Talk:Imagine (song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc comments

I just edited to remove "Madonna Version" section. A Madonna cover should not be so prominently featured in this article.--24.99.133.168 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Can anyone justify giving Madonna her own section for her cover of "Imagine"? This section should be deleted (or every other artist that covered the song needs to have their own section).

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.89.5 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the lesson Mr. Lennon's song taught me:

"Spirituality begins where religion ends."

Meditate on that one before replying.

---

--- I think we should delete the comments about how this song relates to communist that book Lennon in America has been debunked and Lennon's claims against property and religion, as well as his repeated use of "the people," have led some to posit the song as being advocative of communism and/or anarchism is just a theory and most people don't believe this. April 14, 2006

---

Where is the song length taken from? I'm not familiar with any six minute versions of imagine and the All Music Guide entry doesn't mention any over three minutes long. --StoneColdCrazy 08:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I too have never heard of a 6 minute version. I am changing the time to 3:04, which according to allmusic.com is the length of the song on his album. - Akamad 09:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

"Utopian but atheistic?" Please. This isn't even in the same country as NPOV. --LDC

---

There are no countries in Lennon's utopia. What are you talking about? :-)

--- Sorry, LDC but 80-something percent of human beings believe in some divine thingy. NPOV actually leans towards the "but" in this case.

---

Neutral point of view does not mean majority point of view. It means not expressing what are clearly biased opinions as if they were facts, even if they happen to be biased opinions shared by the majority. The present text pokes a bit of fun at Lennon's beliefs, but it is clear that those are expressed as opinions. Besides which, "utopian but atheistic" makes it sound like Lennon himself had some conflict, which is not just unbiased, but wrong. Lennon clearly thought the two were natural together. --LDC

---

I remember an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where a Jerry Falwell-type guy tries to get them to stop playing songs like Imagine...obviously that doesn't need to be mentioned here, but as I understand, that episode was based on a real situation. Was Imagine involved in that as well? Adam Bishop 22:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Socialism vs. communism

I'm sure that Lennon is imagining a utopian communist world.

In Lenin's Lennon's utopia, there are no countries, no possessions, no religions, and basically nothing worth fighting for. Sounds like the elimination of the human race. However, Lennon apparently envisioned people in his world of no class, status, or money. I think it's a communist world Lennon imagines, but the article says socialism. - Calmypal 02:50, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to anarchy, which is what he's describing. Sarge Baldy 17:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

i don't think he is describing anything..<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script> just a peaceful world whatever that entails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.7.175 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

Could this song be considered as propaganda? Rentastrawberry 17:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No. Quite simply, no. From your user page, I see that you are a fourteen-year-old neolibertarian. I assume that you've been listening to a lot of talk radio and reading a lot of blogs, and this idea came from some libertarian-conservative pundit. Whatever your opinion on the merits of the song Imagine, it is not "evil leftist propaganda" at all. You probably won't understand this completely until you're older. You are fourteen years old and you know very little about the world. I knew very little about the world when I was fourteen, too, and I still lacked perspective when I was eighteen. As far as I can tell, you fashion yourself as a neolibertarian, and as such you do not like communism or communists. Lennon's politics were of the far-left variety, and this song reflects some of his views. Thus, you view it as some sort of propaganda. Your thought process is understandable, but you are wrong. You are probably not educated enough to appreciate this, and you are definitely too young to understand. --dlainhart 01:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit harsh on Rentastrawberry here -- I disagree with the ageism, although I agre that you're right: it's not propaganda. The reason it's not 'propaganda' is that the common usage of the word propaganda does not include creative, artistic expression. A news broadcast, a newspaper, or a non-fiction book can all be propaganda. I would be hard pressed to find any examples of songs or poems that fit the modern definition of propaganda. Bugg42 09:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoping that my new entry will not be deleted "per NPA" another try: We can judge communism by what we saw in history. That comprises the fact that no communist country was ever able to maintain its power without locking people (democrats in the first place) away and without mock elections and such things. If the song "Imagine" tells us what a great world we would live in without possessions and religion, that is propaganda. Telling a 14-year-old that he is too young to judge on communism (simply because he rejects it) is not very far away from telling all citizens that they have to favor communism and therefore abolitioning other parties, elections and democracy itself. By the way: Sorry to re-open an old discussion. 84.57.5.243 12:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely agree. I'm 13, but I can understand communism. A communistic society would be a benefit to man's existence. Our world is great superficially, but look just below the surface, and you'll see immorality, conflict, and prejudice. People are just afraid to make sacrifices for the world's collective quality. Communism has not existed on a large scale, because things like the SU were not classless. There was a ruling class. And with one of those, it's not actually communism. Since there is no good example of such a utopia, it is not strange that we cannot understand.

I'm a little bit older than you (17) and I don't believe communism can actually work, I'm not looking at the Soviet Union or North Korea but the philosophy itself, it's too idealistic, I subscribe to Benito Mussolini's belief that conflict is a fundamental part of being human, Be it my country's various wars with France or everyday conflict such as an argument with a neighbour, There is never going to be a time when everyone is equal and there is no conflict, Human beings aren't even created equal, Some are more gifted intellectually others are better at sport and so on. Selfishness made the modern world, Not the everyday sort of selfishness such as stealing something but simply living for yourself, I wish to thank the man who first exploited someone or something else for his own gain because it led to all sorts of things we could not imagine our lives without. I believe the reason Communism doesn't work is not because man isn't good enough for it to work but because there's something fundamentally wrong with the theory-Ted Fox 18:04, 1 July 2008 (GMT)

I am a lot older than both of you and, as we are talking about John Lennon's article, I will beg you to honour his inspiration, which was purely idealistic. Keeping this in mind, "imagine" communism (or any other equalitarian society) as a north where John was trying to point us to walk towards. Perhaps Utopia (or communism) cannot work but they seem to me a far more desirable perspective than Musolini's fascism, inhuman by nature. That's a Maquiavelic thought more than any other thing and I believe it has no place on this debate about improving John Lennon's Wiki-Place. (Jose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.107.191.217 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Article Edit

This sentence: "Instead of trying to stop the conflict peacefully, the government is trying to stop the spread of the idea." seems most out of place.

1: It's in present tense while its paragraph references events in the past.

2: It's political commentary.

Barring any disagreement, I'd like to remove it. Lawyer2b 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree, it should definately be removed. I'll do it myself to save you time :) - Akamad 09:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Lennon sang "...and no religion too..." don't mean that the music has elements of atheism, because he can believe in god and be against religions.

I'd be tempted to agree, but religion doesn't specifically mean "organized religion", it can mean any system of faith-based belief. But in a way I still think you're right, since you can be spiritual in some sense that isn't quite religion because it only applies to yourself. I don't know if that describes John Lennon's beliefs or not though. Sarge Baldy 19:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Its best not to touch atheism and leave it as it is in the song, open to interpretation. I personally believe the song isn't so much about Lennon supporting anarcho-communism as he is just asking for peace, but that's my point of view. Being an open and free reference, Wikipedia should not force any one view upon the reader. --2ltben 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks depth

Discussing the politics of Imagine's lyrics is like discussing the construction of christ's cross. Factually correct, but completely beside the point.

The song's power comes from a combination of naivete and a genuinely sincere belief in the goodness of mankind.

When you get old an cynical, which isn't hard to do. You lose faith in the decency of the human species. Torture, exploitation, misery, death, greed ... every day, day after day it's paraded in front of our faces and after a while you lose hope.

When it gets really bad, and you start to wonder if it would be better if we were all wiped off the map, I can listen to John telling me to imagine a world of people, living life in peace. You can really FEEL that's he can see it in his soul, with every fibre of his being. And for a little while it rubs off on me and I see it too.

 THAT is the gift that this song has given mankind.

You can talk about ism's and all but this song is about FAITH. Not in some eternal reward after you die but in ourselves, as a species.

As such, I find the statements underlying the song as a rejection of spirituality to be unusually offensive.

Agnostic perhaps, but not atheistic.

ps: Many of the concerns highligted about this song are tragically american preocupations that AREN'T shared elewhere in the world. This is a shame, since this song belongs to all of us.

Well, there is a problem with theists all over the world, and USA isn't the most fundamentalist country... But yes, many of these "problems" is typically American (such as extreme distrust in everything commie before even thinking about what it means and problem with accepting agnosticism/atheism as truth) when we're only talking about the industrialized countries of the world. Hey, if us Europeans could do it, i know you can do it! Just give it another hundred years and hope the stupid people's murders won't destroy the state. Ran4 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation?

Can someone cite a mainstream source claiming that "Imagine" is promoting anarchist communism or has such overtones, or a citation for Lennon claiming that it does? I googled "john lennon" imagine communism and all I found was people debating the topic. It doesn't make sense regardless. Anarchist communism has possessions, contradicting "no possessions". Waiting 24 hours then reverting in absence of citation. MrVoluntarist 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that possessions themselves are very vaguely defined in anarchism or communism. Anarchist communism seeks to abolish property, but not personal belongings. Therefore, it could be quite a hassle to find proof regarding that single line of the song lyrics. But, at least it seems certain that Lennon sympathized with anarchists like John Sinclair (he and Ono organized a rally in his favor). Also, look for this opinion

The lyrics to John Lennon's "Imagine" (although bearing a 1971 copyright) reflect the communist anarchist's credo quite well. [1]

in a bookreview regarding anarchists in the 20th century. Maybe there's more, but I am sry to say that I'm too busy right now to find it on the net. --Johnnyw 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed uncited item that said Lennon said the song was about anarchic communism.

Sparkzilla 13:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

edit by 82.5.238.242

Can someone look in the addition by this anon? He has been introducing errors on purpose, and this may very well be one of them. However, I am loathe to undo it myself. --EMS | Talk 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this song based on buddhism?

Even if yoko ono made the song,was it based on buddhist things? And why does she blame the pacific world war 2 on religion when japan started it for non religion purposes.

huh? Explain yourself? What are you referencing? Theshibboleth 08:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cover "by" George W. Bush

I heard a cover of this on the radio in which someone took soundclips from Bush and arranged them in such a way as to make the lyrics of the song. I don't know who did it or when, but if anyone knows about it, they should mention it. It was really funny. The Ungovernable Force 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The artist is Wax Audio and the album title is Mediacracy. The version is called Imagine This. The song is available for free at [2]. It is hilarious and well constructed. Dankru 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The original remix (that gained popularity about 4 years ago) is by RX and the compiliation was called The Party Party. He's done a lot more in that style. 173.8.137.226 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard the song on CKOI-FM's website (ckoi.ca) last year and was it remixed by DJ Tom Compagnoni--74.56.237.202 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Would it be appropriate to include the song's lyrics in the article?

Afaik, song lyrics can be linked to, but not posted. Anyone who knows for sure? --Johnnyw 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed article edit

Regarding this part: "The utopian world gives way to self-doubt and insecurities lingering inside the former Beatle." In my opinion, this phrase lacks objectivity. Since when is wishing a better world "insecure"? 217.126.90.204 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Also, not very NPOV. Folkor 06:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Backmasking

Even the person who alleged that the phrase "Imagine all the people" played out as "The people war beside me" when played backwards admitted that it probably was not John Lennon's intent. Aside from that, this information does not seem very encyclopedic to me. Andrea Parton 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds just as much "walk" as "war", imo. I agree, leave it out.--2ltben 05:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Should the lyrics be shown here? Lord of Light 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody listen?

The vast popularity of this song in the U.S. makes me conclude that nobody actually listens to the lyrics.

The vast majority of Americans say they believe in heaven. Do they really think that things would be better if there was no heaven?

The vast majority of Americans think that the country is wonderful, and many want to keep foreigners out. Do they really think that things would be better if there was no country?

Most Americans seem to think that dying for one's country, or one's beliefs, is a good and noble thing. Do they really think that things would be better if there was nothing to die for?

The vast majority of Americans claim believe in religion, and many think it is more important than anything else in their life. Do they really think that things would be better if there was no religion?

And most Americans believe that a society's success can be measured by the standard of living of its citizens and by how much they possess, and they jealously guard what they individually own. Do they really thing things would be better if there were no possessions?

A pretty tune, a famous singer, and words that nobody listens to.

If nobody listens to the words, then I'm a nobody. Anybody else a nobody? LuciferMorgan 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. I've seen people who like the song even though it's saying stuff way opposed to their values. I once mentioned that to one such person and she said "well I don't care about the lyrics, it's just a nice melody" or they like the general desire peace and "living for today" if not the specific details of it. I find the lyrics despicable and nihilist, but I have to admit it's pleasant to listen to.--T. Anthony 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I listen to the words too. For the most part, I agree with them. Andrea Parton 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it's encyclopedic, but I listen, and disagree generally (liked the first verse the first time I heard it, the second verse I disliked even when I was a socialist. Never appreciated communitarianism) with the words. It's a great song though. Hey, I love "the Internationale" too, and several other communist songs, and I sing the two populist verses of "This Land," despite disagreeing with then. Communists (and populists) simply have the best songs. If it's not "Dixie" or a Nazi song, I don't care what the words say if the song's a good one. --71.192.117.127 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is not a forum. Discuss only things to improve the article. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Humanism and etc.

Lennon's claims against property and religion, as well as his repeated use of "the people," have led some to posit the song as being advocative of humanism, communism, and anarchism.

I'm going to delete these comments because who believes this and there is no source? John Lennon never said anything about anarchism, humanism, or communism. John Lennon in his own words said this song was only about Imagining no religion and country. So I'm going to delete that statement because it's not true. Septermber 20th 2006

He said stomething about Communism, see the next section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting The Killing Field

Again this song dosen't deal with Karl Marx or anything in that nature and anyone who say's that is lying. John Lennon in his own words said this song was only about Imagining no religion and no Countries.

That half-true, half-false. The song does not deal with killing fields and no-one in his right mind would attribute any wishes for Killing Fields or violence to John Lennon (at least when he was in his right mind). However, he sure was quite naive in a lot of things he wrote and sang (just listen to Some Time in New York). But the thing that bugs me is that the anon above simply claims that the song has nothing to do with Karl Marx, when Lennon drew the link himself (which I have therefore included). And one more thing: "Image no possessions" ... are you, anon, willing to give up all your belongings? Really? Really? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The song obviously doesn't deal with the Killing fields since Pol Pot wasn't in power then, but the ideas behind Imagine did directly lead to Cambodia's massacre's, Soviet Russia, Mao's China and many other Communist dictatorships. Personally I'm not Imagine's biggest fan (It has a nice tune I'll grant you that) because of the amount of slaughter and destruction caused by those ideals. Anyway, I don't think anyone of sound mind would want to live in a world like Imagine (not that it's possible in the first place) because I like owning my house, I like living in the greatest country in the world, I like freedom of religion (Although I'm pretty right wing in my politics I don't care which god, goddess or whole carnival of gods anyone believes in) I like having things to kill and die for (Family, Nation etc.) because if there was nothing to die for then there'd be nothing to live for either-Ted Fox 00:02, 7 July 2008 (GMT)

Citing sources and making references

This article is sadly lacking in references for many statements and claims. I have begun the process by making properly coded references out of the few existing links, and a References section where they end up. I have also added just three (of what should be dozens) {{cn}} tags (which create this: ). When the sources are provided and the references made, they can replace the tags. Many other statements need such references. -- Fyslee 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All the statements in the lead need to be in the body of the article. So those uncited statements would then be needed to be inline cited in the body, and not the lead. LuciferMorgan 13:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. The lead should contain short summaries of the major elements already in the article, so referencing in the lead shouldn't be necessary, although the WP:LEAD guidelines do mention it as allowable. If anything is in the lead that isn't discussed in more depth in the article, it should be moved into the body of the article and further developed. You are welcome to move those parts, or the citation requests, to the appropriate places in the body of the article.

As far as the revert of the Nutopia link (in less obtrusive ref format), it was only in connection with the website, not at the end of the sentence to document the question of "Why." If it had been there, it should also include documentation for the claim. References can be included for many reasons, not just as documentation for claims, but also for inline links. They are less obtrusive than normal links. I'll fix that sentence on both counts. -- Fyslee 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the second cite prove? I clicked on the link and it takes me to a whois search. Unless it takes one to a page where it states it was created by Lions Gate Entertainment, it should be removed. LuciferMorgan 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference contains the instructions. If you follow them, you'll find the proof. If you can figure out a way to make a direct link, be my guest. As the statement is now written, it is NPOV, since the previous claim is removed. People can decide for themselves if the creation of the website by the producer was for promotional purposes or not. We may think so, but that's OR.....;-) Actually stating it can be construed as a negative POV from the editors, which would only say something about the editors' political POV. (Promotion is normally considered perfectly legitimate.) -- Fyslee 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "no refrences tag is unfair. This article has 12 refrences. It should be removed 129.252.127.98 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Omission/alteration of "no religion too"

In the preface of his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that in the USA it is not uncommon for the line "no religion too" to be omitted or altered to "one religion too". Repugnant either way, IMNSHO. Anyhow, does anyone have citations of recordings or performances with such omissions/alterations? --Brouhaha 09:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Dawkins is delusional. I've never, ever, heard that change made in any performance or cover of the song. Tvoz | talk 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the line "one religion too" either. However, I heard one performance of the song by John Lennon himself in which the line "and no religion too" was changed to "and no immigration too". With as many cover versions as have been made of the song, one could expect some variations of the lyrics to exist. For example, Dolly Parton added the word "and" prior to the line "no hell below us". Such a minor lyrical change probably would not be encyclopedic; however, changes to a line that would probably be very controversial in any song might be worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article, but I do not know enough about how often the line "no religion too" has been changed or what it has been changed to most often in order to make such a decision. But everyone can feel free to add verifiable and notable facts to Wikipedia at any time. Andrea Parton 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree -I only added "allegedly", didn't remove the claim - although I do seriously question it. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard such a version (though I cannot say by whom). However, the previous inclusion of Dawkins was wrong in as much as Dawkins did not claim that any radio station censored it. He reported that someone else (American) said that sometimes the line is ommitted in performance and once changed (which he called an effrontery). Nonetheless, Tvoz is probably right in his observation above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know not of any time he said "and one religion too" but I have heard "and no immigration, too." Probably the most notable live change in lyrics that Lennon himself made was saying "A brotherhood, a sisterhood of man" which he did in multiple live performances, including Live in New York City and the last live performance of it on A Salute to Lew Grade. I always sing this variant, as, like Lennon, I find it good to be gender inclusive on such matters. andrewlargemanjones

I don't think Lennon would have allowed ANY corruption of his song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.244.117 (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume Dawkins was not talking about performances by Lennon, but rather performances by other individuals or bands, who thought that they would "improve" the song. --Brouhaha (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

thats how i interpreted it.123.208.7.175 (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No Heaven or Hell

If there is no heaven or hell, then what is the difference between being John Lennon and Mark David Chapman? Murder victim and murderer. Chapman will probably die of natural causes in prison just like James Earl Ray did. For the sake of murder victims and the rest of the us, I hope and pray there is a heaven and hell, with G-D choosing who goes to heaven and hell. Take away the hope of heaven and the threat of hell and a lot of people might choose to live a criminal life, because it could be more fun, at least in this world.204.80.61.10 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

What a stupid question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.16.249 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe in Heaven and Hell, but a difference between a killer and victim exist even if there is no afterlife. There is the moral difference that can be judged in this life, the impact positive/negative you had on others, and finally there is how you are remembered after you are dead. A purely atheistic or humanistic society could judge Lennon as better than Chapman based on his accomplishments and cultural achievements. Granted this could lead to the question "does that mean Phil Spector, the producer of this song, is better than Lana Clarkson?" as she didn't do as much of cultural significance. The answer is "I'm not sure, ask an atheist", but I think moral judgments can still be made regardless.--T. Anthony 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If people really believed that there was no heaven or hell, they'd be far less willing to go on jihads killing other people for promised rewards in heaven. That would be enough of an improvement in our earthly life to make up for any perceived lack of sufficient punishment for miscreants.

However, Wikipedia isn't really the right place to debate religious and moral issues. --Brouhaha 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you do so? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wasn't it a millionaire?"

I have deleted the following from the section "Criticism": "This criticism, however, ignores the fact that Lennon used much of his fortune to help underprivileged. [3]"

I imagine this deletion will upset somebody, so I thought I would explain my reasons here. I think this could be challenged on the basis of NPOV, but for now I will simply point out that it is in clear violation of NOR.

According to Wikipedia:No original research, an edit is inappropriate if "[i]t introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".

Although a link is provided, it does not appear to have anything whatsoever to do with the argument presented (other than the fact that it is partly about John Lennon).

Drake Dun 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And furthermore it is nonsensical. If someone says no possessions - he should not be a millionaire. "no possessions" doesn't mean a load of money and giving some of it to the poor. If he meant that he should have said so. Or he must take the criticism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can leave the criticism up if you want to, but Lennon himself commented on the inevitability of living without posessions in the current world. It was a criticism of society in general. Quite simply, you can't really live in America and not have possessions. But Lennon was criticizing this world, this country, and the materialism it produces. It's stupid to call someone a hypocrite because they have possessions and say that people shouldn't have possessions. He's caught up in the game, he can't magically snap his finger and change the game, but that doesn't mean he can't criticize the rules of the game. andrewlargemanjones

If that is a notable criticism of the song though it should be mentioned. Whether it's a valid criticism or not can be dealt with in some way without deleting it.--T. Anthony 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be deleted, I was just making the case. Someone could possibly mention Lennon's defense about criticisms such as this towards him, which I find unfair coming from other famous musicians, but I'm not saying to delete it or anything. I might look up and find a good citation later to comment on his defense of similar criticisms, of which I know the Playboy interview in 1980 would be a good one, if I remember correctly. Basically, I just thought I would voice some defense for the man, as it was a Utopian song and since we don't live in a Utopia, I don't see how he's expected to live without possessions and such.andrewlargemanjones

I think it could be done. He could've given everything away and moved into a commune or used his money to create a commune where no individual has possessions. (Obviously the possessions themselves would still exist, after a fashion, as they'd need still need food and shelter) Understand I'm not saying it was necessary for him to do that in order to reach his utopia. It could possibly be stated that, like many utopians, this was an ultimate aim to aspire to rather than a lifestyle you have to adhere to in current society. Still if he really wanted to live without personal possessions I think he could've managed it, at least in theory.--T. Anthony 04:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the only thing lennon has to have done to NOT be hypocritical is to have "IMAGINED" no possessions. to say he said "no possessions" as a command is to take his statements very much out of context (as costello did). lennon simply posits that the listener IMAGINE things like no possessions, religion, countries. he does NOT say you must not have possessions. in a literal sense, the song does not advocate that the things lennon imagines are even GOOD IDEAS, it simply asks that you IMAGINE them.

It is true that he could have, in theory, lived without possessions. However, I don't think Lennon felt that to live without possessions would matter much is a world that is so materialistic. At some point, I will stop being lazy and cite a defense quote from Lennon in the criticism section, which I feel will be an appropriate way to resolve the differences of opinion. andrewlargemanjones

Okay, I added a defense to the criticisms section, one that was not in defense of the song Imagine but directly related to the criticism. I don't know if I worded everything Wikipedia-ish/encyclopedic enough, but I think the content is important. andrewlargemanjones

Singles chronology

Lennon was British, and this was released on Apple Records, a British label. As such, I think if we're only having one chronology in the infobox it should be the British. (In the UK, this single was released in 1975 and was followed by 1980's "(Just Like) Starting Over".

I'll see if I can get a dual chrono set up in the infobox; if I fail I'm inclined to revert to a British chronology. --kingboyk 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted external link

A user named Duplicity has deleted an external link I added to this article [4] pointing to a blog post I wrote about the Khaled/Noa wonderful cover of Imagine in Arabic & Hebrew. Besides linking to an mp3 of the song in this post, I feature a YouTube video of a live performance of by the performers & a translation of the powerful lyrics.

There is no legitimate reason to delete this link. I do not have any conflict of interest in linking to my blog as I gain nothing from doing so. The sole pupose of the link is to allowed interested Wikipedians to delve deeper into this particular cover version of the song in light of the tragic history of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Please do not revert this link w/o first consuling with me.Richard (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to your own publications (whether they're blog postings or something else) is considered bad form because it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of of whether such a conflict actually exists. If a publication has sufficient relevance, someone other than its author will add a link to it. Adding links to information published by others regarding the covers would be more appropriate than linking to your own blog post about them. --Brouhaha (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Colbert

The song is referenced in his chapter on religion in the book I Am America (And So Can You!).

Jt_200075 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoko is suing Expelled filmaker for using Imagine w/o permission

Read about it here. It was used without permission in the Expelled film and kind of equates the song with Nazism, Berlin wall, etc. The line "imagine no religion' is equated with a totalistic state, not what Lennon had in mind methings. Should that be included in the article? I could add it if it seems appropriate Angry Christian (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe it should be in this article, It should probably be in the Expelled article and Yoko ono. But not this one. User:Chasesboys —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

criticism removal

I want to have a consensus on the criticism section of this article and weather or not it should be in here. I would like to remove it because it is all POV from the people who are critising the song. Elvis Costello's comment is not a criticism and should be put into his songs article. The playboy interview has nothing to do with "Imagine" either, and has no direct reference to the song. The opening line is unsourced and is POV. (Chasesboys (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I AM SHOCKED!!!!

No one added Connie Talbot to the list of who sings this! Besides the original i think she is the best. NOTE I THINK. I will get a message saying this ones better and so forth. --Bkopicz3 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove live covers

The live covers section detracts from this article and should be removed. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Back Masked Message.

I was listening to some of my favorite songs in reverse and at about second 3.01(in reversed) I heard, "There's no one there's nothing." Is it real? Supportstorm (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New Years?

Does anyone remember how at New Times Square in New York on New Year's Eve, how Imagine is played right before New Year's? Should that be added to the article? 70.128.126.154 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cover versions section

The "trivia" tag was added to this section by PJtP. I believe that this tag is not justified. Quoting WP:TRIVIA, "...a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information".

The list of notable covers is an important part of the article. The list of prominent musicians who have covered the song is a key part of the songs legacy. Reviewing the history of edits, i see a number of contributers to this section who's contributions have been removed.

On a couple of occasions John has removed chunks of the list of notable covers, indicating that they (or their notability) are unsourced. Note that WP:NOCITE refers primarily to doubtful information and then indicates that a "fact" tag should be added for a reasonable time period before removing info.Bcharles (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the trivia tag from this section, as the info provided is focused, coherent and an important part of the songs legacy.

As the number of covers of this song is large, the covers that i listed are limited to performers who are exceptionally notable: i.e. that have won Grammies or or equivalent awards or achievements; who have platinum or multiple gold albums; who have charted #1 or several top 10 hits; who are commonly recognized in their respective countries; or who performed the song for an audience of millions. Bcharles (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say that "cover version" sections of all Wikipedia song articles devolve into trivia, this one most certainly does. A cover version that was also a hit song, a notable historical occasion in which a particular song was performed, fine. The rest is trivia. This list is absurdly long. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was it released in the U.S. in 1971 and in Britain not until 1975?

Why was Imagine released in the US in 1971 and in Britain not until four years later, in 1975? After all, I suppose Lennon had (and still has) many fans in the U.K., so why would they have to wait for Imagine until 1975? (Sorry for mistakes, English is not my native language.) --87.78.91.131 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Jasper

Soft rock

I think it should be removed. Love is a softer song than Imagine, yet it is simply classified as rock. I think Imagine should be, too. --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

September 2012

Suggestions for improvement as requested by Gabe. The lead needs to be longer. So far it covers only a few of the main points of the article; coverage is needed on the theme and lyrics of the song and legacy in particular. Add something so that all the main sections of the article have a summary in the lead. Make sure all the images have alt-text. Check out the web citations and make sure they all have access dates; also fill in all available data such as author names, publication dates, etc. You need to have a publisher for newspapers. For example, The Guardian is the work and the publisher is Guardian News and Media. The Washington Post is the work and Katharine Weymouth is the publisher. Should they be cite news instead of cite web? Run Checklinks to make sure there are no dead links and Dab Solver to look for dabs. There's three citations that are not in citation templates; those need to be added for consistency's sake. The "cover versions" section needs copy editing, especially the paragraph about the Olympic Games. Accolades table has no sources.

That's all I can think of for now. I will check back again tomorrow and read it in more detail. You could look at FAC reviews for other songs to get further ideas for expansion. Then please take the article to Peer Review, where people familiar with the FA process will have further suggestions. -- Dianna (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll get to work! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost there...

You're doing a great job with this article Gabe. In regards to the video, this article used to describe the video for this song. Now, it talks about that 81 minute "movie by the same name" to promote the album, and Ono's album "Fly." I think we should go back to just the 3:20 min video specifically for this song. Just a suggestion. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree (it's minimalistic but effective in its own way -- Yoko Ono opening the window shutters). AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the comments and edits HC2! What do you think of the section now? I wanted to include the line: "the camera tilts up to see a window with the line inscribed: 'This is not here.'", but I cannot seem to find a good WP:RS that states it. Are you aware of any that do? Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that they usually frown upon video sources here, but.... I'll check if anything's been written. But I noticed that someone had a written source for Lennon's ashes being scattered in Strawberry Fields, NY. Just because it's printed and published, doesn't make it true.Hotcop2 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A video source is fine as long as the "event location/time" is clear. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I sourced it another way, see what you think. We should put a youtube link to the video on the official Lennon channel, since we're speaking about it. Maybe if not in the info box, an indirect link on the word video? But, as far as I'm concerned, it's a good article. Well done. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks much, that means a lot coming from you Hotcop2! I'm also well aware of all your excellent work preparing the article and giving me a fantastic basis on which to expand. I've added the Imagine doc as a source, so later on I'll find the exact time in question so we can source the whole statement. As far as YouTube, I'm not sure that would get through FA, though perhaps because its the "official" channel it may be okay. Thanks again for all your edits and advice! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

First full-length rock documentary?

Seems a bit of a dubious claim. Gimme Shelter (1970 film), Dont Look Back, Woodstock (film) all predate the full-length Imagine documentary. --Jayron32 05:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't the first. I wouldn't necessarily call it a documentary (too scripted) or a promotional film (implies purpose) either. Piriczki (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim was sourced, but clearly the source is in error to call it the "first", so I've changed it to "One of the first full-length documentary rock videos". The film documents the recording sessions for Imagine, and since there was no acting in the movie (even if it did seem scripted) I think it's clearly a documentary, versus a drama or a comedy. I've removed the word "promotional" as per Piriczki's logic. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think even "one of the first" is too weak of a claim, given that there were dozens of rock documentaries made before the Imagine film was. I mean, there needs to be a cut off some time. I picked three at random. I could come up with another 30 with a good search. Demonstrably false claims need not be repeated even if the source says it. --Jayron32 23:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I've now changed it to: "A full-length documentary rock video". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Like Dig it. Otherwise, excellent job on this article. I have enjoyed reading it. --Jayron32 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, that's very kind of you Jayron. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Best-selling

Best-selling (adj): selling in great numbers. "The selling in great numbers single of his career..." is not what is meant. "best selling" without the hyphen is usually regarded as a synonym for the hyphenated version, otherwise you might get away with it. "commercially successful" would be best but this is used later in the paragraph with regard to the album. "Highest selling" is a compromise; the best option would be to reword that sentence.Yomangani^talk 00:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget superlative 'the'. 'The best selling' (unhyphenated) means the same as 'the highest selling', so I think it does get away with it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but to me, "highest" has a much different connotation than does "best". I agree that "commercially successful" is even better, but as Yomangani points out, it is already used in the next paragraph. In song lists, they usually use "best selling", whereas a movie is typically described as the "highest grossing". Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

One more notable performance

In 2003, Liel performed the song with former President Bill Clinton and a chorus of 40 Israeli and 40 Arab children. This was cut, but is pretty notable for the symbolism, and should be included, he said. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I can't seem to easily find a WP:RS for it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

FA?

Hello,

this article does not describe of what utopia John Lennon is believing in. He believes in an atheistic, nihilistic world. Yet the article says he dislikes denominations and wants a united religion. This is utter nonsense. The article does not have a criticism section despites its controversial lyrics. Whoever promoted this and supported its promotion is not quite right up top. It easily fails the 1 b, comprehensiveness. Nowhere is it comprehensive. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The song says not to believe in heaven or hell and religion. Nothing about God, which has nothing to do with religion. THe message is live in in peace for today. And, by the way, there's nothing in it about "no superstitions, too" Hotcop2 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What you are writing is simply self-contradictory and utter rubbish. His message is to live without religion, thus the lyrics hope for an irreligious life. Allmusic states the following (perhaps originally from John Blaney): "with no gods, possessions, or classes, where everyone is equal." And looking at Gbooks, I was right. There is more to say about the themes. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So this shouldn't be FA because it doesn't highlight your personal interpretation of the song? There's a direct quote from Lennon that explains what he meant by the song, especially the religion sections. Do you have evidence that Lennon was lying when he said what he said about what he meant? --Jayron32 14:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia articles shouldn't have isolated criticism sections. If you have some negative reception to add to, say, the "reception" section, no one is stopping you, so long as the negative reception comes from well-respected, reliable sources. --Jayron32 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a criticism section once, which was removed, because it offered nothing more than zealots criticising the message. It is what it is. And, in the immortal words of Maude Findlay, "God'll get you for that!" Hotcop2 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article hoping to find a serious discussion on the lyrics and critical reaction to them. Instead I found a fan page. Jayron32 makes a fundamental mistake above in thinking the author's interpretation of the words is particularly significant. I'm no literary student but I'm sure some of our more literary editors would be able to give a name for that mistake. What the author said in an interview isn't even necessarily an accurate description of what he meant by the words when he wrote them, if he even had a strong grasp of what he was writing in the first place: plenty pop songs are essentially nonsense with more importance on the rhythm and rhyme than word meaning. The words are what they are, and what the world interprets them to mean is vastly more important than what someone long dead claims they meant to him.

Lots of folk hate this song with a passion. A recent example, widely reported is British folk singer Frank Turner. He says "it’s so utterly vacuous. It’s a Hallmark card set to music. There’s a pretty high dose of hypocrisy in here as well" ... "it’s a kind of fall-back “favorite song” for people who don’t have any interest in music. It’s a default setting for the tasteless. I’d respect people much more if they just said, “You know what? I don’t really care about music,” rather than pick this song as a favorite. It’s so beige.". If you search hard, you'll find this isn't an uncommon view among folk who think about music. Many religious people find it offensive but this isn't noted in the article. Many also considered its choice for the closing ceremony of the Olympics to be trite and incongruous: a games where the separation of the world into countries is celebrated and where many of the contestants and viewers will be deeply religious. The authors of this piece need to work harder to find and include views on the work that don't already align with their own. There should be some academic consideration of the song and its impact too. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of folks love this song with a passion. Lots of folk hate this song with a passion. Lots of folks like "My Dingaling" and others find it offensive. Who cares? It's an article about the song. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Who cares"? Well if the song causes such conflicting responses in many people, why doesn't the article say so. What meagre criticism is present is swatted away with some quotes or biographer-comments about what Lennon "really meant", as if that is hugely important any more or even factual. An FA is expected to be comprehensive and all articles on WP are expected to be written from a neutral POV. This article is neither. It's what I'd expect to find on a Lennon fan site. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, you put your comment in this different section. Anyway, I don't see anywhere in this article where it states it's the greatest song ever, nor do I see fawning reviews. It's about the song. I'm not big on biographer's quotes and opinions, but most of the info on Wiki is sourced by biographies and, unless a bio was at the scene or with the person, it's all heresay, opinion and literary license. The quote from Lennon should suffice. Whatever any thinks of any art, it's subjective opinion -- good or bad. "But some people don't like it" (which can be said of any song or art or person or place or thing)n't really add anything, Hotcop2 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Colin raises a valid point, and a closer look should be taken at this article. Reviewing this article's FAC, it doesn't appear to have received strident review from experienced reviewers, and it does appear to have received fan support at FAC, leading one delegate to question whether the song was universally received with favor after the FAC already had four supports with little critical content. Perhaps a trip to a library is in order, but I strongly encourage editors of this article to endeavour to achieve some neutrality, so that a trip to FAR can be avoided. (Disclaimer: I am a Wikifriend of Colin and I happened upon this discussion because I was checking Colin's contribs to see if he is still editing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, take a look here. 4 Minutes (Madonna song) was kept after its August 2012 FAR, yet I don't see any criticism of the song anywhere in the article whatsoever. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Criticism of the lyrics:

However, Lennon's lyrics describe hypothetical possibilities, offering no practical solutions, lyrics that at times seem contradictory, asking the listener to abandon systems while encouraging a system similar to Communism.[4] Critics have indicated the hypocrisy in his encouragement of listeners to imagine living their lives without possessions: Lennon, the millionaire rock star living in a mansion. Blaney described Lennon as "more than a little confused", and the song's lyrical position as isolationist, in contradiction with the "global oneness" they would seem to endorse. Blaney described the song as "riddled with contradictions. Its hymn-like setting sits uncomfortably alongside its author's plea for us to envision a world without religion."[4] Authors Ben Urish and Ken Bielen wrote: "the listener is, in a sense, deceived into absorbing the song's message."

• Criticism of the music:

Authors Ben Urish and Ken Bielen criticised the song's instrumental music as overly sentimental and melodramatic, comparing it to the music of the prerock era and describing the vocal melody as understated.[6] Blaney described the song's melody as "apparently incomplete ... a simple motif that cries out to be developed and extended."[4]

As far as "a trip to a library", I'm curious, which books should I research that are not already listed in the sources? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. - Sandy, per your above comment: "it doesn't appear to have received strident review from experienced reviewers". Well, User:Hurricanehink reviewed and supported. He is currently number 4 All Time in Wikipedia FACs. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I think Sandy remembers when folk like User:Wadewitz would have given this a hard time. Anyway, let's not worry about the FAC/FAR situation but deal with this article. You aren't getting the point. The song "Imagine" is part of the English-speaking world's collective literature/music. Like Auld Lang Syne. It isn't remotely comparable with some forgettable Madonna song. Why do people play it, listen to it? Why do the words appeal to so many? Why also do many dislike the words or despair over its popular appeal? These issues will certainly have been studied by scholars, by journalists, by theologians and other religious writers, by capitalists and communists, by conservatives and liberals. The sources used here consist of web pages and popular biography books. You need to search scholarly works (and it may surprise you that scholars write about popular music), newspaper archives, religious texts and articles, etc, etc. This is the The Da Vinci Code of the pop world: hugely popular but ultimately an offensive crock of shit to anyone with any higher brain functions. More research required... -- Colin°^Talk 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The song is called "Imagine" (you know, it's not real). So for my final two cents, obvious (and clever) opinions against taking the lyrics LITERALLY vs. Lennon's lifestyle, and by religious zealots, really still comes down to a matter of personal beliefs or taste. We can add this to the third paragraph in the lead section, for balance: "Although the song has been criticised by scholars, theologians and zealots for it's blasphemous assumption of a world without religion, and other scholars, biographers and reviewers for the hypocritical hypothesis of a millionaire espousing the thought of picturing a world without materialism which borders on a all-out endorsement for communism, "Imagine" is one of the top 100 most-performed songs of the 20th century." Hotcop2 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I cut out a lot of the litcrit before coming here and seeing this interesting conversation... Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Hey Jude", passed FAR in 2007, kept with no criticism added. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", passed FAC in December 2011, with no criticism of the lyrics or music. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Messiah (Handel)", passed FAC in August 2011, a TFA in April 2012, with no criticism of the music or lyrics, or an explaination that Handel was not religious let alone a Christian. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Illinois (album), passed FAC in November 2010 and currently in the queue for 22 November. The article contains no criticism of the music or lyrics. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Smells Like Teen Spirit", passed FA and was a TFA in 2007. The article contains no criticism of the music or lyrics. As a guitarist myself, I can tell you that this song has one of the most simple and uninteresting guitar parts (four chords in the riff, two notes during the verses) of any song this famous. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Something", passed FAR in 2006, a TFA in 2008, the article contains no criticism of the music or lyrics. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• " 4 Minutes (Madonna song)" passed FAC in 2009 and was kept after its August 2012 FAR, yet I don't see any criticism of the music or lyrics anywhere in the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

By my count there are at least 178 words in the "Imagine" article devoted directly to criticism. 178/2671 total readable words = 6.6% of the article is devoted directly to criticism of the song, or about 1 out of every 15.15 readable words. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Tomcat, per your comment: "Allmusic states the following (perhaps originally from John Blaney): "with no gods, possessions, or classes, where everyone is equal." And looking at Gbooks, I was right." Right about what? Blaney is not available on Gbooks and Allmusic does not provide any sourcing information. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Let the record show that, as of this writing, no one who is complaining of a lack of reliable, well-respected criticism has actually lifted a finger to fix the article, excepting a minor effort to insert an unsourced, personal opinion about the meaning. If the criticism people are noting is so widespread, and appears readily in reliable sources, then why is no one doing anything to place it in its proper place in the article (which is the reception section)? Hm? There's nothing stopping anyone of you from making this article better, you know. --Jayron32 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, you're an admin so should know better than making personal attacks on other editors. If you'd tried that "lifted a finger" line at FAC you'd have got a bloody nose and rightly so. I understand you guys are defensive. You should be basking in FAC glory and someone comes along, late to the party, saying the article isn't up to scratch. I spent last night studying textbooks on myoclonic epilepsy for WP but it wouldn't have been your concern if I had spent it watching TV. All that matters is this article text and what anyone who has an interest in it wants to do about it. We're volunteers so what you want to do about it is up to you. Do folk here want to write one of the best articles on Wikipedia? Or are you happy with a fan page that scraped through FAC on fan support? I'm not interested in GabeMc's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS search results. This song isn't remotely comparable to them. I note the delegate wrote "but is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour"

I see there has been improvement to the critical analysis of the song's words since my first post. That's great. It is good to have scholarly analysis of the words. How about some scholarly analysis on the popular impact the song has had? A quick Google turned up this which is typical of a thoughtful journalist response to Imagine. I'm sure there will be deeper analysis if you search.

I note that the song is widely regarded as a "secular hymn", but this is not mentioned in the article. In fact, if you search "imagine lennon secular hymn" it turns up some interesting material. Speaking of hymns, check out the amazing grace article for some scholarly analysis. Now clearly that song is in a different league to Imagine, but there are similarities wrt their popularity and anthem status: one for Christians and one for atheists. Perhaps Hotcop2 thinks this is just a silly pop song like Hey Jude. It really isn't. And the article should reflect that. Colin°^Talk 09:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have not personally attacked you. Disagreeing with your stance is not a personal attack. --Jayron32 18:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now added some material from the source you provided above, thanks for that. By my count, there are now about 270 words devoted to criticism, or about 10% of the total readable prose in the article. Do you think this is enough now or should I add some more? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a bit too much from Berg and his pastor. I'd drop the paster/9-11 story as being too much of a personal anecdote. I think it would help to give context for Berg's comments (he didn't just decide to write an article on Imagine out of the blue). This would also satisfy the popular impact (postive or negative) aspect. For example, "Dave Berg, writing in the The Washington Post, reflected on the song's choice for the New Year's party in Times Square in 2011. He considered it an "insidious and a horrendous choice" and found it strange that this "sad and depressing" song had "achieved the status of a secular hymn." Berg says "atheists have embraced the song as their own" and gives the example of an "Imagine" themed advertisement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation." -- Colin°^Talk 11:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Colin: Your mind-reading abilities fall a little short, re: what I think. Like any other song, pop or "serious" -- some people like it, some people don't. I'm happy you got all the words opinions of criticism in here; I'm not fond of opinions in these articles, whether they're good, bad, pro, con or indifferent. Opinions are like... (read my mind) Hotcop2 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I get you don't think it should have opinions. Just facts. That you don't think other people's opinions are worth reading. You're in a big minority on that one, and we expect an encyclopaedia to cover more than just that, to give an analysis of the piece and its impact. Colin°^Talk 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin, I've now trimmed the Berg material as you suggested above. Please let me know if this resolves your concerns or if more needs to be added. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has improved considerably here. I still suspect there is scholarly analysis of the song, its impact and cultural usage outside of the books you have. I don't have the kind of literary-journal access that some folk on WP have but you might consider finding one of our literary folks and see if they can do a search for you. I'm satisfied enough with the changes and thanks for researching and adding them. Despite my criticisms of the song, it is a hugely important one, more so than any of the songs listed above, and for that reason merits thorough analysis, even if that analysis notes how vacuous it is :-) Colin°^Talk 11:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As I was the "whoever" with regards to promotion, I feel that I must offer some defence of my action as delegate. First, the version that was initially discussed in this thread is not the one I promoted. Second, although I concede the FAC review lacked depth, there was a clear consensus to promote. My colleague, Ian had already commented, and had I done likewise, we would have had to find someone other than the active FAC delegates to close the nomination. Putting this aside, there is no shortage of academic sources that are critical of Lennon's imaginary and naive vision of utopia. Maise has this to say, "“You may say I’m a dreamer,” sings Lennon, “But I’m not the only one/I hope someday you’ll join us,” suggesting that reaching a stage without these alleged evils is realistic enough to be action-guiding. Yet Lennon’s is not a dream in which we ought to join. We cannot imagine what he asks us to imagine in any action-guiding way".[5] I first heard the song when it was first released in 1971. I liked it, but I was 19 at the time and very easily pleased. But even then Lennon's hypocrisy was evident to all - driving his psychedelic Rolls Royce and living in in his mansion. The historical and cultural contexts are important: The Vietnam war was raging as were the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the conflict in the Middle East. These must have influenced the song's popular appeal. But support for Lennon's sentiments was superficial - he was a difficult man to take seriously in any case - a few saw his vision as actionable or even desirable. We have to make it clear in our article, while adhering to our policies, that Lennon was not without his critics at the time as he is now. It is an important song, but this does not make it a great song, which it is not, lyrically or musically. It is important in the context of Lennon's canon, his life and death and the popular zeitgeist of the early 1970s. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice analysis by Graham there (I was 21). Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now included some scholarly criticism from Mathias Risse, so thanks for that link Graham. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. - By my count there are now 346 words in the article devoted solely to negative criticism of the song's lyrics, music and message. 346 words out of 2790 words of readable prose means that about 12.40% of the readable prose is criticism, or about 1 out of every 8 readable words. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be at least 12.41% :-). Nobody is going to say there should be 15% negative and 10% positive and 5% meh. The judge is to look at the serious literature that is analysing the song, the world's reaction and usage of it, etc, and weigh up what balance to include. Btw, talking of WP:WEIGHT you really need impartial sources to judge what cover versions or performances to list, if any. You can't use the artist's own website, for example, to decided that it was a "notable cover". So Madonna performed it a concert. Big deal. Did that change some world event? Did folk write about it specifically the way we say Berg write about the Time Sq performance? That's the degree of impact a cover/performance needs in order to be included, I'd say -- that someone unrelated to the performer wrote specifically about that cover/performance. Colin°^Talk 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed the word "notable" from the "Performances and cover versions" section header. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong way of dealing with it. WP:WEIGHT says we should cover things in proportion to how other reliable sources are covering it when writing about the subject (which in our case is Image and covers/performances). So, for example, Madonna's performance has zero weight because nobody is writing about her performance: it is merely present in a list of songs. It would be above zero if someone wrote about it in the context of Madonna but might still not enough to bother a mention. A stronger case is for someone who wrote an article specifically about that performance or who wrote an article/chapter/some paragraphs on Imagine performances and included Madonna's performance as especially notable. This section needs a trim and better sourcing. Without such WP:WEIGHT guidance, this section will just accumulate all sorts of WP:LISTCRUFT with a nobody on X Factor or Susan from Accounts doing karaoke down the local pub. Colin°^Talk 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Per: "Madonna's performance has zero weight because nobody is writing about her performance", 1) why do you keep bringing up the Madonna cover and the supposedly "poor" sourcing? I used a book about Madonna and the Billboard website to source the bit on her cover, so what's your specific issue? 2) "nobody is writing about her performance" is not accurate. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just one example. I don't have the book but those sites merely mention the cover. Like a credit listing at the end of a film merely mentions the actor: not quite the same as someone singling out their performance and writing about it. A mention is not enough. So many people have covered this song, one might as well say that Madonna once sang "Happy Birthday to You" to someone. I've not got a big problem with merely mentioning Madonna, et al, in a list of highly famous artists who have covered or performed the song (like the lead does), but telling the reader which concert, which year, which DVD is all adding absolutely nothing to their understanding of this article's topic. Trim the cruft and you'll have more room for the relevant stuff and keep hold of the reader's attention till the very end. As I said, Madonna is just one example. Sourcing isn't just about verifiability, it is also about weight. -- Colin°^Talk 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Per: "not quite the same as someone singling out their performance and writing about it." Kinda like this? "2004: Madonna went throwback, all the way to the sexual revolution of the 1700s, with the Re-Invention World Tour, the highest-grossing tour of the year. It included an anti-war statement with "Imagine" sung over a montage of war imagery." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying and I've trimmed out a few of the least notable examples. Let me know if you think I missed any that should also go. Thanks again for taking the time to make specific comments that can be addressed. All I want is for the article to be as good as it can be, for the sake of Wikipedia. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Getting the balance right was always going to be challenging, but I think recent edits have been an improvement. Criticism of the inclusion of the song in the closing ceremony of the Olympics is a red herring IMHO, but apart from this, I found Colin's comments useful to improving this contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I appreciate Colin taking the time to help us improve the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone", a TFA on 8 January 2011, was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia on 20 February 2010. The article did not then, and still does not contain any criticism of the lyrics or music despite entire sections devoted only to praising them. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps it needs more. I really don't think it is healthy to go comparing. Make this article the best you can based on what the best sources say. Does "Like a Rolling Stone" lecture the world on how we might live? Do folk play and sing it like a hymn? Do people identify and relate to it? It is a far more personal song and that limits any criticism. And, you know, perhaps it is a much better song? Perhaps the adulation is deserved? Colin°^Talk 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about "perhaps it is a much better song", which is a subjective opinion that has little to no encyclopedic value. Scholarly sources widely agree, "LaRS" is far too long, a valid criticism the article somehow turns into a compliment, painting its excessive length as "innovative". The lyrics are at times quite nebulous. According to Rolling Stone (who ranked the song #1 all time) the lyrics were likely inspired by Hank Williams' "Lost Highway" and the music progression, Dylan himself admitted is a knock-off of "La Bamba". The article does not mention these important points. Also, the stiff musical arrangement is likely due to Dylan acting like a bit of a tyrant during its recording. Dylan: "I told them how to play on it", including telling blues guitarist Bloomfield: "I don't want you to play any of that B.B. King sh--, none of that f------ blues." Colin, are you asserting that if the adulation of the song is deserved IYO, then the article does not need to include any criticism? As far as "I really don't think it is healthy to go comparing", I am merely pointing out the seeming contradiction/hypocrisy of Sandy's comments here, including: "I strongly encourage editors of this article to endeavour to achieve some neutrality, so that a trip to FAR can be avoided", when she herself promoted "LaRS" not long ago with virtually zero neutrality and no criticism of the music or lyrics. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"LaRS" was ranked #2 most overrated song of all-time by Breitbart, where Dylan and the song are described as follows: "He sings like a cat being run over by a nail-studded steamroller. His lyrics are lazy and stupid – he doesn’t bother for rhyme scheme ('home' and 'unknown' do not rhyme), or even that the words scan with the music. The song itself makes no sense. What is a 'mystery tramp'? Why should you 'turn around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns'? Are they sad clowns? What does a 'Siamese cat' have to do with anything? And then he articulates these nonsensical lyrics as though he has no front teeth." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Journalist slags off genius, yawn. And have you seen what he puts at nº 1? Rothorpe (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. Does "Journalist slags off genius, yawn" apply there as well? FTR, I never said I thought "Imagine" was the greatest song ever, I never even said I liked it. I was asked to improve the article in hopes of having something suitable for TFA on 8 December. I never attempted to make an argument that the song is beyond reproach, it isn't, not by a long-shot. I just don't appreciate the innuendo and double standards (read hypocrisy) from former delegates. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist! Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think we can agree that journalists are not always the best music critics. I do think its humorous that in Shapiro's lambasting of "Imagine" he embarrassingly misuses the word "pretentious" to describe the piano chords which he then labels as "completely boring". How can a basic Cmaj7 chord imply Lennon is attempting to impress? Talk about rubbish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you wanna talk about "a trip to FAR" and "it doesn't appear to have received strident review from experienced reviewers", just look here. The "Hey Jude" article's more recent FARs aren't much better. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc, I suggest you retract your allegations of hypocracy and innuendo wrt former delegates. That's just as unfair and rude as Tomcat's suggestion that Graham is "not quite right up top". The delegates are limited to a degree by the reviewers they get. As Graham said, it isn't always possible for them to intervene, and articles can change considerably from when there are promoted (and during FAC too). The original Hey Jude FAC was in far simpler times, predating Sandy's FAC time too. Sandy's threat of FAR should not be regarded as imminent (that wouldn't happen anyway as recently promoted FACs don't go there). She is simply making sure you take the criticism of lack of comprehensiveness and neutrality seriously, rather than defensively thinking because it just passed FAC it must be great already.

You really must stop comparing this article or FAC with others. That path leads to jealousy and feelings of unfairness. We're just discussing words on a page, not your personal achievement or the good or bad character of various FAC/FAR delegates. I'm pretty ignorant about Like a Rolling Stone so you read too much into my "perhaps" it is a better song. If it is widely criticised, and this is missing from the article, then it would be great if someone could address that. Moaning about it on this talk page achieves nothing. You were getting over concerned about the percentages of negative wording in the article. My point is that one can't say that both Imagine and LaRS need 15% negativity or whatever. It might be the reliable scholarly and popular sources give quite different weights to positive and negative aspects of these songs and that is something only you and other editors with sources can work out by looking at the literature. See WP:WEIGHT -- which makes it also clear that your or my opinion on the +ve/-ve things don't count too (they can be at best an indication that perhaps the article is unbalanced). But I do feel that sourced opinions are an integral part of an encyclopaedic article on a song or any literature or music. Facts are interesting too but nobody got married, voted or went to war over facts. Folk need to take those facts and form opinions, and as a species we value the opinions of others very highly. Colin°^Talk 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto ... as Colin says, please stop engaging OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and make this article the best it can be. I don't think that "Like a Rolling Stone attracted the same kind of critical review that Imagine did, but if you're aware of some, please bring it forward on that page. What you may be missing is that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1 displays real engagement by knowledgeable FAC reviewers, while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imagine (song)/archive1 shows a lack of critical review that led one delegate to question the review so far, which was followed by support from two involved editors who did not declare their involvement. (Folks, please read the FAC instructions and if you have a prior involvement with the article, declare it.) Delegates can only do so much if reviews are less than complete, and at some point they have to promote if reviewers don't speak up: my point here was that Colin did speak up, and if you want this article to be the best it can be on mainpage day-- and if you want to be sure the wider exposure of mainpage won't result in a debacle where someone questions FAC or demands a trip to FAR-- you would be well advised to heed Colin's concerns and make sure you have sought out scholarly sources. Name calling won't advance your cause or help you have an easier time on mainpage day if the article turns out not to be up to snuff and the wider exposure of mainpage day brings deficiencies to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, just look above at how much effort you have put into this thread, but have you ever made any effort to improve this article, or do you intend for your involvement with it to remain purely and vaguely critical? When have I resisted its improvement? Look at the difference between the article on 31 August, before I had made my first edit to it, and the article right now. Please, try to balance your insulting and critical attitude with a crum or two of encouragement and compliments. You've never said a kind word to me in three years. If you treat FAC as a hazing, then TFAR as yet another hazing, then I think we can all stop wondering why prolific editors are leaving Wikipedia at a record pace, because it likely has something to do with the excessive tedium and condescension that content editors are regularly subject to with virtually zero positive reinforcement. Remember, we are all unpaid voluteers trying to do our best, so please try to be kind to us once in a while. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc, you might not have "resisted" the changes suggested but you were very defensive in response to criticism: giving long lists of other articles that have the same flaws, or worse, and counting words of negative prose to try to see if that was "enough". You've picked out other FACs for comparison and unfairly called Sandy a hypocrite and you now expect her respond by lavishing praise on you? You are right that people react better to getting some praise along with criticism. Some people are natural praisers and encouragers. Some aren’t. And really that is an aspect of someone’s personality that is extremely hard to change. You just have to accept that if there are problems with the article, or with your attitude here, then folk will respond to those and not everyone will step back and sprinkle some sugar on the pill. One does need a tough skin to take an article to FAC. If you want uncritical praise for your efforts, show it to your mum. The article is a huge improvement on what was there before, you’ve got a bronze star and may appear on the main page.

Please don’t make the mistake that the only worthy effort on Wikipedia is actually editing articles. Indeed the main issue at FAC and peer review is lack of reviewers, not lack of content. I haven’t edited this article either but have spent quite some time reading it, looking at sources and trying to guide you wrt policy on weight and my opinions wrt coverage of critical analysis of music and literature. I don’t have the sources you have and aren’t steeped in the subject the way you are. Sandy’s concerns regard your attitude to the other FACs and trying to prepare you for main page, which can be unpleasant if the article isn’t in top shape. We are all volunteers and that goes for reviewers and delegates too. Colin°^Talk 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin, I don't see the need for you two to "double team" me here, Sandy is an adult who can answer for herself I assume. I'm sorry if I wasn't as open to the criticism as you think I should have been, I think the delivery was unnecessarily harsh, cruel even. I have always been open to constructive criticism and to suggestions for improving articles in general, but when someone pounces on me or an article I've been working on with 100% negative feedback without a shred of positive, I may lose good-faith in that editor. Is it so hard to preface a critique with something like: "hey, its looking much better overall, thanks for all your efforts, there's just a few key points that should be tightened"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that "we are all volunteers", that's why I try to be encouraging to those who are working to improve the project. A little kindness and a sprinkle of encouragement would go a long way toward improving editor retention. Also, people are much more likely to be receptive to criticism when its balanced with some positive comments. Remember, after "complexity", unpleasant exchanges with Wikipedians was ranked as the number 1 reason editors stop editing Wikipedia. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin, do you approve of my restructuring of "Performances and cover versions" and does it resolve your concerns about the section? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey GabeMc, if you want to be treated with kid gloves and showered with encouraging praise like a primary school child, then I'm not your man. Sorry. Unwatching. Colin°^Talk 08:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a massive surprise. Just as soon as all the issues are resolved the critic washes his hands and disappears without so much as a "well done". Kids gloves? That's funny. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As the bloke who said "is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour?", I've just been asked by Gabe to comment on the article's latest version WRT criticism of the song. I should add that Gabe had pinged me on my talk page shortly after this discussion began but I didn't feel I had the time to properly contribute. I'm sorry to see that passions have become inflamed over this, but for now at least will restrict myself to the question at hand... The article certainly appears to offer a more rounded discussion of the song than it did when I posed my question a while ago. I brought that up not because I was aware of any specific criticism of the song (the only thing I'd heard was a quote from Lou Reed deriding "all that 'possessions' crap", but for all I knew he could have been completely out of it when he said it) but because I figured there must be more scholarly criticism of the song than was apparent in the article at the time. Oddly enough, the only passage that jars with me is the Shapiro quote. I say "oddly" because I personally agree with it almost entirely (except for concerns about atheism) but it reads like a cheap shot. If it were me I'd probably include a few words or a sentence, but no more -- by all means get other opinion on this, however. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean you think there is currently enough criticism in the article? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I think I've effectively answered that by saying the article appears to offer a more rounded discussion of the song's qualities or otherwise. What we should be striving for is not certain percentages of praise or criticism, but an encyclopaedic reflection of published commentary. Not having myself surveyed the literature on the song, I can't comment on whether the balance in the article is absolutely fair, but I can see that most of the commentary included, whether praising or criticising the song, seems to be thoughtful and from reliable sources. Again, though, I'd trim the quote from Shapiro (his name should be wikilinked, by the way). Personally I agree with him that it's overrated, and that "it commits the worst musical sin: it is completely boring", but I'm not a music scholar, or even a professional critic, and I suspect neither is he, so that doesn't really belong. On the other hand he is a conservative spokesman, so the stuff from "we have to examine the lyrics" down to "despicable as politics" may be valid to include as a conservative viewpoint on the song. No doubt one could find a quote from a liberal commentator praising the song's lyrics, as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you might've opened another can o' worms by removing "notable" from the covers heading. As this is one of the most covered songs, this kind of invites anyone to add their own personal favorite cover to the list. Did "notable" stick in someone's craw? And I don't think we need every criticism ever voiced of the song, scholarly or not, because it's still just personal opinion. We don't want this to become the biggest section of the article (or do we?) Hotcop2 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin expressed concern that all the covers weren't that notable IHO. Any silly additions can and will be removed as they occur. I'm fine with the current level of criticism but I don't intend to add any more. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a quote from Ben Shapiro in an article on a song by John Lennon? He is neither a music critic, nor an authority on John Lennon; he is insulting a song because he disagrees with its vision. If anything, that should be included in a 'reactions to the song' section, but criticism? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.190.224 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think it's representative of critical reception of 'Imagine' for the last line of the section to be 'Despicable as art; despicable as politics'. This might be better classed as 'hysterical and highly ideological reactions to Imagine' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.190.224 (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree in general, but the quote does well to explicate the strong emotions the song apparently stokes in some. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Collectivist positivism"

"Collectivist positivism"? Really? In the second sentence of the article? When I read articles about John Lennon or his songs, I often find myself wondering what John's reaction would be. I tend to think his reaction to the second sentence of this article would be similar to his reaction to the review of one of his early songs that said the tune contained "Aeolian cadences." He didn't know what those were, nor do I suspect he would have a better reaction to "collectivist positivism." It might be better to say that the lyrics of the song envision a world where everyone is interconnected and living and working together. Or we could just leave that out, since the next sentence basically says the same thing, using normal everyday words (just more of them, but that's okay.) I kind of wish I had seen this before this was on the Main Page. If nobody else cares, I'll just let it go, but I had to say something. Neutron (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Collectivist. - Lennon: "'Imagine' ... is virtually the Communist manifesto".

Ono described the lyrical statement of "Imagine" as "just what John believed: that we are all one country, one world, one people."

• Positivism. - Lennon: "['Imagine' is] [t]he concept of positive prayer ... If you can imagine a world at peace ... then it can be true".

Rolling Stone described its lyrics as "22 lines of graceful, plain-spoken faith in the power of a world, united in purpose, to repair and change itself." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Positivism doesn't seem to mention anything about "positive prayer"; what is the source of "collectivist positism" (I can't find it cited anywhere in the article, and the lead should summarize the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, someone's confusing positivism with optimism. I'm changing it.Coolazice (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC) On second thoughts I prefer 'idealistic collectivism', since the lyrics are a tad too uncertain to be optimistic 'I hope someday'... idealistic is a better fit, but I agree with collectivism. Also this avoids confusing 'idealistic' with 'idealism' (philosophy).Coolazice (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I think the text needs to reflect what the sources say; let's not replace one glaring error with another by making it up as we go. The source says "concept of positive prayer". Also, the lead should be a summary of the body of the article-- where is this in the article body? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey SandyGeorgia, I consider 'idealistic collectivism' to be a fair summary of the following article text: "Lennon contends that global harmony is within our reach, but only if we reject the mechanisms of social control that restrict human potential... Lennon attempted to raise people's awareness of their interaction with the institutions that affect their lives. Its lyrics ask the listener to abandon three of humanity's most cherished concepts: religion, nationhood, and possessions." Feel free to change it if you can think of a more appropriate description, as all I sought to do was improve the original statement.Coolazice (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've just discovered something useful about studying Philosophy as one of my 3½ majors. (I should be doing FARs instead of faffing about at NPP and writing tiny zoologist stubs.) Just to confirm: Imagine (song) is only very tenuously related to Positivism, Logical positivism, and sheep-dip.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• FTR, within two weeks of the TFA, we had two standing delegates and one "retired" delegate looking over the article (see FA? section above) and not one of them mentioned the "glaring error" of "collectivist positivism", though it was right there in the second sentence the whole time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation

• One of Google's Most Popular Searches, 'Imagine The World As One', which is an online project of The Freedom, Independence & World Democracy (FIWD) Institute, London (OA/OWB), is a website that provides an extensive listing of Criteria for Imagining the World as One, as John might have envisioned.

This does not seem plausible at all. It would seem that the particular company has simply added themselves to the page for some sort of promotion; The citation is just brings you to the Google search of "Imagine the World as One". It does the same with Ask and Alta Vista. To be frank, there is no way of telling Google's most popular searches, so this is definitely sabotage or self promotion. I have not deleted this incase I'm wrong, but I'm rather confident that I am correct. 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Inspiration and lyrics section is excessively biased

Basically the section on "Inspiration and lyrics" is really very biased against the song, with such statements as "However, Lennon's lyrics describe only hypothetical possibilities, offering no practical solutions, lyrics that are at times nebulous and contradictory, asking the listener to abandon systems while encouraging a system similar to communism.". Now this statement is presented as an objective fact, when it is only the opinion of John Blaney (author of Lennon and McCartney: Together Alone (2007)), Wikipedia cannot present this POV opinion as an unqualified fact. This kind of stuff would be fine if it were in the criticisms section and where identified as someone's opinion, but should not be in the lyrics section as a fact. Again, Blaney's opinions (which are invariably aggressively against the song) are scattered throughout the article as if they are NPOV statements, they are not and should be confined to the criticism section. --Hibernian (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

:-) Hotcop2 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

:-). See FA? section above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• It was a truly dreadful sentence. I have rewritten it to better conform with Criterion 1a. All in all it's rather a poorly-written article to be a Featured one, isn't it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, just sometimes, too many opinions and edits do just that. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well MarchOrDie, for your first 44 days on Wikipedia, I'd say you have come a very, very long way. Really, 1,095 edits in 44 days must be close to a record for a "new" user. FTR and the archives, here is a link to the article as it now reads. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few days and the statement was still there, so I've just gone ahead and moved it to the criticism section and changed the sentence a bit to make it clear that this is one person's opinion. --Hibernian (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Hibernian. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to take a fresh look at this article in a few days. I knew the heavy inclusion of people's critical opinions, whether they're musical scholars or not, was going to weigh this thing down to the point of it almost not making any sense. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've already trimmed quite a bit out of the article, and now all the "lit crit" is in the criticism section. Please feel free to trim out anything I missed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Madonna WikiProject ???

Hello. Can anybody tell me why the article is in the scope of the Madonna WikiProject??? 1.52.4.194 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume its because she covered the song and has performed it live, though I'm certainly not arguing in favour of the tag, but I'm also uncertain that its inaccurate. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

song composition date

Someone needs to fix this- because it's impossible. Lennon composed "Imagine" one morning in early 1971, on a Steinway piano, in a bedroom at his Tittenhurst Park estate in Ascot, Berkshire, England. Ono watched as he composed the melody, chord structure and almost all the lyrics, nearly completing the song in one brief writing session.[6]

For one thing, John is heard on the Let It Be sessions playing the chord structure of "Imagine" and that was in '69, he might have put it all together in '71 but he had already hit upon the chord structure. Not only that, John himself said in an interview he wrote most of the lyrics while he was on an airplane- so this brief description is misleading. I don't care what Yoko might say, it's on tape in '69 of him playing the chords- it's on the "Fly on the Wall" extra CD to "Let it Be Naked." bmtjr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.33.13 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Randio, its straight from Rolling Stone, so your WP:OR does not trump the reliable sources. Its true that Lennon later wrote the lyrics on some Hotel Stationary, but I don't see how that makes the RS account inaccurate. That he played some of the chords in '69 is irrelevant. He played those same chords many times before that, as most of his Beatles compositions include C, F and G. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lennon is heard playing "Mind Games" during the Let It Be sessions, not "Imagine." Hotcop2 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Soft rock

It is much more precise to talk about "soft rock" for this song rather than simply "rock" (and closer to the truth than simply "rock" which can means everything and anything). I added two references which show "Imagine" is a soft rock song. And I don't understand why it has been changed "Rock, pop" instead without any reference this time. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) We don't usually add references to the infobox.

2) Your first reference says: "The song is still heard repeatedly today on soft- rock and oldies stations". Which is not the exact same thing as explicitly stating the song's genre. I often hear Elvis songs on oldies stations, but that doesn't make "Heartbreak Hotel" "soft rock", does it? Please read WP:SYNTH.

3) Your second reference is not reliable. Please read WP:RS.

4) This is a time-wasting minutia-based debate; are the Beatles also soft rock, or are they primarily rock and pop?

We already spend (read waste) far too much time on Wikipedia debating the infobox details. Please don't use them as a platform for contention; you're splitting hairs here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW: "No. 23: John Lennon, ‘Imagine’ – Top 100 Classic Rock Songs". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Calm down ! It's not like if I wanted to add heavy metal or disco ! What's wrong about "soft rock" ? It perfectly describes "Imagine" (or pop rock too, even if it's not as precise as soft rock). And I'm sorry, I often see references added in the infobox and there's nothing wrong about it. Moreover I often see in magazines Lennon describes as a master of the soft rock genre (with his album Imagine for example). and his solo career was not exactly the same as the Beatles concerning music genres, because he did more soft rock ballads for example. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I am calm, so please don't go right to disparaging comments about editors. Keep your comments about the content. I see that several other editors at your talk page have had a similar experience regarding your genre warring; its a waste of time that does not improve the article in any proportion to the amount of effort expended. 2) Do you have a WP:RS that explicitly states that "Imagine" is a "soft rock" song? 3) "And I'm sorry, I often see references added in the infobox and there's nothing wrong about it." a) see WP:OTHERSTUFF, and b) Do you often see refs in the infoboxes of FAs? If so, which ones? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't take a look to my talk page. It doesn't mean nothing at all about me. I improve so much articles regarding genres and the small "troubles" you see are nothing at all in my whole work. It's not genre war. And take a look at Hey Jude. Do you see the two references in the infobox ? And what I don't understand is that an user thanked for what I did. Are you able to explain to me why ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Synthwave, one thing to understand is that quite a large number of registered and anonymous editors constantly make changes to genres in song and musician articles. Usually these changes are to suit their personal opinions or preferences. There's a guy that used to come in once every two days and change every single Red Hot Chili Peppers song from "funk metal" to "metal funk" just because he felt like it. In the interest of stability, we will generally revert those changes unless you can demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources about "Imagine" refer to it as a "soft rock" song. You do not have consensus for this change, so please desist. Since this is a featured article, we have an even broader interest in stability and a higher standard for sources than normal. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you I've got no problems at all about genres on "medium" articles.Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with it, but unfortunately I have to measure and prioritize the time I spend here. Dealing with genre editors is a huge time sink, and an often Sisyphean task. --Laser brain (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be no fun for sock trolls if it weren't Sisyphean. Is there any way that we could lock the infoboxes of FAs so that we don't have to fight this battle regularly? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to lock down one specific part of the article. I've tried on other articles to leave an inline note asking editors to get consensus before making genre changes, but it's routinely ignored. --Laser brain (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I forget to say I come with references (as I did on Imagine), I explain in the edit summary I change the genre (which is often added without any reference or discussion, it's very important I talk about it) and it works perfectly. I just realized it's "harsher" on featured articles so I think I'd try to be more careful. I'm sorry but I really thought the references I added were reliable. It's sometimes hard for me to see if a reference is reliable enough or not.

Anyway, Imagine is a ballad, isn't it ? And soft rock is a genre that can be used to show a song is ballad, right ? I already added soft rock to another article, precising it, and it was accepted. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also such a thing as a rock ballad, not? At any rate, "soft rock" is a sub-genre of rock, so there is absolutely no need to be overly specific and some good reasons to be a bit vague; rock and pop cover it, if not precisely enough for your tastes, but as Laser brain pointed out above, your opinion is irrelevant. Do you have any WP:RSs that support your claim that "Imagine" is not rock or pop? Again, please read WP:OR, as you don't seem to understand that how you view a song doesn't matter here. What matters is how the preponderance of reliable sources describe the song. Anyway, I've already wasted far too much time on this discussion that I should have spent actually improving an article. Also, I know you are "new", but please remember to sign your talk page posts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My very last edit

What's wrong about my very last edit ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to indicate that a song charted numerous times in numerous countries on several different occasions. The most notable chart achievements are detailed in the existing prose and the charts that are already there. We don't need anything more than that. All we need is the historical peak positions; its not necessary to mention that "Imagine" peaked at X in 1971 in Germany, then Y in 1978 in Australia, then Z in 1988 in Zimbabwe. Sometimes less is more. We don't need every individual chart stat in the entire history of a 42 year-old song, most of which you reference to dubious sources. We only include the most notable chart accomplishments, such as top tens in significant markets. For example, your edits introduce an obscure French chart position of 89 sometime between 1988-90 and one for Australia (2007-2008) which peaked at 94. An Australian chart peak of 94 is not notable. Your edits include 5 different chart positions for Australia, which are not needed in the least. Look, this article passed FAC without any of this info, so I fail to see what it adds. FTR, I will not be going back and forth with you over this, which is IMO, exactly what you want, to waste time and frustrate editors.

Also FTR, you are arguing with an FAC delegate (User:Laser brain) and an admin who is one of the most prolific writers of FAs in the past few years (User:Mark Arsten); this is highly unusual behavior for an editor of only 6 weeks and at the very least this is not a good "start". Personally, I don't think you are at all new here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Note re archiving

This talk page was wrongly archived to mis-numbered Talk:Imagine (song)/Archive 4; that has been moved to Talk:Imagine (song)/Archive 1. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Composition

The article says it was completely composed in 1971 but this is incorrect. On the Let It Be...Naked album you can clearly hear John Lennon dabbling with the melody during the extras bit where you hear the Beatles chatting. So Lennon had already started with the song a couple of years earlier while still in the Beatles. Peter Jensen (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That may well be true, but on Wikipedia, we write what can be verified by reliable sources, not what we believe to be true. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he's dabbling with Mind Games, not Imagine. But if you listen to the 1964 demo to If I Fell, you'll find that a little more interesting. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Charts section

I've just checked with the reviewed and listed version of this FA, from late 2012. The Charts section has been expanded considerably since then, which I imagine (ho, ho) it needed to. But what's crept in also, in the box detailing chart peaks for the 1971 release, is a number of second and third listings for each country – Canada and the US are obvious examples. Is this okay, having all these alternative charts (Cash Box, Record World, CHUM, etc.), or excessive and the listing equivalent of quote farm? If we think it's okay, then there are at least two other UK charts to add from this era, Melody Maker and NME, and I'm sure it wouldn't stop there – because these song (and album) chart boxes will just grow and grow, in my opinion.

In the case of the US charts, I'd always understood it that Billboard stands as the national chart, even in retrospect (i.e., despite Cash Box's standing until way into the 1970s); so for the US, the Billboard Hot 100 should appear in the Charts section, but the alternative chart peaks can be mentioned in the main text, if necessary. In the case of the two Belgian charts we have, it seems that one replaced the other, according to List of number-one hits (Belgium), anyway. With the CHUM chart, that appears to be for the Toronto area only, so it's obviously not a measure of national sales and/or radio play. So my thinking is we should cut some of these out – CHUM, Belgian Ultratop, Cash Box, Record World – because the coverage seems excessive right now. If not, then should we be looking to expand all other Charts sections for major international hits? – because they end up looking like under-achievers next to this. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Imagine (song) → Imagine (John Lennon song) – 1971 song no doubt more notable than the rest of Imagine (disambiguation) combined, nevertheless Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) requires that once we get into brackets/parentheses and multiple articles we give a precise title. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Knee-ferk support per nom Red Slash 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support'. Yes absolutely, this sort of article move has been going ahead for quite a while – eg for Harrison's song "Dark Horse". Good of you to raise it first, though(!). JG66 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per nomination and about time too. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per naming conventions Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, but as long as we're saddled with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I have to endorse the "wrong" title format. Radiopathy •talk• 22:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic of "Imagine" is Imagine (the dab). We don't have sub-primary topics such as WP:PRIMARY(SONG) WP:PRIMARY(FOOTBALLER) WP:PRIMARY(FILM) etc, this is consistent across the entire en.wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with PrimaryTopic, if it were, we'd be discussion Imagine, which we are not. The song is already disambiguated, therefore it is not a primary topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Box set Radiopathy •talk• 14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? User:Radiopathy, don't understand your point. What has Box set got to do with this, Box set meets the definition of primary, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it has no brackets after it. We're talking about a title which already isn't primary because it has brackets (song). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Look how you !voted in the move discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I opposed your proposed move from box set to boxed set. What's that got to do with this RM? This RM is about whether to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) for this article or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SONGDAB. There is no compunction in primarytopic in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Radiopathy and WP:PDAB. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lady Gaga

Didn't Lady Gaga perform this live as well? --dnsla23 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Piano part

The piano part sounds simple at the beginning of the song, but when John starts singing, I can hear another piano (possibly an electric or electronic piano) in addition to the main piano part. In the video, Lennon is playing a white piano, but in the studio he used an upright piano. Also, I watched on YouTube a video on the making of this song and while Lennon was playing the studio's piano, I saw off to his side, what looked like an RMI Electra Piano. There used to be an article for that instrument and Imagine was listed in there. It said that the instrument was "mixed in with the acoustic piano" and I can make out what sounds like an electric or electronic piano as the former article described. I see that this is a featured article, but it sounds like Lennon mixed the RMI Electra Piano in with the acoustic piano. While I understand the following statement is technically original research (which doesn't hold up in comparison to the wording of a featured article), I'm thinking that Lennon played both an acoustic piano and an electronic piano and mixed them together.--Kevjgav (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The piano is is in mono in the intro. When Lennon starts singing, it's panned into stereo. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

NY Hilton

Can someone tell me what is wrong with adding to the page the assertion that imagine was written in part at least at the NY HILTON.? Not only does Hilton assert it but there is proof that Lennon at least used NY HILTON stationery to write some of the lyrics

You answered your own question. It's an assertion by a Hilton official. So what that it's written on Hilton stationery? So what if it was written at the Hilton? So what if John took stationery from the Amsterdam Hilton in 1969 and later used it to write the words? Hotcop2 (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Music publisher

@Mlpearc: Hi, you're right about the lack of publisher parameter in this type of template, but do you not think it might be an idea to have such a parameter in Infobox Single? We have "Published" in Infobox Song. Also, when a song's notable for the number and range of cover recordings and performances, as "Imagine" is, one could say the identity of the music publisher is every bit as important as naming the composer, no? JG66 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this parameter until now. I notice there is no guidance on the template page which could lead to some confusion. Is it the date it was was published, as in Template:Infobox book? Is it the publisher in the author's home country or all publishers? Is it the original publisher or the current publisher? Piriczki (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've said it, P: there is no guidance. I take it that, as with the record label and release fields (per Template:Infobox single#Parameters), it's the first instance that counts – so, the publisher in the territory where the song was originally published/released. I take your point, though: it's published, not publisher, implying an action that requires a date. I hadn't actually considered that until recently. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the history of infobox song, the "published" parameter was added without explanation or discussion, no guidance for the parameter was ever offered, and a question about it on the talk page went unanswered. It's anybody's guess how it's supposed to be used. I can see problems with songs that had different publishers in different countries and where the ownership of the song has changed hands over the years. Lennon, as well as McCartney, have re-acquired some of their solo songs that were formerly Northern Songs, and McCartney has filed notices of termination for most of the Beatles' songs so he could be getting them back starting in 2019. Piriczki (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Forum

@IndianBio: I don't understand what's wrong with using the chart site's official forum when the posts are clearly marked as being from the staff. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, we cannot use a forum site to link to a content when that content actually originates from a book. The forum members/staff whoever it is have to have copyright from Kent Music Report in posting the information in the forum. Are you sure of that? The source does not seem to have any indication of getting that copyright and hence it cannot be used. If some one has the book, we can use that with the {{cite book}} template. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Austriancharts.com is considered a WP:RS, therefore I see no reason not to trust posts clearly indicated as being from the site's staff. Of course, the best is if someone with the book verifies if the information is correct, but unless the site is proven to be incorrect there is no reason not to trust it. And I'd say it's safe to assume they have the right to republish it, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of the source. Wikipedia relies heavily on references to secondary sources, how is this case different? nyuszika7h (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said Australiancharts.com is unreliable. It is their forum, where any member can post anything, is not reliable. You can go to WP:RSN for this, but pleas eunderstand that just because the main site is reliable, does not mean that we can add content posted in its forums. And you kind of answered your own question, "I'd say it's safe to assume they have the right to republish it", no you cannot assume. The only thing we can assume about the website is that they have right to post the top 50 of the charts from ARIA, we have no idea if they have for Kent Music Report and I'm talking about two different charts here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: You have completely ignored my point that the information was posted by a staff member of the site. It clearly says "Staff AU" right there, that's not something users can make up. And therefore yes, we can assume they have the right to post it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No you cannot. Unless you can show me that Staff from hung Medien were given access to post information from Kent Music Report you are doing WP:OR. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Imagine (John Lennon song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mygoldmusic.co.uk/article.asp?id=2520708
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/10/09/liverpool-celebrates-john-lennon-s-70th-birthday-as-peace-monument-unveiled-video-pics-100252-27439271/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theprovince.com/entertainment/Today%20Music%20History/7345666/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/111316/hello-2010huge--wet-crowd-rings-in-new-year-in-times-square
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/01/9875746-fans-angry-that-cee-lo-changed-imagine-lyrics
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1050chum.com/index_chumcharts.aspx?chart=770
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://it-charts.150m.com/numeriuno-1970.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/19711120.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/muggy59/1971.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imagine (John Lennon song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129023950/http://sfloman.com/johnlennon.html to http://sfloman.com/johnlennon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yoko Ono co-writer

The co-writing credit of Lennon-Ono will make it's debut on the Imagine Super=duper Deluxe box set due in October. Like it or not, she is now considered the co-author. The page should reflect as much. The bit about "Lennon composed the song on his Steinway with Yoko looking on" is speculative and not important in the song's history, either way. I had made the edits, but they were reverted. It is sourced and again, like it or not, it is fact and sourced.Hotcop2 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hotcop2: I was wondering why the edits were reverted. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why the edits were reverted, as it seems pretty clear that she's being credited as a writer on the song. --Laser brain (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I own a copy. Can confirm it displays Ono as co-writer. MaJic (comments go here) 02:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)