Talk:John Lennon

Lead image
Jumping here before further edit warring on the lead image. The 1969 image has been in place for a while, and User:Eggbrother has been trying to change it to this image from 1964. There's not a great difference in quality between them, as both are crops. The 1964 image has some merits - it's in color, and arguably more iconic as it's from such a famous tv appearance. Still, I weakly support retaining the 1969 photo. One, I think being black and white hides/"excuses" (probably not the right word) some of the quality issue. And, while only having the look for a short time (and being still in the band while having it), I think it speaks more to Lennon as a person apart from his time in the Beatles - all my opinion. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * in my opinion, i think the image underneath should replace the image of Lennon in Formation, fame and touring: 1956–1966. Notrimoes (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, while there are certainly different options at Commons, I don't see anything better than either of these personally. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * John Lennon, 1974.jpg I think this 1974 image of Lennon (perhaps with some retouching to remove specks and scratches) would make a good candidate for lead image. It doesn't have the same "deer in the headlights" lighting quality or glazed expression, as pointed out by Echoedmyron and ili, that the current image does, contains greater detail, and isn't a crop from a photo with other people. Miklogfeather (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it's definitely better than the current one! Artem.G (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current image is better in that he's looking fowards and has a straight and neutral pose, but I don't feel too strongly opposed to the 74 image. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the 74 image is an improvement certainly, and it's one I've never seen before. Echoedmyron (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The '74 image is higher quality (2k by 3k vs. 612 by 883) and encapsulates Lennon's public image very nicely. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The new photo is kind of unsettling. Nothing against you personally it just kind of looks weird. HoolaHoopsSuck (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the previous black and white one was better, the current one is an odd expression TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should be the silly walk picture. Really shows who he is. -me, linton411, but xsigned out and i dont know how to do the thing the other guys are doing

Ashes Ashes we all fall
There are 20 new Beatle books a year....so there's gotta be something new in them to sell, right? The whereabouts of Lennon's ashes, despite being sourced from a recent book, remain officially undisclosed, according to Elliot Mintz in the even more recent Apple TV documentary Lennon: Murder Without a Trial and should be removed. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it true -- or even correct Hotcop2 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Currently the article very clearly says: "His remains were cremated at Ferncliff Cemetery in Hartsdale, New York. Ono scattered his ashes in New York's Central Park, where the Strawberry Fields memorial was later created." The source given is page 510 of Are you disputing this claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm disputing it. Julian knows nothing about it (personal research) and Elliot, who would know more than Bill Harry, just stated so as well. Yoko, who would make an event out of anything, keeps this private as well. I realize it's sourced, and the cremation part is correct (we didn't need a 2000 book to mention it for the 90th time) but there plenty sourced things that simply are either incorrect or simply not true. And while we're at it, this entire page has so much minutiae and unimportant excruciating detail that isn't "encyclopediac" or important. Nobody's wiki article talks about great uncles, cousins or every little town someone's been too, etc. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have any alternative published source(s), as reliable as the Harry book, which contradict what he says, you are welcome to present them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The location of the ashes, if even mentioned in any other book, states unknown. The Harry book gave us the bombshell revelation. Elliot Mintz on camera says so in the 2023 Apple TV documentary Lennon: Murder Without A Trial I should think Elliot, who's not selling anything, would be a more reliable source than Bill Harry.Hotcop2 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're saying that all other books about Lennon, that mention his death, say that the location of his ashes is "unknown". How many are there, exactly? Are any of them already used as sources in this article? I'm sorry to say I know nothing about Elliot Mintz. But I see that, like Bill Harry, he's a notable individual. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first "book" mention of the scattering of ashes in NYC is Bill Harry's. Most others stop at the murder, few mention cremation. Fred Seaman confirmed that he was under the bed at the Dakota in 1981. Since, there have been years of speculation; the nicest rumor being his remains were buried with his mother in Liverpool.  It was always kept private and rightfully so. That's why I was surprised to see it up there and took it off two years ago, but it was reverted because there was no contradiction -- until November when Elliot Mintz, Yoko and John's friend made that statement in the documentary.  I'm certain that future Lennon books will repeat this assertion now that it's out, but the two most recent books-- by Philip Norman and James Patterson make no mention. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for explaining. You are obviously much closer to the sources than am I. I think you might be justified in adding something like "According to biographer Bill Harry..." to that claim and/or adding a footnote to say that no other book sources say anything. We don't need to add any rumours, however nice. But I'd strongly recommend getting input from other editors before making any decision. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Increasing innovation"
"as his songs became known for their increasing innovation."

This doesn't seem to make sense to me or at least seems unclear in its meaning. Can't think of any alternatives though, except for scrapping that part, as the first part of the sentence already says that Lennon began "incorporating experimental elements into his compositions". Any suggestions?

"for being increasingly innovative" would be another option. Another problem is that it sounds subjective. Should be "they were increasingly considered innovative" or something like that.

Dornwald (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Member of the Order of the British Empire
Lennon returned his MBE, but it was never legally rescinded. That can only be done via the Forfeiture Committee and the Monarch (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/having-honours-taken-away-forfeiture). Since it was never legally rescinded, Lennon’s full legal name would have been John Winston Ono Lennon MBE by the time he died. So why is the MBE not shown with the rest of his name at the beginning of the article? AzXpOmU (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)