This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Perhaps, but the 24th Grammy Awards "recognized the accomplishments of musicians during the year 1981", so the year is debatable. More discussion needed. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how this is debatable. Yes the grammys recognizes the accomplishments of musicians during the previous year; and that's why award show is held in February the following year and awarded in that year. Christopher Cross won Album of the Year in 1981.[2] You can't have 2 winners here.--2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.grammy.com is not listed as a WP:RS. As the Grammy source says "awarded to John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s Double Fantasy album. “I really don’t know what to say,” said Ono" [3] Reliable sources; The Washington Post [4] The New York Times [5] confirm they won the 1982 Grammy Award; not 1981. There was already a winner for 1981, which is already on the Grammy Award for Album of the Year article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_for_Album_of_the_Year#1980s --TheMaster077 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons by the way the grammy source was unreliable is they said in the source [6] "A new wind was blowing in the music industry: MTV launched the previous year (Aug. 1, 1981)" and they listed this the 1981 Grammys? It's a simple mistake. That's why we use reliable sources instead. --TheMaster077 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Cross won the 1980 best album grammy AWARDED IN 1981. If that bothers you, change his article. The above cite states Quincy, Lionel and John won the award in 1982, which they did. ALL FOR 1981 RELEASES, except Double Fantasy which came out too late for 1980. It won the following year 1981. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He won it 1981 and was awarded that year. That's how the Grammy Award of the year works. They honour his achievements of the previous year or two, but he wins it the following year or two and is awarded. I can't change his article as that's not what the reliable sources state. --TheMaster077 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The album Cross one for was released December 1979, too late for the 1979 award, which aired in February 1980. Cross was nominated for and won the 1980 grammy which aired in February 1981. That's how it works. It was released too late for 1980 inclusion, so it was nominated and won the 1981 Grammy which in February 1982. Lennon's 1980 album wasn't to skip a year to win for 1982. This is like really simple. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out what the confusion is here. When the press refers to the "1979 Grammy Winners" they're referring to the award ceremony, not to the award. "Last night Liza showed up the 1976 Grammies" refers to the tv broadcast, not the awards. The awards are for releases January thru Oct (and any November and December releases from the previous year). Double Fantasy was released in November, past the cut-off for 1980 awards. They won the 1981 award which aired February 1982. Again, it's 1982 Grammys but the awards are for the previous year and Nov Dec leftovers. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the process of voting now for the February 2024 awards, which are for albums, singles, productions released Jan - Oct 2023. So the next award show is for albums released 2023 win for that year, despite the 2024 show. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 24th Annual Grammy Awards were held on February 24, 1982, at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles. The event recognized the accomplishments of musicians during the past year to year and a half. Double Fantasy won Grammy Award for Album of the Year that year. Album of the Year is just a title, but they won the award in 1982.[7] Unless you can show me a reliable source that states otherwise, this should not be changed. --TheMaster077 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
. since there would be 10 more months of 1982, I doubt they'd decide so soon.
Further reading; Recording stars Quincy Jones, Lionel Richie and John Lennon received the most nominations today (Jan 13, 1982) [8] There is no way in your words "They won the 1981 award which aired February 1982" when they only began nominating in January 1982. They won the 1982 award for Grammy Album of the Year. Prove me wrong with a reliable source otherwise lets end this. --TheMaster077 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: since the year is in dispute, can the statements be amended to instead mention the award was given at the 24th Grammy Awards instead? Echoedmyron (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly with this headache i am fine with that. TheMaster077 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
it's definitely better than the current one! Artem.G (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"There is no evidence of him ever having struck a woman again."
Hello. Great article.
I was perplexed by this uncited addition to the section about Cynthia Lennon found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon#Cynthia_Lennon. Simply put, how does one verify that there is "no evidence"? The sentence also comes off as editorialized, or idealistic fan cruft to punctuate the preceding sentence about "Getting Better" being a song about overcoming Lennon's tendency for domestic violence. I suggest omitting this sentence altogether and leaving this paragraph to the facts as described by the sentences with citations. Kebw (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one would trawl through newspaper reports and court records to ensure that he had not subsequently been the subject of domestic violence accusations. And that would be WP:OR. But yes, "no evidence of him ever having struck a woman again" is not evidence that he definitely did not ever strike a woman again. So it's WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.jpg)
.jpg)
