Talk:Yoko Ono

"Yoko is a concept by which we measure our ability to love those different from ourselves."

It used to be some spiteful thing about her. She is fairly obviously quite different from the typical people who "know her best" - that is, Beatles/Lennon fans. What I have never understood is why they can't make the leap from "I love John" and "John loves Yoko" to at least "I guess Yoko's cool in her own way". I could see people hating her if she had dumped him in, say, 1971. But she stuck with a 30-ish fellow with lots of issues and a tendency towards striking out at those closest to him, through a long story that, while cut short, helped make a newer, happier, John Lennon. Also, anyone who bothers to learn about the Beatles' breakup knows it wasn't her fault, she was just there at a time when they were already disintegrating. I think she gets a bad rap, myself.

"This concept is one typically held in higher esteem by practitioners of woo-woo than by rationalists, so this approach appears to be a bit of a departure from the norm around here." - I don't know what this means? Argumentum by editing? I don't see why caring about people even though they may be quite different is woo versus rationalism. So I'm going to delete it, but it's here for posterity. (Now, if it could be cited, that would be another issue) ħuman 15:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)

As another child of the 60's I'm not really impressed with the article as it stands either.--Bob^{bing up} 16:46, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I don't know why we even let it last in the mainspace this long. I can't see a way to twist this into being "on-mission". ħuman 17:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Well I am not that inclined to getting to much more involved in an article that does not met out mission criteria and might be sent off into where ever DELETE sends one, and I have no trouble at all with my woo-woo versus rational statement ending up here. To be discussed. My point is that rationalists, as measured largely by who and what I've seen posted here, seem much more drawn to mockery, finger pointing, sarcasm, and that sort of thing than to loving "those different from ourselves." But you seem to disagree? I will also add that if everything in every article were required to be cited, we would have (opinion) an considerably thinner product to offer. Carptrash 17:16, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I guess there's a difference between "different from ourselves" and "offensively bigoted and anti-science"? Look at how gently we try to handle Schlafly's underage proteges. Anyway, the main reason I changed the line was at that point, the article was only Yoko-bashing, for which I can't really see a reason. Keep in mind that we all have many parts to our personalities, in in many cases only some of them are expressed here (in articles, at least). Anyway, can anyone think of a "mission" perspective for an article about Yoko? Oh, by the way, where things like this usually go if they leave the mainspace, CarpyDime, is the fun space. So they live on. ħuman 17:29, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Although I pretty much avoid that whole Schalfly/Conservapedia thing, I have noticed that those types, when wandering over here are much less likely to get blocked, condemned, etc., than what seems to be the case the other way around. And I agree with the change that you (??) made in the Yoko article, I just found it more typical of a woo-woo than rational approach. I see no reason to be pissed off at Yoko, she is just another page in the life of the Beatles. Near the end, to be sure, but that's just how it was, Carptrash 18:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I started this article as a stub. Wow, 2 days later it looks legit. Anyway, I am not a fan of the Beetles,I actually thank her for breaking them up. I just wanted to write something. BTW, I agree with the statement about rationalists seeking parody. If we weren't rational, we wouldn't see the humor. It is just like understanding Yoko. To people at conservapedia, we are Yoko, (especially those who post there). They don't understand us, nor do the even want to try.--Nate River 22:13, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, you did, and it sucked, as you knew. Also, if you think she "broke them up", you have some studying to do. If you don't want to because you don't like the Beatles, fine, but don't shoot you mouth off about what you are too lazy to investigate. I find it a downfall of wikis that every new user "wants to write something", however pathetic it might be. See, Wikipedia... your closing comments actually make me think I wish I didn't write what I just did... so, RW is CP's Yoko? Oh, I get it, only in that we will break them up. Dumbass, Yoko DID NOT BREAK UP THE BEATLES they did it themselves. However, Yoko was ... oh, gonna write this part in the article. For fuck's sake, people, know your subject at least a bit before opining. ħuman 23:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Take a deep breath, H-man. Visualize a beach at sunset. Calm, soothing waving lapping at the shore, at your feet, whatever. Now repeat after me, slowly, clearly, and with feeling, I will not allow this duffus to control my feelings. They are mine to f*ck with if I wnat them f*cked with. About a thousand times should do it. Carptrash 23:41, 22 December 2008 (EST)

We are human, and thus entitled to stupidity. Yoko did, however, exert some control over John Lennon and thus was a factor, not a cause. Or maybe just a scapegoat.

I meant that comment that we can seem comprehensible to some members of CP. Our beliefs and way of life do not make sense to them. I mean, look at how we go at Andy's mom. We make her seem like a whack job, yet there are people out there who see some version of sense in what she says.--Nate River 23:46, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, we are. Control? Are you sure? Maybe John chose her to learn from? She certainly was not a cause, the Beatles were breaking up at some level before he even met her - even before Paul met her. Anyway, on to your second paragraph. Cp is blatantly in denial of fairly provable reality (like smallpox? be Andy), and his mother campaigned for years against equal rights for women (what a fucked up phrase! - equal right with "who"?), and sadly won. Anyway, this is the YOL yack page, and if anyone thinks she broke the Beatles up (or cares?) I'll meet you in the alley, with, um, a checkerboard (draughts) and a bottle of Scotch to help work out the rules. ħuman 00:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Shit, I forgot to appreciate the "scapegoat" part. Yup. A lot of hearts were being broken, and that is an irrational process. She was most definitely a scapegoat. ħuman 00:09, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Reality is based upon how you see it. Your reality is obviously different from mine and way different from any and his henchmen, goons and wingnuts. Phillie makes sense to some people,why else would ERA not have passed?

Back to Yoko, John was noted as having a mother complex and was stated to be domineered by Yoko. Of course, that might just be his ex-wife talking.--Nate River 00:21, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Not sure what your first line means. Mother complex? "Julia", sure. He had many issues. Domineered by Yoko? I don't think so. Challenged, equaled, bested at times, but mostly - partnered with. Ultimately, it seems, happily. His ex-wife was horribly mistreated by him (and Epstein, etc.), so, yeah, she might have an ax or two to grind. ħuman 00:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It means that reality is not just something that is universal. Reality is personal. You know, we have our viewpoints and stuff. Thus, reality is based upon how we see thing. I'm sorry, I've spent the last week playing Star Ocean 3 and the second half of the story goes around simulated reality (like the matrix)--Nate River 00:37, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Yah think? Reality: I stub my toe, it hurts. I think it doesn't hurt, the matrix makes it go away. Reality, sun, moon, rain, snow. Electricity off for five days - all the matrixy sci-fi dreaming won't make it better (I tried - the generator, however, helped). Of course, if we define "reality" as personal, all bets are off. If we define "reality" as what we experience in common - what can be duplicated - we at least have a base to work from. Of course, we might not all agree that "Strawberry Fields Forever" is a sort of medium reddish color, with a few small seeds, either. ħuman 00:45, 23 December 2008 (EST)

No, in the game, it is revealed that their universe is actually an mmorpg for beings in another reality. So what are they, beings or just data? BTW, I've been to Strawberry Fields and it is very lovely. No strawberries though.--Nate River 00:58, 23 December 2008 (EST)

"Yoko is a concept by which we measure our pain"

Subreferences 1. Something that Yoko said about God...2. National Lampoon's "Magical Misery Tour." PFoster 18:05, 22 December 2008 (EST) SEE: here and here PFoster 18:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

An odd posting for a editor who elsewhere just said, " Those words--words which are weapons and have the power to hurt--". Or is this okay because you are quoting someone else? Because it can be footnoted? Carptrash 18:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)

What? Because Yoko's warblings sound like a cat in a blender, I shouldn't be able to criticise her alleged abilities as an artist? PFoster 18:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Seems a bit shallow, given that if she decides to, she can sing orthodox songs decently if she wants to. It's just as an artist, she doesn't seem to see a point, so tends toward the experimental instead. --Kels 18:23, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I see that artist shows up in red. Perhaps you could start the new article with a solid definition of who is and who is not an artist? Also, I notice that "Yoko's ART" is not the concept under discussion. Or so it seems to me. Carptrash 18:24, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Just to be clear--I don't hate Yoko as a person and I don't hate her for breaking up the Beatles--if anything, I'm grateful that she broke them up. I hate the Beatles. Most overrated band in history. Lame, lame, lame. I hate her art/music--at least what I've been exposed to--because it's vapid, self-indulgent and does nothing to make me think or feel anything beyond a generalised annoyance. Frank Zappa named an improvised piece the Mothers performed with John and Yoko "A Small Eternity with Yoko Ono"-- it's the most painful thing I've ever heard. PFoster 18:30, 22 December 2008 (EST)

"Yes". Anyway, she didn't break up the Beatles. You'll have to thank their growing older and apart for that. ħuman 19:49, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we need to work a bit on all the hate of yours. It is not (opinion) a healthy thing at all. Carptrash 18:45, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Meh, i'm happy with my level of hate--evil corporations, evil politicians, the Toronto Maple Leafs and the music of the Beatles. I can live with it. PFoster 18:54, 22 December 2008 (EST)

No need to. Get four green candles and on the night of the next moon DEC 31 - last day of the year and Capricorn, so it's perfect, - place them in a . . . . ........................ on second thought, better not, 'cause you could get hurt and then you'd hate me and it would be a net loss. The universe would shrink just a bit, too much karma would . ........ yeah, never mind. Carptrash 19:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)

A customer just sent me a CD copy of "Give Ireland Back to the Irish". I had never heard it before, not even once. It's an odd thing listening to a song like that and getting to know it after all these years. ħuman 19:51, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry who I EC'd and overrode

I had done so much there was no way to easily merge :( I hope remember your edits and can use them still. Again, sorry, I don't usually do that. ħuman 23:49, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Mission

D'oh. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Yoko tried to prevent the producers from using a clip from "Imagine"... I can't believe I couldn't remember that yesterday. ħuman 14:03, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Someone needs to get over themselves

“”...and her chosen styles of art and music were difficult - almost impossible - for those used to suckling at the teat of 4/4 or 6/8 time, and the Western I-IV-V chord progression (to say nothing of the 12 note scale!)...

Stupid bastard Phantom Hoover! 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a more detailed way of saying her music sounds like cats being strangled - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mission

I'm not sure what this has to do with the RW mission.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only this article, I'm not sure why there is a Bob Dylan article in main namespace either. Revan (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Nor me, really. Possibly a subsection in The Beatles but that's about it. I'm turning some of the fun stubs into article sections, why don't we do it in the road here? 10:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Where is beatles band? OK then delete. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought there might be some bits that could be salvaged for the John Lennon article, but I don't think even that's possible. Delete. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why there is a Bob Dylan article in main namespace either." What we need is some sort of space where we can put articles that are here more for fun than anything else. What could we call this space, dedicated to articles that are really around for fun? P-Foster (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Funspace. It's got some fun articles in it. And a load of not-fun ones. Aylesburymartin (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence my offmissionspace idea. This time, I'm coming to an article already in controversy, rather than manufacturing one. I'm calling a vote. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Now what? Тy^talk 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Other than the "breaking up the Beatles" section this isn't that far off-mission. The first two paragraphs of the lead set a good tone in terms of mission. If someone wanted to flesh out the mission-relevant content there are several angles, such as the Janov episode (see our Primal therapy article). Doctor Dark (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Even the breaking up the Beatles stuff is vaguely on mission as it is attempting to dispel a myth (or at least presenting the other side) that people hold without really thinking it through. I would leave it for that reason alone. Damo^Hi 06:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What to do?

Keep and/or rewrite/expand

1. It's that time of the month! Blue (is useful) 04:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
2. We just had this discussion 10 days ago. Now^what? 04:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't even think about it. This is the foot in the door toward the slippery slope along which slides the thin edge of the wedge. First we delete the article on Yoko, next thing you know we'll be deleting the article on Conservapedia (after all they're both women, sort of, as far as I know). Doctor Dark (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Delete everything in sight!!! Anything and everything!!!! Or not. --Damo^Hi 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete

1. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
2. As it stands, it's not on-mission. Maybe if she has a sidejob of marketing woo products or if there are wild conspiracy theories surrounding her--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Probability of it actually being rewritten/expanded: approaching zero. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Much less mission-worthy than the recently-delted Maratreanism article.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
5. " 'Don't Worry Kyoko' is one of the best fucking rock'n roll records ever made." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to offmissionspace

1. This is off-mission, and I think we should have a place for off-mission articles. ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs}

Move to assbuttfacespace

1. Blue (is useful) 05:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Goat

1. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

X2 ArchieGoodwin (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So now, Bob M is a concern troll? Do you see concern trolls under your bed and in your closet, too?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, only you and Heidi currently, though others pop up from time to time. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)