Talk:Murder of John Lennon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misleading

This article mostly refers to musical tributes to Lennon and says nothing about his sad death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.174.243 (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It has since been improved considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.5.40 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Response

I really think the REPONSE section should have some information on how the news was delivered/reacted to in the UK, especially considering he was a British National and that, whilst he had lived in New York for many years, he was still a very, very important part of recent British history. I don't know much about how the news was dealt with, only what I've been told by people I know who were around at the time but I certainly think this article should be edited to include UK reaction, not just US. Thank you 77.97.192.18 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was living in England at the time, and the reaction to his death there was overwhelming. People were talking of nothing but his murder, buskers played his music everywhere, the media talked about him nonstop, with special television programmes showing film footage of the Beatles and Lennon as a solo artist. The radio stations asked for a moment of silence on 14 December. Yes, the article does need to mention the response in the UK, as well as Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GAR

This article could be a GA, but I know it's not something anyone will look forward to reviewing.--andreasegde (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated it.--andreasegde (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was considering reviewing this last night but with so much else to do and considering the nature of the topic i wasnt up to it. I dont mind chiping in to get it up to GA though. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article's title

I'm thinking that the article's title should be John Lennon's death rather than what it is now, so that it makes more sense. I think that's how most of the 'death' articles are titled, and I think that it conveys the subject matter of the article better. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be "Death of John Lennon". I'll bring it up when I review the article. Al Tally (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal disambiguation rules make it as it is. As in, The Beatles, and The Beatles (album).--andreasegde (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not with death articles. E.g. Death of Mozart, Death of Kurt Cobain, Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Death of Edgar Allan Poe etc. Al Tally (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will change it, and thanks for pointing that out. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The title should be Murder of John Lennon - that is the usual form for an article about a death that was definitely murder. Jim Michael (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the Assassination of John Lennon? As far as I can tell, assassination refers to the murder of any famous person. Salvaria (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree: I think it should be Assassination of John Lennon. See the following titles as an example.

• Death of John Lennon
• Assassination of John F. Kennedy
• Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
• Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
• Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

Do we have anything about this in our manual of style? – b_jonas 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Article is on hold. Some comments to start with. This could very well become a good article, however, there are some things that need fixing:

• "...along with his widely-known protests..." I didn't know about it, there's no reference proving this. Kind of a peacock term imo.
  •  Done I put something a little more anti-ASPCA :)
• "...among other political activities..." Such as? An example would be nice.
  •  Done removed along with first comment
• Is The Dakota known as "The Dakota building" or "The Dakota"? The article suggests "building" isn't part of the name.
  • It's known as "The Dakota", but I'm assuming he says "building" not as part of the name, but as a way for the reader to figure out it's a building. It's like saying "The White House building". Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• IMDB is not a reliable source for the Paul Goresh ref.
  •  Done
• "The Lennons spent several hours at the Record Plant studio before returning to the Dakota at about 10:50 p.m." and "They exited their limousine on 72nd Street, even though the car could have been driven into the more secure courtyard" look like they've been copied from here... additionally, that website looks like it uses various sources for its content – it may be better to cite them instead of the website.
  •  Done I got the New York Times article.
• This looks like a blog post, and not really a reliable source.
  •  Done
• Geocities sites tend to be no good either, unless they cite their sources. This doesn't appear to.
  •  Done New ref from "How Stuff Works": [1]
• Some of the prose from the article is copied in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the article, not copied from it.
  •  Done
• Ensure all references mention the publisher (consider using citation templates).
  •  Done
• Surely there's a more descriptive header name than "December 8, 1980"?
  •  Done Feel free to use a better one, "Day of the Assassination" isn't too great, but I think it'll do.
• I think there is too much detail on the photograph in the start of that section. This article is about the death, and it's not particularly important.
  •  Done? I think it's okay now. I took out the quote and the more in-depth things.
• Most of the first paragraph of the response section is unsourced.
  • Seems well sourced now
• This is not a reliable source.
  •  Done deleted source and sentence.
• This isn't either. It's a copy of an interview. Is the original available anywhere? It would be much better to cite that, than some random Tripod homepage.
  •  Done Here's my new ref: [2]
• I'm uncertain if this is a reliable source.
  •  Done "How stuff works" again
• "A crowd gathered outside the Dakota on the night of Lennon's death." You've mentioned it twice already, up to the memorials and tributes section.
  •  Done
• "Lennon continues to be mourned throughout the world and has been the subject of numerous memorials and tributes" Peacock wording again. Any other memorials/tributes we should know about?
  •  Done?? It says the Strawberry Fields thing, do you want more?
• "Shortly after his death, Ono donated $1 million for its maintenance" She did? The source says she did, but not when.
  • • They probably didn't think it was important when she did it (and telling them they're going to get it and then transferring the money securely would have taken some time) but they were happy to get it.
• I found a link here (it's the first result in the Google search). Apparently, I can't use that site b/c it's blacklisted. I don't know what that is, but I'm assuming it's something to do with spam, so I looked on the list, and suite 101 wasn't there! Although, there was a website containing the phrase "new-york". That's stupid, if my link got blocked because of that.
  • Which list did you look at? It might be on the Meta blacklist. It doesn't matter that much. I'll see if I can find something. Al Tally (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is not a reliable source, nor does it reference anything it is supposed to.
  •  Done
• The final paragraph has just two sources, which don't cover what has been said.
  •  Done

If you can fix these, let me know on my talk page, and I'll see if it can pass. Thanks, Al Tally (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An image of Lennon and Chapman would be good as well. Al Tally (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos are not required for a GAR.--andreasegde (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I said it would be "nice" :) Al Tally (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got the famous one, but it feels slightly sickening to put it on here. I was going to put it on Chapman's page, as it would be better there, no?--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It does look eerie, knowing that he is right beside his killer. Anyway, I think it would be okay to put it here, as the photo is mentioned in the article. But you can put it on the Chapman page if you want. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its quite horrible, i dont agree with it personally. Never mind. ;-( Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 36 is broken and I can't find what it's supposed to be. Can you fix it please?
  •  Done
• The lead needs work. Particularly the part about what the Chief Medical Examiner said, it's directly copied from the article. Try to summarise the whole article, and read WP:LEAD if you haven't already. Thanks, Al Tally (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done

I would be on the side of supporting GA as a reviewer myself. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though I may have some bias, having completed a lot of the things in the review. Still, it's your review, not mine. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's a pass! Well done for your hard work! Al Tally (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The part about Howard Cosell announcing Lennon's death doesn't make any sense. If he was killed on 8 December 1980, how was he interviewed on Monday Night Football on 9 December 1980 (which also happens to be a Tuesday)?? Cosell's wiki page states that the interview happened 9 December 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Cosell#Lennon.27s_death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.180.5 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That part has been changed. I'd like to ask, is it reasonable for a reader to assume that Cosell made the announcement during Monday Night Football, especially when nowhere does the article state that December 8, 1980 was a Monday? --anon. 68.161.201.118 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaction section

Why is this paragraph in here?

"Also, a year later Prince's song "Annie Christian", from his album Controversy, loosely based on his own personal issues and America's economy, and the Cold War suggests Annie Christian, a rude Soviet woman, murdered Lennon and tried to do the same with Ronald Reagan, but fails."

Not only is it poorly written, but it seems out of place. The section talks about how the news was broken, and the reactions of his fellow Beatles...and that's all fine. But why the mention of a song lyric by Prince penned over a year later? Surely there were countless songs written about the event or as a tribute and they're not listed here...nor should they be.

Remove? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Tim

It was obviously cobblers, and should have been shot (removed) on sight, as somebody has done. Well spotted.--andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Combat stance, "Mr. Lennon"

I have a WABC aircheck tape from that night (actually 5:25 the next morning). Gus Engelman is heard phoning in a report to anchor Dan Ingram, repeating what Police Chief Sullivan had just told him, including Chapman's full name, age, height, weight, street address, and his movements from the time he arrived in New York from Hawaii. Engelman says that "according to Chief Sullivan" Chapman called out "Mr. Lennon", and he repeats Sullivan's phrase "using a combat stance". Sullivan had just spoken with Chapman, and my guess is that he got Chapman to re-enact how he did it, since "combat stance" is a police expression. I have also located another aircheck I didn't know I had, in which you hear Chief Sullivan himself speaking all the above information. I will make that aircheck available on line. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have isolated a sound clip from a much longer aircheck in which Chief Sullivan is heard giving all of the above particulars, including the 'combat stance' remark. The call letters WNBC are given which identify the clip. (I believe the news anchor at that point was actually Don Imus). I have uploaded this to my website in hopes of being able to use it for reference. I'm going to make sure of procedure first. If streaming audio would be better, I can do that. Meanwhile, you can hear Chief Sullivan describing Chapman and speaking about 'Mr. Lennon' and 'combat stance', WNBC. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Updated 2009-12-01.

From The Grounded Walrus, a lengthy analysis of the murder: "Commentary: Within hours of the shooting, James Sullivan, Chief of Detectives, NYPD, told reporters that seconds before the shooting, Chapman called out Lennon’s name (“Mr. Lennon). This detail makes the news for the next twenty-four hours at least." .... "It's most likely that Chapman said nothing to Lennon, and simply shot at him. Yet it's curious where this datum might have come from in the first place. For reasons I will go into later, Chapman was never the best source on the murder, especially after 1988. And if he didn't mention saying anything to Lennon beforehand, it might have slipped his mind during the competency hearing as an unimportant detail. Then too, someone else might have said it. So there's a slight chance that this could be true to some degree. If Chapman said nothing to Lennon, then the lack of conversation becomes meaningless. But if Lennon actually heard his name (especially if Mark never said it), and turned around, then that could actually go a long way in proving Chapman's innocence--for reasons I will also go into later." --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alleged FBI CIA involvement in the killing

There is a lot of allegations against CIA, FBI for the killing, even controversial, isn't it better to mention this in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So far those are speculations. Often in a Wikipedia article it is considered better not to mention speculations unless there is sufficient evidence and research behind them like has been done by the people looking for Amelia Earhart. This research is in progress but it will be a long time before anything can be said for certain. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The widespread theories should somehow be mentioned.

From Publishers Weekly
Bresler, a British lawyer, believes tht Mark Chapman, assassin of John Lennon, was no "lone nut" but was programmed by the CIA, through drugs and hypnosis, to carry out the murder. The N.Y.C. police lieutenant who interrogated Chapman the night of the slaying in 1980 is quoted here as saying: "He looked as if he could have been programmed." Bresler builds an entirely circumstantial case without a shred of hard evidence, but he does raise some interesting questions. Why, for instance, did Chapman, in 1975 a 19-year-old, religious, anti-Communist Southerner, select Russia as his preferred destination in a YMCA exchange program, and end up instead in Beirut? Bresler posits that Chapman was recruited by the CIA as a killer and kept "on hold" until the agency found a target: Lennon, portrayed here as a magnet for leftist causes. He argues that Chapman spent three "missing days" in Chicago before arriving in New York to shoot the rock star. As Bresler ( The Mystery of Georges Simenon ) reports, Lennon was kept under surveillance by both the FBI and CIA, but that in itself proves nothing. Author tour. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Serious allegations exist, by British lawyer and writer Fenton Bresler in Who Killed John Lennon, St. Martin's Press (November 1990) Kasaalan (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fenton Bresler provides no proof at all of any 'C.I.A. or F.B.I.' involvement in Lennon's death. He simply discusses Mind Control history and speculates that Mark could have been such a stooge, again without presenting any proof that he was. Johnwrd (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If these ideas are presented in the article, it should be very brief and make sure that so far this is pure speculation and there is as yet no known hard evidence. Bresler and others who are doing serious research, if any, should be referenced. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I will add this to the external links. This writer is trying to cover all the speculations and allegations (Bresler's included) without taking a hard and fast stance on any of them. I'm a bit annoyed by the amateur (or professional?) shrink droning on about Chapman's supposed "Asperger syndrome," but be that as it may. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) the man was arrested and still is facing critical prisons but is therea full reason fr lennons death xxx

New "aftermath" section

Added principally because I noticed the article said nothing about what the New York justice system did with the killer. Vidor (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You did a great job on this, Vidor. In the days following the murder, four fans committed suicide, prompting Ono to release a statement to "stop the suicides" but I can't find anything on line. I only have the newspaper it appeared in. This is the only thing missing from "aftermath." Hotcop2 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But if you have the newspaper, you can cite it. It doesn't have to be an online citation. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Response section

Anyone know what's up with the choppy prose in this section? Four shots not cited, news outlet sentences stand-alone paragraphs and such? Shall I just sofixit? --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Majorly talk 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"dead on arrival"?

Can someone explain how the medical community defines "dead on arrival"? The text here says doctors worked on John for 20 minutes, yet it also says he was pronounced "dead on arrival"? Obviously doctors wouldn't pronounce someone dead on their literal arrival at the hospital, so what's the criteria? Elsquared (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Dead on Arrival page says that it means the person is clinically dead when they arrive, and the clinical death page says that that means "cessation of blood circulation and breathing". I haven't done any research as to John's condition when he arrived to the hospital, but to me, it makes sense that the doctors would try to work on him if he was DOA. Salvaria (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Political murder conspiracy

edited version

See also: John Lennon § Political activism

Because of the Nixon administration, Hoover's FBI and CIA's heavy surveillance and deportation efforts against Lennon's left-wing revolutionary political activitism during 1970s-1980s, there are theories that the assassination after he "plans to become politically active again" with a new album, might have political motivation by Fenton Bresler (Who Killed John Lennon?), Alex Constantine (The Covert War Against Rock), Jesse Ventura and others.

allegations and conspiracy theories over CIA involvement

1 Jesse Ventura, ex-governor, ex-NAVY SEAL, ex-UDT member, author of American Conspiracies, radio-TV show host: The Young Turks: Jesse Ventura TYT Interview (Video and Transcript)

Ventura: You know, the ones in the 60s all had a common denominator except the Kennedy murders. But if you look at Malcolm X, if you look at Martin Luther King, and if you look at John Lennon, all of them were under heavy CIA surveillance when they were killed. And I, being a former Navy SEAL, understand that before you do an op, you do plenty of surveillance and plenty of intel work to make sure it goes correctly. And the real only common denominator to the whole thing is the CIA.
Uygur: You think the CIA might've had Lennon killed?
Ventura: Well, there's a good possibility, because Mark David Chapman was very strange. If you read about how that killing took place, Lennon was under heavy CIA surveillance, Reagan had just won, and Lennon was making a huge comeback at the time and they thought that he could galvanize the left because he was very liberal. And Chapman, if you look at his background, it's nothing like what the media told us about. The media told us he was infatuated with The Beatles, infatuated with John Lennon, and that's why he killed him. That's not true at all. In fact, he could've cared less about The Beatles, his actual favorite musician was Todd Rundgren, and he hated guns. And yet, the night he killed Lennon, he dropped into a professional shooting position, put five rounds in Lennon that a drill instructor would be proud of, and then his most strange behavior was when he was done. He had three opportunities to escape. He could've either ran into Central Park, he could've got onto the subway a block away and disappeared, or he could've just disappeared in the Manhattan streets. Instead, he backed up into the shadows, dropped the gun, pulled out J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, and was reading it when the cops arrived.

2 Fenton Bresler: Who Killed John Lennon? St. Martin's Press, 1990, ISBN 0-312-92367-8

• "A number of conspiracy theories have been published, based on CIA and FBI surveillance of Lennon due to his left-wing activism, and on the actions of Mark Chapman in the murder and subsequent legal proceedings." in Chapman
• Since 1835, 15 men and 2 women have attacked "nationally prominent political leaders in sixteen separate incidents." Of those 17, only 3 have been ruled insane by law. Mark David Chapman was never found to be legally insane. "Lennon, the politically most active rock star of his generation... was shot dead outside his own home by a killer who was merely a tool, a human gun used and controlled by others to destroy a uniquely powerful radical figure who was likely to prove a rallying point for mass opposition to the policies soon to be implemented... by the new United States government headed by Ronald Reagan." Excerpts
• "In his book Who Killed John Lennon? attorney Fenton Bresler presents extensive research from over a ten-year period an argues that Chapman was programmed by the CIA or FBI. Bresler argues that Lennon's killer was one of a long line of trained assassins, and some of Chapman's history appears to concur with this theory. Chapman had spent the summer of 1975 in Beirut, Lebanon, as a youth trainer for the YMCA, and was certainly proficient at using a weapon, but this perhaps came from his training as a security guard in Hawaii." in Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 426-427

3 Alex Constantine, The Covert War Against Rock (Feral House, 2000)

• Case Closed: The CIA Murder of John Lennon

4 John Lennon — Life, Times And Assassination, by Phil Strongman from The Bluecoat Press, Phil Strongman and Alan Parker, John Lennon and the FBI Files, Sanctuary Publishing, Ltd. December 2003, ISBN 1860745229

• "In a new book, author Phil Strongman claims that Chapman was a stooge. Lennon’s real assassin was the CIA — at the behest of Right-wing fanatics in the American political establishment."Was John Lennon's murderer Mark Chapman a CIA hitman? Thirty years on, there's an extraordinary new theory by Tony Rennell, Daily Mail, 4th December 2010

5 Jon Wiener, professor of history at the University of California Irvine, The Nation contributing editor, a LA radio host, the plaintiff in a Freedom of Information lawsuit against FBI for its files on Lennon.

• Lennon was under surveillance of FBI, CIA and possibly MI5.

6 Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 426-427

• "The plethora of complex conspiracy theories surround the death of Lennon... The major conspiracy theory is that Chapman was a CIA-trained assassin. According to this theory, the musician and cultural hero was seen to be a threat to U.S. security due to his supposed radical views."

7 Radio journalist Mae Brussell, who broke the Watergate story 2 months before the Woodward-Bernstein expose, conspiracy theorist:

• "It was a conspiracy. Reagan had just won the election. They knew what kind of president he was going to be. There was only one man who could bring out a million people on demonstration in protest at his policies -- and that was Lennon."

So instead edit war try to explain exactly what is bothering you. Kasaalan (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to understand... you list all these people who (may) believe in a single, unproven conspiracy theory. You think that by adding names like Ventura, it lends credence, but it doesn't. So no matter how you slice this, it boils down to someone may or may not believe that a man like Lennon could've been killed "for no good reason" (or they want to sell books and/or get television ratings) and you have a few other folks echoing the same unproven sentiment. I added the mention of conspiracy theory for the sake of "completeness" of an already "good article" -- none of the sources offer proof of anything and, in fact, state things that are either well known (the FBI stuff) or that are not correct (namely Lennon was going back to political activism; in fact, he not only complimented Reagan shortly after his election, but renounced his political activeness as a bit phony and hypocritical.) I agree it warrants a mention, not a subsection. And, regarding all the research you've done, judging from your other edits, conspiracy seems to be your "thing", and there's nothing wrong with that, but elevating it's importance here with a subsection is exactly the kind of television you like to watch and books you like to read. The only "fact" that some people can't rap their heads around is some asshole murdering someone like Lennon and, because of their mistrust of government, alledge this based on grasping for straws and connecting imaginery dots. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually no conspiracy is not my thing, and I only rarely read conspiracy theories, I don't even have these books. I like Lennon, but not a real fan or expert in Lennon's biography, I only focus on his political actions as a part of 20th century political history. My actual area of interest is politics, history, wars, human rights in academic fashion. WP:FRINGE even states it can have a article so a section shouldn't be WP:UNDUE (it is only 75 words anyway). I am a skeptic per academic research, I am not sure if murderer has a connection with CIA or not. But as Ventura says it is a good possibility, anyone has expertise in how intelligence agencies work can confirm that. Ventura is an ex-NAVY SEAL, ex-UDT demolition team member, ex-governor. The Young Turks (talk show) is a WP:NOTABLE show, Cenk Uygur is a notable host, Jesse Ventura is a notable person, comments I quote are reasonable conspiracy theory so I quote per WP. Same goes for lawyer Fenton Bresler's book, it is quoted in WP:RS. As RS mentions it I wrote the section, if you help me we can improve it. But don't tell me I am a conspiracy theorist or present theories as fact, but I support mentioning other claims each time as in NPOV way. For example the quote for his return to the political activism was by a RS, provide me another RS that tells otherwise and I include it. Kasaalan (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Debates

This theory doesn't require it's own section. I understand the need for people to think something so monumental as Lennon's death would need an equally monumental reason -- not just some schmuck - but this theory is not widely held and I left it in as a mention. It doesn't warrant anything more. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. freshacconci talktalk 14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, many of your cites are redundant, just feeding off Weiner's FBI files and Fenton's original conspiracy theory, so we'll pare it down to the source cites. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all your paragraph trim into 1 sentence was utterly awful and deserves no credit which only "saving" 2 lines as if wikipedia is short of space. Second "This theory doesn't require it's own section." and "Agreed." are not RS expert opinion but your own POV. If you feel less reference need for section, add them to further reading or similar sections. WP main rule is WP:VERIFY not WP:TRUTH, also any widespread RS mentioned/supported/debated can have a space in Wikipedia, not limited to your terms but the sources. RS:V: source over conspiracies Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 426-427 mentions lots of major/minor conspiracies, including Fenton. The main reasonable allegations, are related to CIA/FBI/Nixon surveillance and related ones. It is ridiculous to not even mention Nixon in Death of John Lennon, so what were you doing before me the whole year. The death of John Lennon article should delve more into the surveillance issues, or that alone requires its own article or sections. Like JFK conspiracy or Martin Luther King, Jr.#Allegations of conspiracy. All references are added for a reason, not sure if you read all of them thoroughly. You first trim sources, and text then claim it doesn't deserve its own section. References alone supports its own section. Try to be reasonable with adult manners. Giving a break not to edit-war, I will develop a bit then re-add RS section. WP:CENSOR should be avoided. Kasaalan (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The way it reads now is correct. This is in no way on the scale of the JFK conspiracy. Why is it rediculous not to mention Nixon? Why not mention Ono; I've heard more people think she was involved than the government. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lennon was seen as an enemy by government, he lived under heavy surveillance during his last 10 years. That was his living conditions before he dies. Why do you even ask. It is not the same scale, so I make a section not an article as Martin Luther King. You try to trim it into 1 sentence by your own standards. You may mention Ono too if you have time for contribution. Kasaalan (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He's still being followed. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that all of this falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Lennon's problems with the Nixon administration is covered in the main article. Anything more in this article is a conspiracy theory and does not belong per WP:UNDUE. Few of the sources listed above are reliable. When material is contentious and fringe, we need to be vigilant with the sources we use and what claims we make. freshacconci talktalk 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be true if I were trying to put the Conspiracy Theory as the sole truth. However I put it as a theory, allegation, claim by certain parties. And your trimming approach is mostly a WP:NOTCENSORED with false arguments. Read Giving Equal Validity Wikipedia:Preserve Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive and try not stop others from editing/collaborating. 3 sentences or a small section is not undue in an article you can easily tell it, if not read policies. For fringe there are lots of explanations, but even "A fringe theory can be considered WP:NOTABLE enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." is enough for you. Don't throw policies around unless you use them NPOV. Instead criticizing in general terms, list the number of the references you find unreliable, so we can have a specific discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you please remember to assume good faith? You can argue your point without a list of accusations. freshacconci talktalk 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And please stop throwing the word "censored" around. It does not apply here. Censorship is a serious charge and really does not belong in an editing discussion on such a minor issue. freshacconci talktalk 16:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One last thing: what major source discusses this issue? I'm not talking about Lennon's troubles with Nixon, nor am I talking about a major source writing about the possible political murder of Lennon other than a brief mention in a list of crackpot theories. So far I'm missing it. Pointing out important important guidelines (and only two of them) is hardly "throwing around policies". freshacconci talktalk 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it warrants a mention, which it now has. It doesn't warrant it's own section nor do we need to include every one (of the handful) of people who believe it (or want to sell books or get television ratings). Hotcop2 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't claim Hotcop is Goebbels or anything, however parking in a page whole year and completely reverting others' editing/research with no good alternative, which results omitting of a RS quoted widespread claim/idea is a clear censorship and against wiki policies, all editors/admins/anyone should clearly understand that. Even conspiracy theories are mentioned widely in Wikipedia, while they quoted by RS or enough widespread, I don't even like to list all other list every wiki article/section/policy about it. But for similar madman assassinations: Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and all others. Hotcop's claims about it doesn't deserve a section are baseless, if enough reference supports it deserves a section. Read related policies I posted clearly.
• Second "anyone's crackpot theories" you refer belong to book authors. Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 426-427 for example clearly references Fenton Bresler's book/theory by name which is a leading and widespread theory. Jesse Ventura not only ex-governor, but talked as an ex-marine. His expert opinion on surveillance-murder possibility based on his own experience as a marine. Read Young Turks video/transcript interview I provided. Did you checked all references before calling them non-RS. I specifically asked you which references you find non-RS (11 for example is not a widely mentioned reference) so we can have a talk, put some time and tell me otherwise even your questions are groundless. For example I have my doubts over Salvador Astucia's book too. But all people can read and judge his theories by themselves. WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH, also WP:RS only matters when users tries to imply theories as facts, which is not the case. Anyone can't undo like he WP:OWNs the page. Kasaalan (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I went through the sources. The only ones that mention anything about a conspiracy to kill Lennon are a personal website and a self-published book. The other sources -- the reliable sources -- only talk about his problems with Nixon and the FBI. To tie the former with the latter is very much WP:SYNTH. There is not one reliable source that talks about a conspiracy to kill Lennon. And I have to repeat: please do not use the word "censor" here. Censorship is when a government suppresses or bans words or ideas. In the context of Wikipedia WP:CENSOR refers to removing words or pictures for no other reason than to avoid offending people. Removing poorly sourced information from Wikipedia is not censorship. freshacconci talktalk 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If you partly take policies you can't fully understand WP:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored "some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." I don't care if he is offended by conspiracy, or other theories about FBI connection. WP:VERIFY and WP:RS is enough to quote such allegation. Wikipedia:Preserve#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required Wikipedia:Preserve#Try to fix problems (Hotcop constantly removes RS references content like he WP:OWNs the page with no proper WP:CONSENSUS attitude even claiming space as a reason for deletion)
    • Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pages 426-427 clearly mentions CIA as a major conspiracy along with Fester's Book and his theory. Do you claim the Conspiracy theories in American history by ABC-CLIO is non-WP:RS about conspiracies. You can't claim that, so I assume you may somehow missed reading the references. As I tell reference 11 (Salvador Astucia) is not widely referenced, it may be self-published or even non-RS (even for a conspiracy I didn't fully check his theories/book). Yet no other source than Astucia is self-published. Fester published by St. Martin's Press. Aside him ex-governor/ex-marine Jesse Ventura's book is not self-published either, he is also expert for politics/espionage issues and clearly implies there might be a connection. (of course it is a claim) Jon Wiener is a reliable history professor. Rest are already RS known authors wrote on mainstream RS Newspapers. So again asking both of you which references are RS which are non-RS tell me as numbers so we can have a constructive debated.
    • The info/references removed is not only limited to conspiracy content which is limited to 3 conspiracy book authors with 4 references. He removes all RS links about rest of the case too. You cannot support such nonconstructive editing style. Kasaalan (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • If you're not willing to have a discussion without insulting other editors, I really cannot help you. You clearly miss my point about censorship: an editing dispute is not censorship. You also seem to miss my point about WP:SYNTH. As I mentioned earlier, the only real source dealing with this is a book on conspiracy theories. WP:FRINGE is a guideline specifically because of issues like this. A book on conspiracy theories lists conspiracy theories, it is not about John Lennon. It mentions him in passing. Jessie Ventura is not an expert in this area nor is he known for his knowledge of the FBI, CIA or John Lennon. In other words, who cares what he thinks about this. It's not a good source. So, some guy has a theory on Lennon's death. It's mentioned in passing in a couple of sources. This is at most worth one sentence and not a whole paragraph, specifically because of WP:UNDUE. Two editors feel a paragraph is too much (I personally don't even think it's worth mentioning). You accuse Hotcop2 of WP:OWN and censorship. Just because another editor disagrees with you does not mean they are claiming ownership of the page nor are they censoring you. It's a disagreement. If you don't like it, I suggest you go to WP:RFC and get some other editors to join in the discussion. freshacconci talktalk 23:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree Fresh. Even one sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. But for the sake of completeness, I guess.... Hotcop2 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I do not insult others, I criticize their editing style. A disagreement is one thing, not respecting others' edit by constant reverting is another. He leaves me no space for contribution even with RS, then you accuse me.
          • Leaving 3 authors aside which we argue, rest (8 links) are fully WP:RS by definition. There is no WP:SYNTH, I state there are arguments/claim about CIA connection which is a fact. Leaving direct quote from aside (Q: You think the CIA might've had Lennon killed? Jesse Ventura: Well, there's a good possibility), RS link states that you cannot revert RS unless you claim it is non-RS. WP:FRINGE policy clearly states: "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." So Wikipolicies clearly state it even deserves an article, so a paragraph/section for a lengthy article has no WP:UNDUE concern. 3 wrong arguments in a row. Kasaalan (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • By the way you are no expert on FBI, CIA or John Lennon, but he is expert on killing/assassination/surveillance expert as a former Navy SEAL and Underwater Demolition Team member, government/politics and possibly about intelligence as ex-governor of Minessota. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • How about this spin around the rumor mill: there have been allegations of Lennon's homosexuality with Brian Epstein. Don't you think "Allegations of Homosexuality" would be a strecth for a section? Or, Lennon may have thrown a brick thru McCartney's window, "Allegations of Vandalism & Trespassing" Or Lennon may have kicked Stu Sutcliffe in the head, resulting in his death, "Allegations of Murder." You must it's a bit much. Regarding the scholar Ventura, "Lennon was followed by the FBI..." yes, in 1971-3. We know this. That's a fact. We know Chapman had a hit list of other celebrities to kill to get (in)famous. He crouched in a combat stance (which lots of folks do, for better control of a gun). He didn't flee the scene because he wanted to be famous. Nothing is supporting a conspiracy. We're not here to advertise books, either. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              • His sexual preferences doesn't matter to me. If it is supported widely or by RS, wikipedia mentions it NPOV style with counter arguments and people decide for themselves. WP:V or WP:RS not WP:TRUTH "Allegations of Vandalism & Trespassing" might be mentioned or ignored depending on the references. If any fan/hater gets offended/cheered by such allegations/facts it is their own issue. And no we know he was under surveillance since the late 1960s till the day he murdered. I provided 8 major RS about details of the FBI/CIA surveillance and politics behind it, which you try to delete. Your opinion against WP:RS documented counter-claims/conspiracies to the official story. But are you an ex-NAVY SEAL, CIA agent, expert/book author or governor, no. You cannot deleted others' theories if they are notable/widespread. Jesse Ventura: "I, being a former Navy SEAL, understand that before you do an op, you do plenty of surveillance and plenty of intel work to make sure it goes correctly. And the real only common denominator to the whole thing is the CIA. You think the CIA might've had Lennon killed? V: Well, there's a good possibility, (direct claim about CIA-murder connection) because Mark David Chapman was very strange. (fact) If you read about how that killing took place, Lennon was under heavy CIA surveillance, (fact) Reagan had just won, (fact) and Lennon was making a huge comeback at the time (fact) and they thought that he could galvanize the left because he was very liberal. (fact)" So a RS expert claim CIA connection is a good possibility, we mention it NPOV per source and people decide for themselves. We don't decide in favor of them by our POV. Murderer may claim he didn't run away to be famous that is the official story anyway. However if he was actually used by CIA wouldn't he say same things. Again read Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories which has their own space. I have no financial gain of my contributions to Wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Was John Lennon's murderer Mark Chapman a CIA hitman? Thirty years on, there's an extraordinary new theory by Tony Rennell, Daily Mail, 4th December 2010 enough RS mentions theory/conspiracy. Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm personally tired of dealing with you. You are not willing to act in good faith or assume it in others. Take it to WP:RFC.freshacconci talktalk 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • Actually you are exactly doing what you accuse me of. Jesse Ventura has expertise, ABC-CLIO book is RS, there is no synth in paragraph CIA is the major conspiracy theory, section based on RS and 3 non-self published conspiracy books with no UNDUE, it is a clear matter that requires no discussion. User asked me questions I answered assuming his good faith but lack of proper editing/discussion habits. Wikipedia does not care if it is a rumor or not, if it is notable and verifiable by RS. I am updating the case before RFC with more RS. Yet I don't need 2 editors' permission to edit any page just because they don't agree, I spend hours for research/reading already, what did you do in the meantime. Kasaalan (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Death of John Lennon#Political murder conspiracies is ready, I asked Lennon GA reviewer User talk:Realist2 for comment too. Kasaalan (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I see no reason why there should not be a 'Conspiracy' section. If it is referenced, it should be here. I read Bressler's book, and I was very intrigued.--andreasegde (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article

It should be looked at and cleaned, as it is not the same article that passed the GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lennon/Ono photo

This is an iconic and historic image of Lennon/Ono taken just weeks before his murder. Photos from this series appeared in the New York Times, the cover of People Magazine and elsewhere. The NYT even published an account chronicling that Lennon/Ono loved these photos. Wiki just acquired the rights to use it, and has no other photos of them together like this, so hopefully no one will want to remove it without understanding it's historical importance. X4n6 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not historicially important. Lennon took several photos on the day he was killed, which are far more important. It is irrelevant to this article and adds nothing. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Where the photo was published makes it historically important. When the photo was taken also makes it historically important. The subjects of the photo also make it historically important. None of that is subject to opinion. Yours or anyone else's. Nor can you defend any argument that says a famous photo taken of John Lennon & Yoko Ono together just weeks before his murder is irrelevant in an article about the Death of John Lennon while with Yoko Ono. You certainly haven't made your case yet. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos of Lennon and Ono were taken the day of his murder, one of which is included in the article. It's talked about in the article and put in a section of the earlier events of the day of Lennon's death. You tried to fit it into the Monday Night Football section; Howard Cosell's photo would make more sense, and that would be silly. Then you put it in "Aftermath" which makes no sense. The photo works in the other articles you put it in; it doesn't work in here. Hopefully, someone else will chime in.... Hotcop2 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I don't object to the photo taken the day of the murder. It's in the article and it should be. More to the point: it's an iconic photo so it needs to be there. But so does this one - and for that same reason. No one is pitting the two photos against each other. To the contrary, we need both. And I'll tell you why: You have, by your own admission, only ONE photo of them together in this article. The Annie Leibovitz photo at the top of the article. Any place else? No. So it's just good editing to use one photo of them together at the top and another toward the end - if we have one - which is why I put it in Aftermath. I could just as easily rename the section Legacy - then it would really fit. I would say the same thing regardless of the photo, if there was another available image of the two of them that accomplished the same objection. But we don't have another image of them together - and that's the point. X4n6 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an iconic photo, it's one of hundreds taken by many photographers to promote Double Fantasy. You put it in the Lennon, Ono and Dakota articles, where it fits perfectly. It makes no sense in this one. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It was taken to accompany an article in the New York Times, but to suggest that it's like any other by any other photographer couldn't be more wrong. Jack Mitchell was a famed photographer who took the assignment for the NYT. Iconic images are what he is known for. Also one of the Mitchell photos from that shoot became the record breaking cover of People Magazine. Just like the Leibovitz photo is iconic not just because of the subjects, but because it was taken by Leibovitz. But again, you keep talking about other photos. Where are they? Who are those other photographers? Why aren't they in this article? Do we even have rights to them? And if we do, again, where are they? X4n6 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a great photo, but it really does need to be in John and Yoko's articles, where it would be very, very welcome. This article is about his death, so photo space is limited (it's not that big an article, after all). Go on, X4n6, be nice and put it in. BTW, you shouldn't even be arguing on this page. It's about the man's death.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First, who's arguing? We're giving peace a chance! Second, I've already placed the photo in the other articles you suggested. Thanks for the support. Finally, are you voting against using it here or suggesting we do? Just asking for clarity. My vote? Let it be. X4n6 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's better for it not to be here. Think of this article as being like an autopsy, as horrible as that is.--andreasegde (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ew. I'd rather not. Nor would I like to see those photos posted here either. But I'll accept your view, as it seems that at least a 2:1 consensus now exists, such as that is, against using the photo here. Done. X4n6 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This photo is appropriate not just for the reasons given here but because it was used on the cover of Rolling Stone for January 22, 1981, which was entirely devoted to John's life and death. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On film section

As I explained in the edit summary, both films have had low budgets and received mixed to negative reviews from critics [3] [4]. Chapter 27 currently has a rating of 50% on Rotten Tomatoes for their "Cream of the Crop", better that the other film. And the source used for The Killing of John Lennon is from IMDb, which is not reliable, so stop adding false content.--Earthh (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that important. I did notice that you personally prefer Chapter 27, so much so that you uploaded a photo from it. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. As I said, I uploaded a photo to illustrate the weight gained by Leto for his role.--Earthh (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It now reads:

Two films depicting the murder of Lennon were released in close proximity of each other more than 25 years after the event. The first of the two, The Killing of John Lennon, was released on 7 December 2007, directed by Andrew Piddington. The second film was Chapter 27, released on 28 March 2008, directed by J. P. Schaefer. Of the two films, The Killing of John Lennon was better received than Chapter 27, as the latter was criticized by the press.[67][68]

That's as good as it gets, as this article is not about the films. In the future, do NOT remove references, Earthh.--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained here, both films received mixed to negative reviews (see rotten tomatoes). IMDb is not a reliable source so, in this good article, it can't be used.--Earthh (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As it is now, there are NO references about this section. If you do not put references in, the whole section will be deleted. Get to work.--andreasegde (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As usual, one has to do it oneself.--andreasegde (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)