Talk:More popular than Jesus

"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)Reply

Hmm, don't think that's quite right; the controversy wasn't over popularity. I draw your attention to this talk where the title was already discussed and changed to what it now is. It started out as The Beatles: the Jesus Controversy, and More popular than Jesus was suggested instead as it was felt to be an improvement. I think More popular than Jesus works well. PL290 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright then how about Beatles-Jesus controversy. More popular than Jesus is way off, indicates no clue about lennon or the quote. Kasaalan (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, you say it indicates no clue; but would you have any clue what BOK-2 is? Article titles need not fully define the subject. Per WP:NC, article titles should be recognizable and be the term most commonly used, and redirects should also be created when they may be searched under other names. More popular than Jesus meets this because those are the very words responsible for the controversy, which have resonated down the decades since Lennon uttered them, and there are a couple of redirects for likely search candidates (see Special:WhatLinksHere/More_popular_than_Jesus). I still think it's fine as it is, but let's see what others say too. Perhaps your aim would be met by adding further redirects you think would be useful? PL290 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

An acronym and a half interpretation-quote of a famous saying are 2 different examples. In WP:NC I couldn't find any policy over sayings. Well also I am just expressing my thoughts, not much insistent on changing others' views much anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The difficulty of thinking of a suitable title was one reason I was in favour of keeping this article part of The Beatles in 1966. I suggested using More popular than Jesus as the title, mainly just so that it would be something other than the really awkward (but admittedly descriptive) The Beatles: the Jesus Controversy. I compared this use of a quotation to two other article titles: The Day the Music Died (as an example of an article where a famous phrase has been used instead of something more formal and descriptive - but clumsy - like Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper plane crash), and They think it's all over (as an example of an article where a quotation has received its own article rather than being redirected to the article about the person who said it).
A couple of other ideas for this article's title:

• 1966 Beatles religion controversy
• How Does a Beatle Live? - OK, I'm only half-serious about this one :)

--Nick R^Talk 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article's not just about 1966 though, is it. That's one of the reasons it's a separate article. I think your examples of The Day the Music Died and They think it's all over make the point. More popular than Jesus is perfect! PL290 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be more perfect were the title to include the quotation marks. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

We can just add REMARK to the end, and JOHN LENNON'S to the beginning? Hotcop2 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would certainly be clearer than the current title but the main topic of the article is not the remark per se, but its effect. Uniplex (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

What he said in '66 is recorded in the 'Background' section. He was later mis-quoted, so much so, that even he did too. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

This article has been added to this list.--andreasegde (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now nominated.--andreasegde (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:More popular than Jesus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oishiisou (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Are there any issues you can see with the article that prevent it from meeting the GA criteria? —Andrew_stalk 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Adabow in this case, as I see no major obstacles to it becoming a GA. BTW, as this article has been on the GA list since 12 May 2011, it would be most unfortunate indeed to have to resubmit it for another very long period of time, only to have another editor to come along because they want to "help out", but are not experienced enough.--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I don't have time at the moment for a thorough review, I can clearly see that there are several statements made that are not sourced, an external link that appears to be improperly linked to a YouTube video in violation of copyright, POV statements, and section headers that are not in compliance with the MOS. "No major obstacles" does not equate to GA status. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you just list them? It would take all of ten minutes to fix them. (Youtube links are allowed in External links, BTW).--andreasegde (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That YouTube video was a copyvio because the uploader does not have the rights to upload it. —Andrew_stalk 07:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:More popular than Jesus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this...

• "extensive protests broke out in the southern United States", Southern United States

Done (and linked) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• ” He called the protestors in the US "fascist Christians" and added "I'm very big on Christ. I've always fancied him. He was right.”, because add was used in other sentence perhaps use another verb to link his quotes together. ‘and continued’ maybe?

Redone this bit slightly Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• "The 1966 L'Osservatore Romano article noted that Lennon had apologized for his comments...", should that not be apologised as the article is written in British English?

Fixed (and the moral of this story, kids, is don't rely on your browser's spell checker) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Heaven is linked on "Imagine there's no heaven", but the word appears a paragraph before

Heaven doesn't need to be linked. Removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ref 6 and 9 should be The Daily Telegraph; Ref 9 needs location parameter filled. Why is ‘Knew’ capitalised on Ref 6’s title?

All fixed (I don't generally use the location parameter so I've removed it for consistency) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Use this link for Ref 12. Article was published in The Sunday Times, so change newspaper and add 'subscription required' template.

Done. On a related note I'm waiting for my JSTOR and BNA subscriptions to be approved, and I might soon just give up and buy them myself, as I keep running into subscription-only sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ref 16 comes from a newspaper; parameter should not be ‘publisher’ but ‘newspaper’ or ‘work’

Gone with "work" (consistent with elsewhere) 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• For Ref 32, CNN is not a ‘work’, but instead a publisher.

Changed (but are you sure about that)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• To ensure consistency replace Ref 30 and 32’s ‘author’ parameter with first and last.

Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Again Ref 36 is The Daily Telegraph and parameter needs to be changed

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ref 36’s "expressed disappointment at not being allowed to marry Yoko Ono in church" is a bit close to the source.

Reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Should the captions have full stops?

Depends on the content - see WP:CAPFRAG. The picture of Lennon shouldn't (it doesn't have a finite verb so can't be considered a full sentence), the stadium picture didn't but I've copyedited it to be a sentence so it now should. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks for the quick review. I think I've addressed all the issues. The article had quite a bit of work done on it for a previous GA review, so there were some inconsistencies in formatting - thanks for spotting those. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Understand, and article passes. Have put this under 'Genres, styles and music eras', as I can't seem to find an appropriate category for this; feel free to move it if you do. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a bit of an oddball, falling between music, religion and historical events. I've moved it to "Music businesses and events", as I think "Genres, styles and music eras" covers continuous styles and events relating to lots of people or organisations, while this is centred round a specific incident. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ta! Lemonade51 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Citation #3: Clayson 1992, p. 105. doesn't point to any citation.
• Jack, Wolfman; Laursen, Byron (1995). Have Mercy!: Confessions of the Original Rock 'N' Roll Animal: is not cited in the article

Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Curly Turkey: Both done before my watch, so I AGFed they were correct. The first one is probably Alan Clayson but I've no idea what book he wrote. Anyway, it's in several other book sources so that's easy to fix. The second probably was a cite for Wolfman Jack but I probably copyedited it away. Cheers. (And yes, the GA reviews - both of them - should have picked this stuff up) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Lennon's statement was in reference to the Anglican Church and was not intended as a criticism, just an observation that it was shrinking. Your opinion, even if shared by others, isn't relevant to this article. Even if it was, such views must be attributed to someone notable in regards to the subject and verified by a reliable source. Piriczki (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie333 @Ceradon this user and the associated ips are simply long term disruptive sockpuppeteer User:Need1521 / community banned user User:Crazy1980 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521) back with more WP:OR / WP:POV on religious issues (see the recent history of the Russian Orthodox church article) and as usual, they've created another sock to complain to Jimbo to take action against admins. WP:DUCK. Valenciano (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

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, 2015Reply

I haven't read the whole article top to bottom in a while, and I just did and the prose and facts are fine until this last section, added today. Since the adder is now indeffed, and nobody else wants it in, I've reverted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Datebook is a redirect to this article. Who needs such circle?Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

No it isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722135052/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-12/entertainment/ringo.starr.vatican.beatles_1_ringo-starr-vatican-satanic?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-12/entertainment/ringo.starr.vatican.beatles_1_ringo-starr-vatican-satanic?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I think we're currently pushing it by extending the lead to three paragraphs, relative to the length of the article. We could easily tighten up the text in the second para. Mention of Ku Klux Klan picketing concerts and some press conferences being cancelled (quick aside: were they cancelled? does the article say that?) are all part of the point that follows: "The controversy coincided with the band's 1966 US tour ..." And in the third para, "Lennon also refrained from touring in his solo career" is not directly supported by anything in the main body. I suppose it might be implicit in the 1978 quote "I might still be up there with all the other performing fleas!" (under "Lennon's life and career").

Having said that, I think the article could well merit a three-paragraph lead. I've been adding a few details in the main body that I thought were important, such as more on Unger's presentation of the interview in Datebook, and comments from Fricke and Turner under Legacy. In the process I've come across more I'd like to add. For instance:

• In terms of the Beatles' standing in the eyes of the US record industry, radio stations and mainstream press, the furore came soon after the Yesterday and Today butcher sleeve controversy. The two are often paired together as PR challenges (Chris Ingham's term, I think) and serious dents in the band's relationship with the US.
• Lennon talked about many other things in the interview with Cleave, yet Datebook's treatment ensured that the focus was solely on his most controversial remarks. I think it's worth mentioning a few other items he and Cleave discussed anyway, under Background, but also because among the sources there is some scrutiny regarding, variously, Unger's approach, whether the Beatles and Datebook set the whole thing up for maximum publicity, and how Epstein and Barrow managed to get it so wrong. In Unger's account (in Steve Turner's book), Epstein asked him to step down from his role in the press corps assigned to the US tour; Unger refused.
• As Barrow and Peter Browne tell the events of 1966, after what happened in Manila in early July, Lennon, Harrison and to a lesser extent Starr were adamant that there would be no more tours. McCartney had to go along with this decision and apparently it was only during the US tour (he says after they played in St Louis) that he said "OK, OK – you're right." The lead currently says the controversy "exacerbated the band's unhappiness at touring, which they never undertook again". I don't believe either part of that statement's actually supported in the main body. Regardless, it was more a case of the controversy confirming their decision to stop touring.
• The "Lennon's life and career" section comes across as a bit of a catch-all for any random Christ- and religion-based item, but I appreciate they are mentioned as relevant to this controversy – at least, some of the sources used appear to establish the link. I think it might be an idea to say that Lennon's remark that Christ's disciples were "think and ordinary" came back to haunt the Beatles when they (particularly Lennon and Harrison), embraced the Maharishi's cause with what's generally viewed as a degree of evangelical zeal.

Another thing about the lead: I've always understood it (and this is partly supported by the Turner comment I added, about how the phrase became synonymous with the controversy) that "More popular than Jesus" is the name of the controversy. Jonathan Gould (p. 341) mentions that "The roots of this 'Jesus Controversy' (as it came to be called) reached back several years." I think "Jesus Controversy", or I've seen it written as "the 'Jesus' controversy", is in fact an abbreviation – it became known as the "'More popular than Jesus' controversy". I'll have to find some sources to support that, of course. But assuming I do, and also with a view to representing the coverage given in the article to Lennon's remark "I don't know which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity" (in Datebook, the reaction from some religious groups, Philippine Star writer's comment in 2015, etc) I wonder whether the lead shouldn't begin with something like:

"More popular than Jesus" was the name given to a controversy that began in July 1966 in response to comments made by the English musician John Lennon regarding the popularity of his band the Beatles. Lennon used the phrase in an interview he gave to the London newspaper the Evening Standard, in addition to saying that he was unsure "which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity", given the decline in church attendance in Britain, and that Christ's disciples were "thick and ordinary". His opinions drew no controversy when first published in March 1966, but elicited angry reactions from some Christian communities when re-published in the United States that July.

Do any other editors have anything about this "'More popular than Jesus' controversy" or "'Jesus' controversy" appellation, perhaps?

PS. The admin-only lockdown is flippin' ridiculous, imo, completely over the top. The IP user(s) haven't even received warning/notification on their talk page(s). Registered editors (myself included) have been active on the article, and not all of us are in agreement, I imagine, but it's hardly crisis mode. A talk page discussion has only just been started; we're all grown-ups and can bring it here. If registered editors were edit-warring while a talk page discussion was underway, then okay – admin access only – but that's not the case. JG66 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think there is an issue with the lead's length. Lennon literally died for this comment and to say that's not leadworthy is absurd. The lead may also merit a couple more words about how the comment impacted the Beatles' reputation as a socially conscious group (if such links have been drawn). And that proposal is good but waffles a bit. I would offer:

"We're more popular than Jesus now" is a remark made by John Lennon of the Beatles that incited controversy in mid-1966. Lennon argued the claim in an interview he gave to the London newspaper the Evening Standard, also saying that he was unsure "which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity", given the decline in church attendance in Britain, and described Christ's disciples as "thick and ordinary". His opinions drew no controversy when first published in March 1966, but elicited angry reactions from some Christian communities when republished in the US that July.

ilil (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can't help thinking you're trying to take this back to the subject of the requested move(?), with the additional "We're" and "now", but the situation's been well established on that point. The most commonly used phrase is "More popular than Jesus". Station1 put it best in the September 2018 thread, and I continue to find no end of sources supporting this phrasing rather than the more complete statement.

As I said before, there are other (to use your wording) "remark[s] made by John Lennon of the Beatles that incited controversy in mid-1966" from that Cleave interview. "I don't know which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity" gets plenty of attention in the article, both directly and indirectly. To state the obvious, the furore was not just over the supposed popularity-contest aspect, the Beatles vs Christ, but also the idea that Christianity was likely to disappear completely. I mentioned that detractors jumped on "his disciples were think and ordinary" during the Maharishi/TM period: in fact, that comment was also the one that received some attention in the UK, in a Melody Maker editorial on the US reaction and in a column in The Guardian at the time. Which is the reason for my suggestion about introducing "More popular ..." as "the name given to a controversy that began in July 1966". And because, while "More popular" was the main phrase that caused offence, it especially stands out now as the title of the controversy.

To add to my point about Gould's the "'Jesus' Controversy (as it came to be called)" and Turner saying that the phrase "More popular than Jesus" became synonymous with the controversy: Rolling Stone titled a 2016 feature article "When John Lennon's 'More Popular Than Jesus' Controversy Turned Ugly". It's "the 'Jesus' controversy" in a 2016 piece at The Conversation. From a 2012 article in Popular Music and Society: "the 'more popular than Jesus' controversy which engulfed the Beatles in 1966 ... Contrary to the conventional wisdom repeated in countless books and articles dealing with the 'Jesus' controversy ..."

As the lead here notes, "Bigger than Jesus" is a term also used in commentary about the controversy. Again, I'd say the term is used as the actual name of the controversy. Simon Philo (British Invasion: The Crosscurrents of Musical Influence, p. 108) refers to it as "the 'bigger than Jesus' controversy"; an about.com article by Robert Fontenot is titled "… And Now It's All This: Frequently Asked Questions About the Beatles' 'Bigger Than Jesus' Controversy" (I haven't been able to access that article; I've seen it linked in other Beatles-related pieces by Fontenot at archive.org). I haven't yet looked in sources I own but even more so than in all these last examples, I've long been used to seeing the episode referred to as "More popular/Bigger than Jesus". By that I mean as a standalone moniker similar to "Paul is dead". JG66 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Well, that's his recollection eight years later. But it's not consistent with the 1966 interview as originally published (I believe); more importantly, it's not consistent with how biographers view and document the course of Lennon and Cleave's conversation. Cleave set out to demonstrate the huge changes that the four Beatles had gone through by early '66, and tried to describe their home lives and how each one thought. As Steve Turner tells it in his book Beatles '66, Lennon arrives at the Jesus comparison via a discussion of Indian music. Jon Savage, in his book 1966: The Year the Decade Exploded, also supports this, from memory.

Lennon spent the whole of 1973–75 giving interviews, pretty much – he just never stopped talking. You can find completely contradictory views from him on the Rolling Stones at that time, for instance. I wouldn't pay much attention to one 1974 interview unless a Lennon/Beatles biographer finds the comments significant. JG66 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply