he did contribute to the writing of some of those "Lennon-only" songs, especially the early ones. For example, I am pretty sure he claims 20% credit for It Won't Be Long.  Which is one of the reasons that going by what someone, even John Lennon himself, said in an interview doesn't work.  By all means report what he stated in reliably reported interviews within the body of the article with appropriate sourcing so the reader can decide what to believe.  But that does not make for a definitive statement of who has the writing credit. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed
Hello everyone. I yesterday had sent about this an e-mail to the New York Times but I have not yet received an answer. As soon I received the answer yes or no I will it add in this article. Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands. 84.80.54.162 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yoko Ono confirmed as co-writer
The Guardian has confirmed that Ono is now credited as co-writer. Not only that, but Ono has released a recording of the song with herself named as co-writer.

Quote: "The co-writer of her husband’s signature solo hit releases new ambient version taken from new album Warzone"

Source is here: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/10/yoko-ono-john-lennon-imagine-warzone

Newzild (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Blaney?
I think this John Blaney came in himself and added all these references(16 different refences!) to himself or his opinions about this song. Who is he? Why is he apparently the most important source of John Lennon analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.161.60 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'm pretty surprised there's been no response here thus far. Toward that end, I'm going to move this section to the bottom of the page. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

David Archuleta version
Why is there no mention of the David Archuleta cover when it went top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100? I wonder if more notable cover versions are also omitted from the article? It really shouldn't be featured in that case.-- N Ø  05:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Find out its notability then, not that hard right? — IB [ Poke ] 09:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is notable I think since it went top 40. I'll add it.-- N Ø  14:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

JOHN LENNON - IMAGINE
Hello and please read the main wiki article on Lennon`s Imagine song. Ono is not a co-writer. This has nothing to do with the real thing. Is there any need in further explanations? Let me know.

Greenhornfromwildwest (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Real length of the song
Hi! I've seen various karaoke videos, and the length of the song is much longer than figures in the infobox. It is around 3:12. Please, verify the fact. Thanks.--186.59.195.179 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Streisand cover
The article requests cover versions be discussed here first. I suggest the Barbra Streisand cover recorded for her 2018 album Walls merits addition. This potential addition is by a notable performer and is a novel "medley" version of the song. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 20:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Musicians on Take 1
In the album jacket of the the ultimate edition of Imagine, the musicians who played on Take 1 are listed as follows.
 * John Lennon – vocals, piano
 * Klaus Voormann – bass
 * Alan White – drums
 * Nicky Hopkins – RMI Electra Piano
 * John Barham – harmonium
 * John Tout – vibraphone

I'm considering adding this with the source, but I'm not sure if this information really matters, don't know if it's something that one might actually care about. For all I know, the only information that anyone would care about is who played on the final take for finished version, and not everything that's verifiable is appropriate for inclusion. Not intending for this to be a WP:FORUM, my intentions are to respect the talk page guidelines, I'd just like to know if this (with the addition of the source) would belong in the article.--2601:153:881:3D60:A8A2:CF50:5D47:2E78 (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think no, it's about the released song. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You know, I think this is worth including in the section on recording (but not as a separate Personnel list if that was the idea). The initial take with Barham and Hopkins (don't know about Tout, that's news to me) receives some commentary from Bruce Spizer in his book The Beatles on Apple Records, so it's not as if it's a trivial mention. And take 1 was given a formal release on the John Lennon Anthology compilation. Also, "Imagine" is such a notable song for Lennon, and in pop music generally, I think this sort of detail on the creation of the original released recording is appropriate for the article.
 * Added to that, imho, it doesn't make any sense that recording and the song's commercial release should be combined in the same section; the two areas are in no way connected, even for a lesser-known song, so it's not as if we'd be swamping the description of the recording with unnecessary detail. (In other words, the logical thing anyway would be to set the two subtopics as separate sections.) JG66 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Release date
I’m very surprised to learn that this was first released in the United States in October 1971 because I’m quite sure I first heard it on the radio in the summer of 1971, that is, before the new school term began in September of that year. My first hearing it happens to be strongly correlated to a dramatic, quasi-traumatic, event in my life that I couldn’t possibly ever forget. Is it possible that radio stations in those days sometimes played new singles months before their official release—or does Wikipedia just have this wrong? Yes, I know that my say so is not considered a valid source in Wikipedia. All I can do is emphatically assure you that I am not mistaking this. TheScotch (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dusted off a few old books I have here. Keith Badman's The Beatles Diary Vol. 2, Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records, and Castleman & Podrazik's All Together Now – they all support an 11 October release date for the single. But don't forget the album was issued in the US a month earlier, on 9 September, and perhaps DJs were able to play some of the tracks shortly before that date.
 * I appreciate what you're saying, though. There are a few episodes that I link to my childhood in the '80s. When I've tracked them down in Badman's book, I learn that one in particular took place three years after I thought it did. Such a seminal moment ... (I've had to completely rethink my view of a summer family holiday as a result!)
 * Just to add that, after trying to find where it is in the text we offer a release date, it seems to me the article's very poorly structured in places. Two major areas of the topic – recording and commercial reception – and grouped together in one section, so the song's actual release (another major subtopic, surely) is buried away there. It doesn't even appear to be mentioned that "Imagine" was first issued as the opening track of the album, in early September 1971. It's also relevant that by the time of its release, certainly on a single, Lennon had reinvented himself as a Greenwich Village radical; that's the press coverage he was receiving at the time, I understand, and he also sought to locate the message of "Imagine" within the scope of his 1971–72 political radicalism. All of that has some bearing on the criticism the song went on to receive. Perhaps the article does touch on this, somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be where you'd expect to find it. Would be good if someone could give the article an overhaul on that point, others too perhaps. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The article gives October 1971 specifically as the U.S. release date. If your sources say that's wrong, that it was really September, please change the article accordingly. If the pandemic hadn't uprooted my university affiliation, I'd check contemporaneous issues of Billboard on microfiche to see when the single actually entered the charts here. The city library purged all of its musical research material (as well as its entire collection of scores), and I don't completely trust third and fourth-hand sources or any sources compiled decades after the event. TheScotch (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, when I say I heard the song on the radio in the summer of 1971, I don't mean that I was hearing it on the radio; I mean I heard it just once on one quasi-traumatic night from which I've never fully recovered during that summer on one particular radio, a radio I had never encountered before and couldn't have encountered again. I was a minor but not quite a child; I was fifteen. I could be confused about many of my memories from that period, but I couldn't be confused about this one. September 9 with earlier DJ access might just barely account for the discrepancy (I don't know the exact date of the first day of the school term, and I have no idea when within the summer the incident occurred), but that would seem a squeaker. TheScotch (talk)


 * According to the Capitol Records checklist originally included in the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 red/blue compilations it was released 10/71. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

These are Beatles compilation discs, right? I have no idea what a "Capitol Records checklist" is, but whatever it is, why would anything included with a Beatles compilation disc specify the release date of a John Lennon solo record? Please explain what the hell you're talking about and precisely what your source is. Thank you. TheScotch (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Beatles were on Capitol. They allowed them to put an Apple label on the vinyl because they were the Beatles, but every "Apple release," except for Two Virgins, was by Capitol.  In those official "compilation discs" (on which the Beatles had their input) a list of every Beatle and solo record album and single (with release dates) (up to that point which was 1973) was included as a way to, I don't know, sell some records maybe?  My source is the two albums I've had since 1973, that's what the hell I'm talking about. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference
What has happened to the reference at the very end of the section "Composition and writing"? It is showed in clear text rather than a reference number. Tondose (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tondose - I changed the reference from harvnb to sfn. GoingBatty (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Tondose (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Global consensus at the 2019 RfC means I cannot give much weight to generalized opposition to PDABs. While I don't discount opposes arguing that the ratio isn't high enough for a PDAB, I also don't have a policy/guideline basis for overriding the clear majority on that issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Imagine (John Lennon song) → Imagine (song) – The song by John Lennon is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of page views |Imagine_(Ariana_Grande_song)|Imagine_(Shola_Ama_song)|Imagine_(Snoop_Dogg_song)|Imagine_(Tone_Damli_song), and overall long term significance, hence passing both criteria 1 and 2. Potential confusion with I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song) is improbable since it serves only as a partial title match. Bandit Heeler (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support – Clear WP:PDABPRIMARY (~11:1 pageview ratio compared to the Ariana Grande song, the Shola Ama song, the Snoop Dogg song and the Tone Damli song combined). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support If WP:PDABPRIMARY is going to apply, this would be an obvious choice for it. The next most popular song has tremendously fewer views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The John Lennon song is by far the best known song titled "Imagine". J I P  &#124; Talk 07:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Hotcop2 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose a ~11:1 pageview ratio is generally nowhere near enough for a PDAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that was combined. If you look at the view statistics, it's very one sided, though I don't know the exact ratio. Bandit Heeler (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest Crouch knew that was a combined ratio. PDABs are rare, and more typically with much higher ratios unless there are other confounding factors that make a choice of title especially difficult. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first criterion is: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."  There are many people searching for the Ariana Grande song or other songs.  Since there are so many significant songs with this name, even though the John Lennon song is continues to be the most popular of them, if a reader just searches for "Imagine song", I think it is most helpful for them to be able to see the list of such songs right away. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't imagine how anyone can say with a straight face that "Article X (Y song)" is not a primary topic for the term "Article X (song)" when the page views are so one-sided. If you don't like the idea of primary topics, just admit it. Jessintime (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many people, myself included, who fundamentally don't like the idea of partial disambiguation. I'm happy to admit that. And hence oppose, although this will clearly pass. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per long-term historical significance (the view numbers are not as important as long-term significance, but this one has both in runaways. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous.  Proposed target is still ambiguous as multiple other songs are called "Imagine".  WP:PDABPRIMARY is not a guideline, merely an information page pointing out that the issue is controversial.  However, the information on that page states that it was concluded in June 2016 that PDABs should sometimes be used for song and album articles when there are no other standalone articles sharing the same song or album name.  However that is not the case here.  Please also note previous move discussion that cites WP:DABSONG. -- wooden  superman  10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This is a well-known song, but there are at least 4 articles about other songs with this name and about another 10 songs described in other articles, and the pageview ratio of 11:1 (combined) is lower than for most PDABs. Including the name of the songwriter in the title of an article about their song does not seem like a great imposition. In fact, it seems helpful to the reader. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom. We have a similar case with Yesterday (song) (despite there are 23 other songs titled "Yesterday"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I agree that this is the primary topic per long-term historical significance and page views. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. An 11:1 pageview ratio is on the low end for PDABs, but it's still a sign of this topic clearly exceeding the pageviews of other songs by its name, and the Lennon song also has a clear lead in long-term significance. I believe a PDAB is justified in this case. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)