Talk:I Me Mine

Grammatically speaking, the phrase "I Me Mine" is a list of the nominative, objective, and possessive 1st person (singular) pronouns. How this can be incorporated into the article is beyond me. -- Mattbrundage 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the documentary Let It Be, Lennon likes the song, and begins waltzing with Yoko Ono to it... So while Lennon wasn't nessecarily there at the final recording, he was at least aware of the song and approved of it... If anyone can think of a way to fit that into the article, go ahead.

I came across this while going through some Infoboxes with folk-related genres. The infobox genre ref (Alan W. Pollack) describes it as "an interesting folk/blues stylistic hybrid with more than just a touch of the hard rocking waltz beat." I don't think this can be described by folk blues, which redirects to "Country blues". CB seems to be a catch-all for pre-WWII acoustic blues, with FB more associated with the 1950s–1960s revival movement. IMM is a more ambitious song that alternates between rockish waltz-time verses and a fairly straight blues rock chorus, which is more how the second genre ref (Andrew Hickey) describes it: "waltz-cum-hard-rock hybrid". Ian MacDonald describes it as a "Gallic waltz (complete with Piaf wobble) against a clamorous blues shuffle". I'd like to remove "folk blues", but it needs something more than just "hard rock" for a genre. There is a mention of ballad (Alan Smith). Any ideas? —Ojorojo (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi 'Rojo. I agree it's pushing things to take Pollack's description to mean that the song is folk blues. There's another problem here, though, with the Hickey source, in that it's published by lulu.com. I remember an editor, two years back perhaps, adding genres to Beatles song articles and often using Hickey; I thought nothing of it – Hickey's written books on Ray Davies and loads of other songwriters – and only recently discovered that lulu.com = self-published. I don't think there's enough to say that exceptions can be made for Hickey (WP:SPS), maybe others disagree. I'd say we should remove everything and just have Rock. I don't know if that needs sourcing – it's such a basic description (e.g. the song is "by the English rock band the Beatles").

I added the Fricke and Harris comments in this article, under Release and reception. I might see if either of them provide anything genre-related. Somehow I doubt it, though. JG66 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did a couple of searches and agree that "Rock" is probably the way to go. I'll replace the genres with "Rock" and remove the refs. Change as you see fit. Hickey is quoted in several Kinks and Beach Boys WP articles, including GAs. Maybe he should be discussed for possible addition to the "unreliable sources" list. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that. I couldn't find anything relevant from Fricke; I'll see what turns up elsewhere.

Yeah, I thought I'd seen Hickey's books on Davies and Brian Wilson used here. Personally, I wouldn't make a point of raising him as an item for discussion as a non-RS, but it's up to you. I'm just wary of the blanket decisions that are made when, perhaps, Andrew Hickey might be recognised as an expert on the Kinks, say, but not on any of the other artists he has written about. I'll certainly start removing him from all Beatles articles, though. JG66 (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Me Mine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'll review this article. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments:

• "the intrusive presence of Lennon's girlfriend, Japanese artist Yoko Ono": May I suggest "the perceived intrusive presence [or perceived intrusion] of Lennon's girlfriend, artist Yoko Ono" for WP:BLP and because her ethnic origin should not be important. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi JG66, sorry this has been slow. Will try to finish off the review soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

No worries, Moisejp. JG66 (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi JG66. I'm almost done the review. Thanks for changing the bit about Yoko Ono. What you have now is definitely better than before, but I wonder whether it is still too negative. By contrasting "constant presence" with "creative freedom and camaraderie he had recently enjoyed" this implies that her presence was "objectively negative". If you would consider my suggestion ""the perceived intrusive presence [or perceived intrusion]" this clarifies that it was Harrison's (and perhaps McCartney's and Starr's) take on her presence. If it had been other people in the studio with her, it's very conceivable that not all of them would have had the same reaction. In any case, it is safer to keep it more neutral. Moisejp (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

But don't you think that "For Harrison" makes it clear that we're merely reporting what he felt, rather than judging Ono in Wikipedia's voice? Plus it follows Harrison's recollection that "There was a lot of trivia and games being played", which invites some elaboration and flags it for the reader that the picture is likely to be less than rosy. I'm actually quite a fan of Yoko, FWIW, but even if I wasn't, I still recognise the need to not brand her (or Allen Klein, Phil Spector, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc) as a villain in the Beatles' story, even if almost every reliable source does. I'm struggling to see a problem; take away the introductory "For Harrison", then sure, that would be a problem. But I appreciate something doesn't sit right for you.

Reading it again (and again), what strikes me is an awkwardness in the phrasing – what it needs is possibly a mention of the two issues "creating" something rather than in themselves "contrasting sharply with" anything. Maybe something like: "For Harrison, the power struggle between John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and the constant presence of Lennon's girlfriend, avant-garde artist Yoko Ono,[7] created an atmosphere that contrasted sharply with the camaraderie and artistic freedom he had recently enjoyed with Bob Dylan and the Band in upstate New York." I wonder if that happens to lessen your concerns also? Because, Yoko herself is no longer being compared directly with the positive, liberating elements; instead her presence is part of an atmosphere that, for Harrison, contrasts so unfavourably with his recent experiences in update NY. Any good? JG66 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

JG66, you make a convincing argument, and I think your suggestion probably helps. Let's go with it. Happy to pass this GA nomination. Moisejp (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moisejp, great to hear. And thank you so much for helping see another song article through to GA. Best, JG66 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   Well written, and no MOS issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  

   Sources all seem reliable. Spot-checked for no OR or copyvio.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   It is broad in its coverage, is focused, and covers all the major aspects.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

   No issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

   No stability issues.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

   One image has appropriate FUR; all others are appropriately licensed. All images are appropriately captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: