I think the Wiki community understands where your coming from. Anything Ms. Pang says isn't reliable info. Films, interviews and books by others aren't reliable sources. What John Wiener opines in an interview is. I'm not being uncivil to you, but as long as you choose to bring up private email, I love your freudian "excerpt from a tell-all is damagine not only to Lennon, but to May Pang and Yoko One as well" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that she has no recourse here. But to include a lot of her claims without outside, neutral substantiation is reckless. (and really, you want to poke fun at my typos? Yeah, that works wonders for engendering respect amongst the self-proclaimed "Beatles experts". LOL)-
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware it was not a freudian slip. I have no doubt it's nothing more than a spelling error. You brought up the private emails first, I responded in kind. Just tit for tat (whoever Tat is) Hotcop2 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I keep changing because you keep correcting it. The whole point of my putting up there was your error, not your point. I notice you ignore the part about you putting up messages from private emails first, but that's ok. You sigh alot. Perhaps you should have that checked, could be precursor to emphysema. Hotcop2 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You sublimely threaten me, call me inept, cite my personal email to you in this forum first, and I'm being uncivil? Are we done dialoging yet (as you promised)?
Hotcop2 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"While she seems to have a good life and many things going for her, she chooses to and remains to this day hopelessly obsessed with John Lennon."
At worst it's biased, and at best it's too conversational for this venue. Is there a citation that could demonstrate the same idea appropriately, or should the line simply be pulled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.69.217 ( talk • contribs) .
The article states, "though others have noticed that she re-tells different versions of her story in order to stay in the news and over-inflate her importance in Lennon's life." Can this statement be supported in any way? --
Eastend
There has been an extreme attempt to bias this article in Pang's favor, possibly by Pang herself (the user is MsMP), which included the deletion of an entire section that appropriately discussed criticism of her book without any discussion whatsoever. Everyone please watch this article. 74.39.18.117 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont let this happen. The original august 3rd was the best and most honest. It displayed the critisms accuratley.
Also it appears May removed the line about her being on the payroll the whole time through 1975, a fact she confirms in her own book, as well as her removing the line about Lennon having affairs with other women which May also confirms in her own book as well as testimony of the women he had the affairs with. here are the lines she deleted - "Pang lived with Lennon from late 1973 until the first weeks of 1975, and was employed and on the payroll working during the day on the business end of his recording projects" and "While in LA, Lennon decided to collaborate with Phil Spector to record an album of oldies. During this time, Lennon had numerous affairs with other women while drinking to excess and partying hard."
11/17/06 Removed internal link for Robert Rosen. It was linked to Robert Rosen the biologist, not Robert Rosen the author.
In reponse to above, yes she was a PA and secretary. BUT she did not contribute to any of Lennon's artistic or musical projects other then to arrange studio times and organize sessions. It is sad that she seems to think she was a major influence on Lennon, when in her own book she states that in May 1974 Lennon left her in LA for an entire month while he went back to NYC. During the time away from May he wrote all the songs for Walls and Bridges in a two week period. She was not even present for the conception of these songs. This information is in her book and for her to change her story now is ludicrous.
User 69.38.133.62 has added comments to my talk page that were hidden in the middle of another editor's comments. Protect this page now, and block the idiot in question. andreasegde 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Can the comments here be toned down a bit? There is no reason to use profanities or to make serious allegations without foundations.
I notice that this Talk page was recently almost entirely deleted and had to be restored. I made a comment on the user's talk page that this is major vandalism, and if it was a mistake to please be more mindful in the future. In case it wasn't a mistake--PLEASE keep an eye on this page. Layla12275 02:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, SixString1965 is very likely another attempt by May to revise history. Round of applause to LaraLove for reporting this "personal friend of May Pang" and for helping to revert her vandalism. Layla12275 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The article really needs a major overhaul - to me it reads like an article about her book, not a balanced biographical article about her. It is too colloquial in places, and in serious need of sourcing throughout. A copyedit would be helpful. Should keep WP:BLP in mind too, of course. Tvoz | talk 06:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's some point-of-view pushing in the passage about the Goldman book, which begins
The passage then goes on to quote a passage from Coleman's book on Lennon, in which Pang is paraphrased (not quoted directly) as stating that Goldman's book was 99% accurate and mentioning several specific claims in Goldman's book that she claimed were accurate ("John was skeletal," "had been using cocaine.") Shortly thereafter, however, it quotes her saying that Goldman "got a lot of a right" but "presented it wrong .. took all the dark sides. And some of his opinions were wrong. ... I didn't read that book either, except for my parts, which he got pretty accurate."
Taken together, these two quotations hardly constitute "voicing of her support" of the Goldman book. The paraphrase from Coleman's book may seem to support the Goldman book, but it's only a paraphase and not an actual quote. Moreover, Pang's 2004 comments contain multiple criticisms of Goldman, going so far as to characterize one of his claims as "garbage." (Pang's two statements may seem at first reading to contradict one another, but not necessarily. If indeed she only read "my parts" of the Goldman book, it's possible that she told Coleman something such as, "the parts I read were 98% accurate." If this was the case, her earlier comments to Coleman would be consistent with her 2004 comments.)
The remainder of the passage about the Goldman book consists of quoting people close to John Lennon who denounced it, followed by a list of controversial claims in the Goldman book, none of which seem to have been mentioned or affirmed by May Pang. When I read this passage, I couldn't help but wonder why such a long digression about the Goldman book should appear in an article about May Pang. I suspect it goes on at such length because whoever wrote it is trying to build a case against May Pang's credibility by exaggerating her alleged "voicing of support" for the Goldman book, notwithstanding the fact that Pang's actual comments about Goldman are either contradictory or ambivalent rather than supportive.
I think the best thing to do with this passage would be to shorten it significantly, moving the criticisms of Goldman's book into the article about his book rather than keeping them here. Also, the Goldman passage should focus on simply pointing out that Pang has been more supportive of the Goldman book than many other individuals who knew John Lennon personally. Blowing her remarks up into "perhaps Pang's largest lapse in credibility" is (1) speculative, (2) hyperbolic, and (3) POV.
-- Sheldon Rampton 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting). Does Coleman say anything about Pang's credibility at all? Nandesuka 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that May Pang was "misquoted" by Ray Coleman. In fact, she wasn't quoted at all. Rather, she was paraphrased by Coleman, and his mention of her reaction to the Goldman book is so brief that it's ridiculous to turn it into a major passage in her biography and claim that it constitutes her "largest lapse in credibility." It's true that people "can read for themselves exactly how the Coleman book stated it." The POV problem is that this passage goes beyond merely quoting the Coleman passage and tries to tell people how to interpret it. It's as POV as if someone were to take John Lennon's "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" remark and claim that it constituted his "largest lapse in credibility," throwing in for good measure an extensive digression into facts about Jesus Christ that don't even relate to anything Lennon actually said.
The Goldman passage also seriously distorts the context of May Pang's interview with Daytrippin Magazine. It states:
This out-of-context excerpt from the DayTrippin interview strives to make it sound like Pang was defending Goldman against critics of the book who actually knew Lennon such as Yoko Ono or Paul McCartney, when in fact the thrust of her comment was actually a criticism of people who write books about Lennon without having actually known him personally. Here's the passage from the DayTrippin interview that immediately preceded her comments quoted above:
Pang then replied, "Oh, please. Some people didn't even know John and they think they're experts ..." etc., etc. It's clear from this context that she was referring to people like Giuliano when she criticized "some people" who "didn't even know John and they think they're experts." She was obviously not juxtaposing her opinion against that of people like Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono, who in fact shared her contempt for Giuliano's book. (A Washington Post review described Giuliano's book as " more of the character assassination that was begun in such high style by Albert Goldman's notorious The Lives of John Lennon.)
All that can be inferred from May Pang's statements in Daytrippin are the following: (1) She says she didn't read Goldman's book, other than passages in which she was mentioned. (2) She thought those passages were "pretty accurate," and that Goldman's book was better than Giuliano's. (3) Nevertheless, she thought Goldman's interpretation was biased and negative, and that parts of the book were "garbage." It's simply inaccurate, therefore, to call her a supporter of Goldman's book.
As for the Ray Coleman reference, I got curious so I used the Nexis/Lexis news database to search for references to mentions of "May Pang," "Albert Goldman" and "John Lennon." I examined every news story in the database that mentions Goldman's book, and couldn't find a single example in which Pang is quoted saying anything supportive about the book. I did, however, find a 1988 story (the year Goldman's book was published), noting that Rolling Stone was about to publish " a scalding dissection of the Goldman book by Stone writers David Fricke and Jeffrey Ressner. Headlined 'Lennon Imagined,' the piece is based on interviews with such Lennon intimates as wife Yoko Ono, former girlfriend May Pang, pal and fellow musician Harry Nilsson and Lennon's first wife, Cynthia Lennon." I wasn't able to find the actual Rolling Stone article, but if the Fricke-Ressner piece is a "scalding dissection" of Goldman, I doubt that May Pang's comments were an endorsement. I also came across a couple of excerpts from Goldman's book in which he portrays Pang in a fairly flattering light and seems to rely heavily on her account of certain conversations and details about the time she spent with John. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pang would think those parts of the book are accurate.
In general, accounts of John Lennon's life tend to polarize around Yoko Ono. People who tend to view her negatively include Paul McCartney, Cynthia Lennon, May Pang, Julian Lennon, and of course Goldman. People who view her positively include Ray Coleman, Elliot Mintz, Sean Lennon, and of course John Lennon. Coleman's biography of Lennon (which I own) is on the pro-Yoko side, as evidenced by its brief and dismissive (I would even say hostile) treatment of May Pang. There's no evidence that Coleman actually interviewed her for the book, and he provides no references for the paragraph in which he claims that she supported Goldman's book. It is therefore highly POV to spend a full third of the Wikipedia article about May Pang expanding on the claims in this one uncorroborated paragraph in Coleman's book.
-- Sheldon Rampton 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoever is editing to "prevent revisionism history" is doing exactly that. There is no integrity to this page. It's a book review, not a biographical entry. This page might as well begin with "May Pang claims she was born in New York in 1950, but offers no proof of this."
This is what happens when 20-year-olds attempt to write about, impart wisdom and "set the record straight" on events that occured over 30 years ago.
Can an agenda be more obvious? It's been bastardized so much it doesn't make sense grammatically or chronologically.
"May claims to be close to Paul" -- Paul personally invited guests to Linda's Memorial Services.
On Pang's website there are plenty of photos with her and Cynthia, Julian, Paul. Pang appeared with Cynthia on Cynthia's recent book tour, attended Beatles conventions together, etc.
This is not the most important page in the world, yet it is longer than War and Peace. A factual disgrace to Wikipedia.
And I am *not* May Pang.
Hotcop2 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Tony Visconti was married to the invited guest to Linda's memorial, not the other way around. Just as Tony attended the many McCartney parties his wife was invited to. In fact, because of his marriage to May, Paul finally gave Tony the long overdue credit for his arrangements on Band On The Run. As far as being a powerful producer, not since the early 70s. Now he's a bit of a chuckle in the industry trying to hawk his current paramour.
Age has a little to do with it when much of John's lost weekend was in the press as it happened. Not always positive, true, but enough for people to know what was going on while it was going on.
That you would take the word of a person like Elliot Mintz (who incidently NEVER worked as a publicist for John -- in fact, one of the big stories surrounding his comeback album, Double Fantasy, was that he hired an unknown flack -- as he was deemed -- from Boston to promote the album). Elliot's revisionism began on December 9, 1980 and he's made quite a career of it, kudos to him.
In today's world, you'd have a good career in journalism since there is no accountability nor integrity. As a writer, not too much. You and your fellow hawks have turned this page into a convoluted comedy.
Hotcop2 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
May Pang has production coordinator credits on Lennon, Ringo, Nilsson and the upcoming Jagger album. So what? Tony didn't even produce Bowie's first #1 single, Fame, co-written by Bowie-Lennon-Alomar. So what? What's your source for Tony being invited to Linda's memorial and brough his wife? Yes, the facts certainly do speak for themselves. Let's have a few. Hotcop2 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)!
Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Layla, I wouldn't even put the part about journalist Shawn Weiss supporting the claim. The ref makes no such claim. He refers to her as a dear friend, but there is nothing to suggest she is close to Cynthia, Noel or Julian. Furthermore, this does not look like a reliable source by any means. Sources that include words like "becoz" aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lara ♥Love 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Don't get into a revert war. You'll both get blocked. Lara ♥Love 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The information about the upcoming book and how it can be pre-ordered is not encyclopedic. We're not advertising books here. If it's relevant to May Pang, mention the book, add the source, leave Amazon.com out of it. Additionally, there is no "Here's the info, I'll add the source later." Add the source with the info. Lara ♥Love 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I support this edit by Nandesuka because it removes information that was jumping to conclusions with sources that only provided some information and which did not provide the actual conclusions (see WP:NOR) and because it was going on about a book written by someone else, etc., not seeming highly relevant to this article. -- Coppertwig 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
While promoting his book at various Beatles conventions, he told the audiences he never actually met Lennon, which I included the first description of Wiener on this page.
Hotcop2 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, he's a nobody. He's his biggest fan - just look at his Wikipedia page history.
Sixstring1965 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
While Lennon acknowledges his excessive drinking during this time in his 1980 Playboy interview, nowhere does he make mention of "numerous affairs with other women." Ms. Pang cites the drinking and examples of two occasions of John's straying from her, but the Wiki passage was worded in such a way that implied Lennon acknowledged numerous affairs in his 1980 Playboy, which is not true.
In fact, Lennon's references to his excessive drinking were only in regards to his and May's time together in Los Angeles, as he names drinking buddies Keith Moon, Harry Nilsson, Ringo -- a clear reference to the beach house they all shared together in March 1974. Lennon and Pang spent the first 5 months of their relationship primarily in Los Angeles, altho they were in New York for lengthy breaks throughout. They spent the final 13 months of their 18-month "lost weekend" in New York, where there are no incidents of excessive drinking, and Lennon was quite productive -- completing Nilsson's Pussy Cats album, his own Walls and Bridges and Rock N Roll albums and numerous musical projects with Elton John, Ringo Starr, Mick Jagger.
The two Troubadour incidents (when John wore a Kotex on his forehead and, two weeks later, when he was thrown out of the club for drunkenly heckling the Smothers Brothers) both occured in March, 1974, while the wild, chaotic alcohol-fuel Spector "Rock N Roll" sessions were in December. So, out of the the 18-month period, the three widely documented instances of Lennon's drunkenness spanned a period of four months.
The only acknowledgement of Lennon feeling bad (and indulging) in New York during this period refers to his stage jitters when performing with Elton John at Madison Square Garden, November 28, 1974, sadly Lennon's last major public appearance.
Hotcop2 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that all the clutter has been cleared from this page, and we're spared book reviews of Albert Goldman and character assassinations, I cut and pasted some paragraphs and added some detail to make an attempt at a more cohesive, flowing biographical entry.
I also eliminated the Amazon books reference as this indeed is not a forum for advertising.
Hotcop2 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a short passage from the Kane book which quotes Lennon himself about this period in his life. Moreover, Kane got the cooperation of both Yoko Ono and May Pang and went into depth about the "Lost Weekend" period.
Hotcop2 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the majority of the biography section, as is horrifically unencyclopedic. Since when do we essentially parrot a tell-all book that doesn't bother citing itw own sources? Please do not re-add ANY of it without notable, verifiable and reliable information, As per WP:BLP, it will stay removed until then. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You can add citation tags where need be and I will put them up since you like to sit by your computer looking to start trouble. And yes, there are Beatles experts. Sixstring1965* Sixstring1965 The Beatles Wikiproject
Well, you could always use the old material about the book in a new article on the book. From one article becomes two. Simple really. -- kingboyk ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
is well documented in movies, interviews and books other than her own. Her Wiki page was turned into a book review by the same "helpful" person who has been cyberstalking Ms. Pang for two years and had you do these changes. If one simply stated the facts of her life, you (or the helpful one) would want every single line cited. So sources from book are mentioned. And why would you delete the bio portion and just keep the criticism of her book? Ms. Pang was part of Mr. Lennon's life and that's reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of the {{ Fact}} tags added by User:Arcayne.
-- Sheldon Rampton 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
it will be revisited in a couple of days, sources will be cited, and it will look more like a biographical entry in an encyclopedia than a gossip rag. ok? cool Hotcop2 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I learn something new every day. Hotcop2 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Listing a book where statements are made is not the same thing as a citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After looking at several other Wiki biopages, this format seems to conform a little bit more to those and less like a fan-frenzied gossip rag. Now,, let's work at making it "completely correct" Hotcop2 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I used Kane in reference to Ono and Lennon quotes, not for his opinions and conclusions. Ono goes into the entire explanation of how the marriage was in trouble (which dates back to 1972 when Lennon screwed a girl with Ono, fully aware, sitting in the next room). This episode has nothing to do with Pang, and isn't included here, but it is well documented (including in Yoko's own movie, Imagine, as well as several interviews she has done. The marriage had hit a rough spot, and I did soften the langauge on the page. There's a mess sixstring is cleaning up with the citations, so be patient and the page will get normal soon. Then we can take a fresh look. Hotcop2 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Kane is the only place Ono has discussed this very public relationship. Hotcop2 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems odd that you think she "must have talked about this...relationship elsewhere". I think it's amazing that she EVER spoke about it publicly, considering how humiliated she was when her plan backfired and John fell in love with May. She had to work hard to get him back and even sent McCartney over to intervene. 70.111.233.230 08:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well actually not. Ono spent the early 80's airbrushing Pang out of the story, then used her Loving John book as the basis for two Ono-approved movies (Imagine and the CBS-TV John & Yoko: A Love Story) then once again tried to airbrush Pang out in 2005 by creating a video to #9 Dream where Ono is lip-synching Pang's vocals, and by putting her (Ono's) face on the CD label (the former label from the John & Yoko album Sometime In New York City album) on the reissue of Walls and Bridges. I'm not a fan of revising history no matter who's doing it. Hotcop2 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel like little Christina in Mommie Dearest. I cleaned up this mess. 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You call this clean? Bring me the axe! ;-) Hotcop2 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it proper to remove the "sources" box on the top of the page? Sixstring1965 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, it isn't my place to provide how the source is notable; its the job of the uploader to do that, so as to avoid WP:UNDUE issued from popping up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's YOU who's pushing an agenda and trying to skew the article. When other editors referred to certain books for their quotes and citations you deleted or dismissed many of these as invalid by denigrating the books and articles that don't agree with your obvious point of view. A neutral person would never use emotional phrases like "trashy tell-all" and "bitchslapped by every reputable news service in the English language".
It's been 3 weeks since TVOZ asked for backup on your allegations about Kane's book and you've provided nothing. If indeed "every reputable news service in the English language" had something bad to say about the book, it would have been ridiculously easy for you to provide proof by now.
My goal is to have the box totally removed. If anyone has an idea of what info should be supplied, I'll go after it.
Sixstring1965 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We cannot use citations taken from About.com, as the citatiosn from there aren't really stable or reliable. Maybe someone should track down the source About is using and verify its provenance? Either way, the About.com citation will have to be removed soon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC
Yeah Arcayne, I agree on that About.com thing. It really doesn't have any meat and potatoes to it. I'll try to hunt down a better source.
Sixstring1965 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a site for the book on line, besides Amazon. But I've read it in the book. How do we go about citing something in a book that doesn't appear to be referenced on line except in a place like About.com? I cannot even find the Newsweek interview the author did, where he mentions this. It is, however, explained in Ms. Pang's book and Lennon coyly aludes to a "loud sound" in his Hamill interview, but states "he doesn't tell tales out of school" so doesn't go into specifics, as a professional courtesy. Hotcop2 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at other bios and they simply footnote a passage from books that are not referenced on line, or at least do not specificaly reference the passage cited. it's apparently acceptable. Hotcop2 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this book reference was removed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason Jon Wiener's book about the Lennon FBI files, is included on this page? Let me know. Thanks Hotcop2 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We should have no problem with this photo. Hotcop2 ( talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did the Chinese characters go? Hotcop2 ( talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the Wiki community understands where your coming from. Anything Ms. Pang says isn't reliable info. Films, interviews and books by others aren't reliable sources. What John Wiener opines in an interview is. I'm not being uncivil to you, but as long as you choose to bring up private email, I love your freudian "excerpt from a tell-all is damagine not only to Lennon, but to May Pang and Yoko One as well" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that she has no recourse here. But to include a lot of her claims without outside, neutral substantiation is reckless. (and really, you want to poke fun at my typos? Yeah, that works wonders for engendering respect amongst the self-proclaimed "Beatles experts". LOL)-
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware it was not a freudian slip. I have no doubt it's nothing more than a spelling error. You brought up the private emails first, I responded in kind. Just tit for tat (whoever Tat is) Hotcop2 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I keep changing because you keep correcting it. The whole point of my putting up there was your error, not your point. I notice you ignore the part about you putting up messages from private emails first, but that's ok. You sigh alot. Perhaps you should have that checked, could be precursor to emphysema. Hotcop2 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You sublimely threaten me, call me inept, cite my personal email to you in this forum first, and I'm being uncivil? Are we done dialoging yet (as you promised)?
Hotcop2 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"While she seems to have a good life and many things going for her, she chooses to and remains to this day hopelessly obsessed with John Lennon."
At worst it's biased, and at best it's too conversational for this venue. Is there a citation that could demonstrate the same idea appropriately, or should the line simply be pulled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.69.217 ( talk • contribs) .
The article states, "though others have noticed that she re-tells different versions of her story in order to stay in the news and over-inflate her importance in Lennon's life." Can this statement be supported in any way? --
Eastend
There has been an extreme attempt to bias this article in Pang's favor, possibly by Pang herself (the user is MsMP), which included the deletion of an entire section that appropriately discussed criticism of her book without any discussion whatsoever. Everyone please watch this article. 74.39.18.117 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont let this happen. The original august 3rd was the best and most honest. It displayed the critisms accuratley.
Also it appears May removed the line about her being on the payroll the whole time through 1975, a fact she confirms in her own book, as well as her removing the line about Lennon having affairs with other women which May also confirms in her own book as well as testimony of the women he had the affairs with. here are the lines she deleted - "Pang lived with Lennon from late 1973 until the first weeks of 1975, and was employed and on the payroll working during the day on the business end of his recording projects" and "While in LA, Lennon decided to collaborate with Phil Spector to record an album of oldies. During this time, Lennon had numerous affairs with other women while drinking to excess and partying hard."
11/17/06 Removed internal link for Robert Rosen. It was linked to Robert Rosen the biologist, not Robert Rosen the author.
In reponse to above, yes she was a PA and secretary. BUT she did not contribute to any of Lennon's artistic or musical projects other then to arrange studio times and organize sessions. It is sad that she seems to think she was a major influence on Lennon, when in her own book she states that in May 1974 Lennon left her in LA for an entire month while he went back to NYC. During the time away from May he wrote all the songs for Walls and Bridges in a two week period. She was not even present for the conception of these songs. This information is in her book and for her to change her story now is ludicrous.
User 69.38.133.62 has added comments to my talk page that were hidden in the middle of another editor's comments. Protect this page now, and block the idiot in question. andreasegde 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Can the comments here be toned down a bit? There is no reason to use profanities or to make serious allegations without foundations.
I notice that this Talk page was recently almost entirely deleted and had to be restored. I made a comment on the user's talk page that this is major vandalism, and if it was a mistake to please be more mindful in the future. In case it wasn't a mistake--PLEASE keep an eye on this page. Layla12275 02:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, SixString1965 is very likely another attempt by May to revise history. Round of applause to LaraLove for reporting this "personal friend of May Pang" and for helping to revert her vandalism. Layla12275 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The article really needs a major overhaul - to me it reads like an article about her book, not a balanced biographical article about her. It is too colloquial in places, and in serious need of sourcing throughout. A copyedit would be helpful. Should keep WP:BLP in mind too, of course. Tvoz | talk 06:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's some point-of-view pushing in the passage about the Goldman book, which begins
The passage then goes on to quote a passage from Coleman's book on Lennon, in which Pang is paraphrased (not quoted directly) as stating that Goldman's book was 99% accurate and mentioning several specific claims in Goldman's book that she claimed were accurate ("John was skeletal," "had been using cocaine.") Shortly thereafter, however, it quotes her saying that Goldman "got a lot of a right" but "presented it wrong .. took all the dark sides. And some of his opinions were wrong. ... I didn't read that book either, except for my parts, which he got pretty accurate."
Taken together, these two quotations hardly constitute "voicing of her support" of the Goldman book. The paraphrase from Coleman's book may seem to support the Goldman book, but it's only a paraphase and not an actual quote. Moreover, Pang's 2004 comments contain multiple criticisms of Goldman, going so far as to characterize one of his claims as "garbage." (Pang's two statements may seem at first reading to contradict one another, but not necessarily. If indeed she only read "my parts" of the Goldman book, it's possible that she told Coleman something such as, "the parts I read were 98% accurate." If this was the case, her earlier comments to Coleman would be consistent with her 2004 comments.)
The remainder of the passage about the Goldman book consists of quoting people close to John Lennon who denounced it, followed by a list of controversial claims in the Goldman book, none of which seem to have been mentioned or affirmed by May Pang. When I read this passage, I couldn't help but wonder why such a long digression about the Goldman book should appear in an article about May Pang. I suspect it goes on at such length because whoever wrote it is trying to build a case against May Pang's credibility by exaggerating her alleged "voicing of support" for the Goldman book, notwithstanding the fact that Pang's actual comments about Goldman are either contradictory or ambivalent rather than supportive.
I think the best thing to do with this passage would be to shorten it significantly, moving the criticisms of Goldman's book into the article about his book rather than keeping them here. Also, the Goldman passage should focus on simply pointing out that Pang has been more supportive of the Goldman book than many other individuals who knew John Lennon personally. Blowing her remarks up into "perhaps Pang's largest lapse in credibility" is (1) speculative, (2) hyperbolic, and (3) POV.
-- Sheldon Rampton 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(de-indenting). Does Coleman say anything about Pang's credibility at all? Nandesuka 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that May Pang was "misquoted" by Ray Coleman. In fact, she wasn't quoted at all. Rather, she was paraphrased by Coleman, and his mention of her reaction to the Goldman book is so brief that it's ridiculous to turn it into a major passage in her biography and claim that it constitutes her "largest lapse in credibility." It's true that people "can read for themselves exactly how the Coleman book stated it." The POV problem is that this passage goes beyond merely quoting the Coleman passage and tries to tell people how to interpret it. It's as POV as if someone were to take John Lennon's "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" remark and claim that it constituted his "largest lapse in credibility," throwing in for good measure an extensive digression into facts about Jesus Christ that don't even relate to anything Lennon actually said.
The Goldman passage also seriously distorts the context of May Pang's interview with Daytrippin Magazine. It states:
This out-of-context excerpt from the DayTrippin interview strives to make it sound like Pang was defending Goldman against critics of the book who actually knew Lennon such as Yoko Ono or Paul McCartney, when in fact the thrust of her comment was actually a criticism of people who write books about Lennon without having actually known him personally. Here's the passage from the DayTrippin interview that immediately preceded her comments quoted above:
Pang then replied, "Oh, please. Some people didn't even know John and they think they're experts ..." etc., etc. It's clear from this context that she was referring to people like Giuliano when she criticized "some people" who "didn't even know John and they think they're experts." She was obviously not juxtaposing her opinion against that of people like Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono, who in fact shared her contempt for Giuliano's book. (A Washington Post review described Giuliano's book as " more of the character assassination that was begun in such high style by Albert Goldman's notorious The Lives of John Lennon.)
All that can be inferred from May Pang's statements in Daytrippin are the following: (1) She says she didn't read Goldman's book, other than passages in which she was mentioned. (2) She thought those passages were "pretty accurate," and that Goldman's book was better than Giuliano's. (3) Nevertheless, she thought Goldman's interpretation was biased and negative, and that parts of the book were "garbage." It's simply inaccurate, therefore, to call her a supporter of Goldman's book.
As for the Ray Coleman reference, I got curious so I used the Nexis/Lexis news database to search for references to mentions of "May Pang," "Albert Goldman" and "John Lennon." I examined every news story in the database that mentions Goldman's book, and couldn't find a single example in which Pang is quoted saying anything supportive about the book. I did, however, find a 1988 story (the year Goldman's book was published), noting that Rolling Stone was about to publish " a scalding dissection of the Goldman book by Stone writers David Fricke and Jeffrey Ressner. Headlined 'Lennon Imagined,' the piece is based on interviews with such Lennon intimates as wife Yoko Ono, former girlfriend May Pang, pal and fellow musician Harry Nilsson and Lennon's first wife, Cynthia Lennon." I wasn't able to find the actual Rolling Stone article, but if the Fricke-Ressner piece is a "scalding dissection" of Goldman, I doubt that May Pang's comments were an endorsement. I also came across a couple of excerpts from Goldman's book in which he portrays Pang in a fairly flattering light and seems to rely heavily on her account of certain conversations and details about the time she spent with John. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pang would think those parts of the book are accurate.
In general, accounts of John Lennon's life tend to polarize around Yoko Ono. People who tend to view her negatively include Paul McCartney, Cynthia Lennon, May Pang, Julian Lennon, and of course Goldman. People who view her positively include Ray Coleman, Elliot Mintz, Sean Lennon, and of course John Lennon. Coleman's biography of Lennon (which I own) is on the pro-Yoko side, as evidenced by its brief and dismissive (I would even say hostile) treatment of May Pang. There's no evidence that Coleman actually interviewed her for the book, and he provides no references for the paragraph in which he claims that she supported Goldman's book. It is therefore highly POV to spend a full third of the Wikipedia article about May Pang expanding on the claims in this one uncorroborated paragraph in Coleman's book.
-- Sheldon Rampton 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoever is editing to "prevent revisionism history" is doing exactly that. There is no integrity to this page. It's a book review, not a biographical entry. This page might as well begin with "May Pang claims she was born in New York in 1950, but offers no proof of this."
This is what happens when 20-year-olds attempt to write about, impart wisdom and "set the record straight" on events that occured over 30 years ago.
Can an agenda be more obvious? It's been bastardized so much it doesn't make sense grammatically or chronologically.
"May claims to be close to Paul" -- Paul personally invited guests to Linda's Memorial Services.
On Pang's website there are plenty of photos with her and Cynthia, Julian, Paul. Pang appeared with Cynthia on Cynthia's recent book tour, attended Beatles conventions together, etc.
This is not the most important page in the world, yet it is longer than War and Peace. A factual disgrace to Wikipedia.
And I am *not* May Pang.
Hotcop2 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Tony Visconti was married to the invited guest to Linda's memorial, not the other way around. Just as Tony attended the many McCartney parties his wife was invited to. In fact, because of his marriage to May, Paul finally gave Tony the long overdue credit for his arrangements on Band On The Run. As far as being a powerful producer, not since the early 70s. Now he's a bit of a chuckle in the industry trying to hawk his current paramour.
Age has a little to do with it when much of John's lost weekend was in the press as it happened. Not always positive, true, but enough for people to know what was going on while it was going on.
That you would take the word of a person like Elliot Mintz (who incidently NEVER worked as a publicist for John -- in fact, one of the big stories surrounding his comeback album, Double Fantasy, was that he hired an unknown flack -- as he was deemed -- from Boston to promote the album). Elliot's revisionism began on December 9, 1980 and he's made quite a career of it, kudos to him.
In today's world, you'd have a good career in journalism since there is no accountability nor integrity. As a writer, not too much. You and your fellow hawks have turned this page into a convoluted comedy.
Hotcop2 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
May Pang has production coordinator credits on Lennon, Ringo, Nilsson and the upcoming Jagger album. So what? Tony didn't even produce Bowie's first #1 single, Fame, co-written by Bowie-Lennon-Alomar. So what? What's your source for Tony being invited to Linda's memorial and brough his wife? Yes, the facts certainly do speak for themselves. Let's have a few. Hotcop2 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)!
Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Layla, I wouldn't even put the part about journalist Shawn Weiss supporting the claim. The ref makes no such claim. He refers to her as a dear friend, but there is nothing to suggest she is close to Cynthia, Noel or Julian. Furthermore, this does not look like a reliable source by any means. Sources that include words like "becoz" aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lara ♥Love 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Don't get into a revert war. You'll both get blocked. Lara ♥Love 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The information about the upcoming book and how it can be pre-ordered is not encyclopedic. We're not advertising books here. If it's relevant to May Pang, mention the book, add the source, leave Amazon.com out of it. Additionally, there is no "Here's the info, I'll add the source later." Add the source with the info. Lara ♥Love 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I support this edit by Nandesuka because it removes information that was jumping to conclusions with sources that only provided some information and which did not provide the actual conclusions (see WP:NOR) and because it was going on about a book written by someone else, etc., not seeming highly relevant to this article. -- Coppertwig 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
While promoting his book at various Beatles conventions, he told the audiences he never actually met Lennon, which I included the first description of Wiener on this page.
Hotcop2 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, he's a nobody. He's his biggest fan - just look at his Wikipedia page history.
Sixstring1965 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
While Lennon acknowledges his excessive drinking during this time in his 1980 Playboy interview, nowhere does he make mention of "numerous affairs with other women." Ms. Pang cites the drinking and examples of two occasions of John's straying from her, but the Wiki passage was worded in such a way that implied Lennon acknowledged numerous affairs in his 1980 Playboy, which is not true.
In fact, Lennon's references to his excessive drinking were only in regards to his and May's time together in Los Angeles, as he names drinking buddies Keith Moon, Harry Nilsson, Ringo -- a clear reference to the beach house they all shared together in March 1974. Lennon and Pang spent the first 5 months of their relationship primarily in Los Angeles, altho they were in New York for lengthy breaks throughout. They spent the final 13 months of their 18-month "lost weekend" in New York, where there are no incidents of excessive drinking, and Lennon was quite productive -- completing Nilsson's Pussy Cats album, his own Walls and Bridges and Rock N Roll albums and numerous musical projects with Elton John, Ringo Starr, Mick Jagger.
The two Troubadour incidents (when John wore a Kotex on his forehead and, two weeks later, when he was thrown out of the club for drunkenly heckling the Smothers Brothers) both occured in March, 1974, while the wild, chaotic alcohol-fuel Spector "Rock N Roll" sessions were in December. So, out of the the 18-month period, the three widely documented instances of Lennon's drunkenness spanned a period of four months.
The only acknowledgement of Lennon feeling bad (and indulging) in New York during this period refers to his stage jitters when performing with Elton John at Madison Square Garden, November 28, 1974, sadly Lennon's last major public appearance.
Hotcop2 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that all the clutter has been cleared from this page, and we're spared book reviews of Albert Goldman and character assassinations, I cut and pasted some paragraphs and added some detail to make an attempt at a more cohesive, flowing biographical entry.
I also eliminated the Amazon books reference as this indeed is not a forum for advertising.
Hotcop2 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a short passage from the Kane book which quotes Lennon himself about this period in his life. Moreover, Kane got the cooperation of both Yoko Ono and May Pang and went into depth about the "Lost Weekend" period.
Hotcop2 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the majority of the biography section, as is horrifically unencyclopedic. Since when do we essentially parrot a tell-all book that doesn't bother citing itw own sources? Please do not re-add ANY of it without notable, verifiable and reliable information, As per WP:BLP, it will stay removed until then. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You can add citation tags where need be and I will put them up since you like to sit by your computer looking to start trouble. And yes, there are Beatles experts. Sixstring1965* Sixstring1965 The Beatles Wikiproject
Well, you could always use the old material about the book in a new article on the book. From one article becomes two. Simple really. -- kingboyk ( talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
is well documented in movies, interviews and books other than her own. Her Wiki page was turned into a book review by the same "helpful" person who has been cyberstalking Ms. Pang for two years and had you do these changes. If one simply stated the facts of her life, you (or the helpful one) would want every single line cited. So sources from book are mentioned. And why would you delete the bio portion and just keep the criticism of her book? Ms. Pang was part of Mr. Lennon's life and that's reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of the {{ Fact}} tags added by User:Arcayne.
-- Sheldon Rampton 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
it will be revisited in a couple of days, sources will be cited, and it will look more like a biographical entry in an encyclopedia than a gossip rag. ok? cool Hotcop2 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I learn something new every day. Hotcop2 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Listing a book where statements are made is not the same thing as a citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After looking at several other Wiki biopages, this format seems to conform a little bit more to those and less like a fan-frenzied gossip rag. Now,, let's work at making it "completely correct" Hotcop2 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I used Kane in reference to Ono and Lennon quotes, not for his opinions and conclusions. Ono goes into the entire explanation of how the marriage was in trouble (which dates back to 1972 when Lennon screwed a girl with Ono, fully aware, sitting in the next room). This episode has nothing to do with Pang, and isn't included here, but it is well documented (including in Yoko's own movie, Imagine, as well as several interviews she has done. The marriage had hit a rough spot, and I did soften the langauge on the page. There's a mess sixstring is cleaning up with the citations, so be patient and the page will get normal soon. Then we can take a fresh look. Hotcop2 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Kane is the only place Ono has discussed this very public relationship. Hotcop2 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it seems odd that you think she "must have talked about this...relationship elsewhere". I think it's amazing that she EVER spoke about it publicly, considering how humiliated she was when her plan backfired and John fell in love with May. She had to work hard to get him back and even sent McCartney over to intervene. 70.111.233.230 08:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well actually not. Ono spent the early 80's airbrushing Pang out of the story, then used her Loving John book as the basis for two Ono-approved movies (Imagine and the CBS-TV John & Yoko: A Love Story) then once again tried to airbrush Pang out in 2005 by creating a video to #9 Dream where Ono is lip-synching Pang's vocals, and by putting her (Ono's) face on the CD label (the former label from the John & Yoko album Sometime In New York City album) on the reissue of Walls and Bridges. I'm not a fan of revising history no matter who's doing it. Hotcop2 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel like little Christina in Mommie Dearest. I cleaned up this mess. 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You call this clean? Bring me the axe! ;-) Hotcop2 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it proper to remove the "sources" box on the top of the page? Sixstring1965 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, it isn't my place to provide how the source is notable; its the job of the uploader to do that, so as to avoid WP:UNDUE issued from popping up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's YOU who's pushing an agenda and trying to skew the article. When other editors referred to certain books for their quotes and citations you deleted or dismissed many of these as invalid by denigrating the books and articles that don't agree with your obvious point of view. A neutral person would never use emotional phrases like "trashy tell-all" and "bitchslapped by every reputable news service in the English language".
It's been 3 weeks since TVOZ asked for backup on your allegations about Kane's book and you've provided nothing. If indeed "every reputable news service in the English language" had something bad to say about the book, it would have been ridiculously easy for you to provide proof by now.
My goal is to have the box totally removed. If anyone has an idea of what info should be supplied, I'll go after it.
Sixstring1965 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
We cannot use citations taken from About.com, as the citatiosn from there aren't really stable or reliable. Maybe someone should track down the source About is using and verify its provenance? Either way, the About.com citation will have to be removed soon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC
Yeah Arcayne, I agree on that About.com thing. It really doesn't have any meat and potatoes to it. I'll try to hunt down a better source.
Sixstring1965 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a site for the book on line, besides Amazon. But I've read it in the book. How do we go about citing something in a book that doesn't appear to be referenced on line except in a place like About.com? I cannot even find the Newsweek interview the author did, where he mentions this. It is, however, explained in Ms. Pang's book and Lennon coyly aludes to a "loud sound" in his Hamill interview, but states "he doesn't tell tales out of school" so doesn't go into specifics, as a professional courtesy. Hotcop2 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at other bios and they simply footnote a passage from books that are not referenced on line, or at least do not specificaly reference the passage cited. it's apparently acceptable. Hotcop2 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this book reference was removed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason Jon Wiener's book about the Lennon FBI files, is included on this page? Let me know. Thanks Hotcop2 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We should have no problem with this photo. Hotcop2 ( talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did the Chinese characters go? Hotcop2 ( talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)