This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
More popular than Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | More popular than Jesus has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"More popular than Jesus" may not be the best title, who, maybe Beatles-Jesus popularity controversy is a better name. Any suggestions. Kasaalan ( talk) 03:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Support A literal title is useful to both those familiar and unfamiliar with the subject, the current title only to the former group. Nick R's suggestion— 1966 Beatles religion controversy—is fine. Maybe it could be improved a little ( The Beatles' 1966 religion controversy?) but I don't thing PL290's objection holds up to scrutiny: by 1967, what remained of the controversy was of low notability compared to other things, such as the release of Sgt. Pepper, the LSD controversy, etc. For example, Barry Miles' The Beatles Diary does not mention the controversy again after 1966. Uniplex ( talk) 14:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In the article it says that John Lennon only said that they were "more popular than Jesus," but in the "Later Years" section it says Lennon wrote in 1978, "I always remember to thank Jesus for the end of my touring days; if I hadn't said that the Beatles were 'bigger than Jesus...'" So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdesamero ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that John Lennon actually meant to say he was bigger than Jesus. Just take a look at the lyrics to "Imagine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.100.2 ( talk) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has been added to this list.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked at this article today and thought, "did somebody forget to put a green blob on it"? Anyway, I've done a bit of an overhaul anyway and put it back up for review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Oishiisou ( talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
On the whole, well written - but the article would benefit from some reorganization in the first two paragraphs. It would be better to move "Lennon originally made the remark . . . provoked no public reaction" to the end of the second paragraph to avoid the awkward repeating of "five months later in 1966 . . ."
A citation is needed in the third paragraph for "Christian spokesmen pointed out that . . ." Additional citations are also needed in the final paragraph of the background section for "The decline of Christianity had been the subject of regular discussion in the UK since the First World War." The citations in this paragraph are all from Gould's book on the Beatles - which is not an adequate source on the state of Christianity in the UK.
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
I'm in agreement with several folks on the talk page who felt that the title should be more along the lines of "Beatles more popular than Jesus controversy". At present, the title doesn't indicate any connection to the Beatles.
As I am a new editor, I'd appreciate a second opinion. Oishiisou ( talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
While the enthusiasm of this new editor is admirable, the editor does not yet have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or Manual of Style to assess articles. Accordingly, it is recommended that the requesting editor resubmit the article for GA assessment and review. Thank you, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. I will now take all of the articles I have nominated for a GA review off the list. At some time in the future (when some good and reliable GA reviewers return after their summer holidays), I will nominate them again. The GA reviews have become a joke.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemonade51 ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this...
Very interesting article. No dead links or dabs and only found one close-paraphrasing niggle. Will pass once comments have been addressed. Lemonade51 ( talk) 23:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
IPs, I didn't revert your edits because I was "out to get you", but because the writing was insufficient for GA standard (which this article is), and it seems to be original research which doesn't have anything to do with the incident in question. If it did, the thesaurus would directly mention Lennon, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
In this article will be used and the common sense (official rule of Wikipedia). Because everyone understands that the terrible crimes of Catholic Church give "million" of moral rights be against these crimes and against related issues. Sedo121212 ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I cannot make sense of the first sentence of the Moral Right section: Exist the reasons assume that John Lennon ....
Can someone edit this to (perhaps) "Reasons exist to assume that John Lennon ..." ?
Thanks 208.123.145.108 ( talk) 00:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Dave Moorman. July 13, 2015
Datebook is a redirect to this article. Who needs such circle? Xx236 ( talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on More popular than Jesus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
More popular than Jesus →
We're more popular than Jesus – Per
WP:STICKTOSOURCE, the full quote includes "We're". This is the only article under
Category:English phrases that omits a word from the title quote. Also
WP:TITLE: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.
--
Ilovetopaint (
talk) 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've stated my opinion that per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead probably wants to be focused on two paragraphs (at 15K of prose, it's right on the limit of where three might be appropriate), and that the Chapman stuff is kind of off-topic. Not everyone agrees, and there have been reverts flying back and forth. So let's discuss. I did a lot of ground work on the article about 5 years ago, but I've generally stayed out of the limelight since then and let others have a go at it. So let's have a chat and see what direction we want to take. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The Background section should include a reference to Lennon's 1974 explanation of the original comment, as it suggests that he had been misquoted, or that the quote was taken out of context. In a 1974 interview, Lennon explained how it was a flippant remark, not intended as a "big statement". He emphasizes that we was "in a bad mood" and made the comment as a flippant response to the reporter's intimation that the band was "slipping" after a record had come out and wasn't doing well, or the band was getting bad reviews in the press. Lennon stated: "This girl who I was pretty close to was a reporter from the London Evening Standard. In fact we were very close. And she came and I was just in one of my — I was just not in a good mood. And I wasn't making big statement. I was not in a good mood. And there'd been a record out, something, and maybe it wasn't going so well, or they'd been knocking us in the press, you know. They were always either lovin' us or hatin' us. There was never anything in between. Same as they did with Dylan or any of this now. And she came, and she was intimatin' that we were slipping. And I was in a bad mood. And I said, 'Slipping? We're bigger than Jesus.' Just no thought whatsoever like that. And you print it — it looks like it's a statement. In England nobody took any notice. You know, they know a guy's blabbing off. Who is he? But over here, you know, some lunatic gets his Klan mask on and starts running around burning crosses. So it was that flippant." [1] 69.114.93.199 ( talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
More popular than Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | More popular than Jesus has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"More popular than Jesus" may not be the best title, who, maybe Beatles-Jesus popularity controversy is a better name. Any suggestions. Kasaalan ( talk) 03:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Support A literal title is useful to both those familiar and unfamiliar with the subject, the current title only to the former group. Nick R's suggestion— 1966 Beatles religion controversy—is fine. Maybe it could be improved a little ( The Beatles' 1966 religion controversy?) but I don't thing PL290's objection holds up to scrutiny: by 1967, what remained of the controversy was of low notability compared to other things, such as the release of Sgt. Pepper, the LSD controversy, etc. For example, Barry Miles' The Beatles Diary does not mention the controversy again after 1966. Uniplex ( talk) 14:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In the article it says that John Lennon only said that they were "more popular than Jesus," but in the "Later Years" section it says Lennon wrote in 1978, "I always remember to thank Jesus for the end of my touring days; if I hadn't said that the Beatles were 'bigger than Jesus...'" So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdesamero ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that John Lennon actually meant to say he was bigger than Jesus. Just take a look at the lyrics to "Imagine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.100.2 ( talk) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has been added to this list.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked at this article today and thought, "did somebody forget to put a green blob on it"? Anyway, I've done a bit of an overhaul anyway and put it back up for review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Oishiisou ( talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
On the whole, well written - but the article would benefit from some reorganization in the first two paragraphs. It would be better to move "Lennon originally made the remark . . . provoked no public reaction" to the end of the second paragraph to avoid the awkward repeating of "five months later in 1966 . . ."
A citation is needed in the third paragraph for "Christian spokesmen pointed out that . . ." Additional citations are also needed in the final paragraph of the background section for "The decline of Christianity had been the subject of regular discussion in the UK since the First World War." The citations in this paragraph are all from Gould's book on the Beatles - which is not an adequate source on the state of Christianity in the UK.
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
I'm in agreement with several folks on the talk page who felt that the title should be more along the lines of "Beatles more popular than Jesus controversy". At present, the title doesn't indicate any connection to the Beatles.
As I am a new editor, I'd appreciate a second opinion. Oishiisou ( talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
While the enthusiasm of this new editor is admirable, the editor does not yet have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or Manual of Style to assess articles. Accordingly, it is recommended that the requesting editor resubmit the article for GA assessment and review. Thank you, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. I will now take all of the articles I have nominated for a GA review off the list. At some time in the future (when some good and reliable GA reviewers return after their summer holidays), I will nominate them again. The GA reviews have become a joke.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemonade51 ( talk · contribs) 23:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this...
Very interesting article. No dead links or dabs and only found one close-paraphrasing niggle. Will pass once comments have been addressed. Lemonade51 ( talk) 23:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
IPs, I didn't revert your edits because I was "out to get you", but because the writing was insufficient for GA standard (which this article is), and it seems to be original research which doesn't have anything to do with the incident in question. If it did, the thesaurus would directly mention Lennon, but it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
In this article will be used and the common sense (official rule of Wikipedia). Because everyone understands that the terrible crimes of Catholic Church give "million" of moral rights be against these crimes and against related issues. Sedo121212 ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I cannot make sense of the first sentence of the Moral Right section: Exist the reasons assume that John Lennon ....
Can someone edit this to (perhaps) "Reasons exist to assume that John Lennon ..." ?
Thanks 208.123.145.108 ( talk) 00:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Dave Moorman. July 13, 2015
Datebook is a redirect to this article. Who needs such circle? Xx236 ( talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on More popular than Jesus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
More popular than Jesus →
We're more popular than Jesus – Per
WP:STICKTOSOURCE, the full quote includes "We're". This is the only article under
Category:English phrases that omits a word from the title quote. Also
WP:TITLE: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.
--
Ilovetopaint (
talk) 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've stated my opinion that per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead probably wants to be focused on two paragraphs (at 15K of prose, it's right on the limit of where three might be appropriate), and that the Chapman stuff is kind of off-topic. Not everyone agrees, and there have been reverts flying back and forth. So let's discuss. I did a lot of ground work on the article about 5 years ago, but I've generally stayed out of the limelight since then and let others have a go at it. So let's have a chat and see what direction we want to take. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The Background section should include a reference to Lennon's 1974 explanation of the original comment, as it suggests that he had been misquoted, or that the quote was taken out of context. In a 1974 interview, Lennon explained how it was a flippant remark, not intended as a "big statement". He emphasizes that we was "in a bad mood" and made the comment as a flippant response to the reporter's intimation that the band was "slipping" after a record had come out and wasn't doing well, or the band was getting bad reviews in the press. Lennon stated: "This girl who I was pretty close to was a reporter from the London Evening Standard. In fact we were very close. And she came and I was just in one of my — I was just not in a good mood. And I wasn't making big statement. I was not in a good mood. And there'd been a record out, something, and maybe it wasn't going so well, or they'd been knocking us in the press, you know. They were always either lovin' us or hatin' us. There was never anything in between. Same as they did with Dylan or any of this now. And she came, and she was intimatin' that we were slipping. And I was in a bad mood. And I said, 'Slipping? We're bigger than Jesus.' Just no thought whatsoever like that. And you print it — it looks like it's a statement. In England nobody took any notice. You know, they know a guy's blabbing off. Who is he? But over here, you know, some lunatic gets his Klan mask on and starts running around burning crosses. So it was that flippant." [1] 69.114.93.199 ( talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
References