Talk:Jim Morrison/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Morrison. 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/20160810232101/https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/ to https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Quality of sourcing
Works on major publishing houses have to be vetted by legal before they go into print. These books are of a different standard than zines and random websites. Personal websites and blogs are not WP:RS, nor are self-published books that have not undergone any sort of peer-review or legal review. There are also entire sections that were completely unsourced that have now been cut. Do not re-add them without WP:RS sourcing. If you are unsure about a source, read WP:IRS. The point here is not whether we like or agree with a source, but whether it is reliable. Once content is sourced, and written about in a neutral, encyclopedic manner, readers can weigh the material and decide for themselves what the truth is. There is more cleanup needed here, but this is an ongoing issue that experienced editors need to keep on top of. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem including the quotes from Ray and Jim about Pam, but we can't put in direct quotes unless there's a citation for them. Find the cites and we'll put them back. I think the quote from, I think it was Danny Sugerman, about the tension between claiming you want an open relationship and then actually living with the consequences of one, was also good. That got cut somewhere along the line. Usually, Sugerman is not the best source on Jim, or anything that happened when he was just a kid, but he did spend a lot of time with Pam after Jim's death, so he'd be worth including for more material on her, I think. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through the sources and adding in more WP:RS sourcing, so I've been able to replace some of the quotes. There used to be RS sourcing, but a lot got cut as that section degraded with the endless edit-warring. Jim Morrison may be dead, but some of the people that users want to write about in this article are not. Please familiarize yourselves with the policies WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. Wikipedia cannot link to, or use as sources, webpages that exist solely to libel people. This is a legal concern for the encyclopedia. Any link or source that serves only to attack a living person, especially an essay on a defunct site that has no sourcing, and is not vetted by lawyers at a major newspaper or book publisher, is not a WP:RS source. I realize Jim has passionate fans. But This is not the place to fight battles about his life. I'm sorry if you don't like what the published, reliable sources allow us to print here. It's not my call. I don't make the rules. But we are all responsible for following them and, when entrusted by the community to do so, enforcing them. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit request from User:Nyaja Aibhlinn
This was posted by the user listed above on WP:RFPP. I moved it over to here.
I am writing to ask that Jim Morrison's Wikipedia be reopened as far as editing is concerned.
I have found issues with the section that pertains to Jim Morrison's personal relationships that I feel, in the interest of fairness, accuracy and as far as being objective, contains a lot of unverified claims that are being presented as fact. Wikipedia has protections in place for "living persons" but I cannot believe that Wikipedia does not wish to protect deceased individuals who can no longer speak for themselves.
The first is a reference made to a memoir written by a woman by the name of Judy Huddleston.
- The book and it's title is referenced and this memoir contains a version of events that is told only by Huddleston - The book in question contains ugly and potentially libelous statements as Huddleston offers nothing to back up her claims - no records, no witnesses, nothing
The second is a reference to a former entertainment journalist and former author Patricia Kennealy, who added the last name Morrison to hers many years after Morrison's death.
This particular memoir was, for some reason, written about in more detail and, again, the book and it's title is referenced on this page when it's content and statements made in it were under the complete control of Kennealy herself.
- Kennealy never brought the proof she claims to have as far as Jim Morrison viewing her as his wife before a judge in order to be declared Jim Morrison's legal spouse or widow
- Kennealy has never identified the "ordained minister" or "witnesses" she claims attended the wedding ceremony Kennealy claims took place between she and Morrison -
-Kennealy's claims about her alleged relationship with Morrison have been publicly disputed by former friends and colleagues of Kennealy, friends of Jim Morrison and Pamela Courson-Morrison and members of the surviving Doors without Kennealy taking any meaningful action, legal or otherwise, in order to prove that she was the one telling the truth
-And there were no paternity or DNA test results to definitively prove that Morrison was the biological father of the child Kennealy chose to abort (a period in Kennealy's life she has written about and discussed publicly and allowed to be used as a topic in Oliver Stone's film "The Doors")
So from every standpoint, from legal up to Wikipedia's own requirements as far as including factual information about an individual Kennealy's claims would appear to be just that, claims and yet Wikipedia is allowing these claims to be presented as fact.
Much in the same way that no matter how many eyewitnesses - eyewitnesses with nothing to gain either professionally or financially - there are who have publicly gone on record to clarify what actually happened the night Jim Morrison died, Wikipedia is bound to stick the "official" cause of death. Is Wikipedia not bound to verify statements from people regarding claims of "marriage" and other serious issues? This makes about as much sense as allowing any Wikipedia user to go on Morrison's page and claim that THEY were Jim Morrison's "secret wife".
I noticed that the references made about Mary Werbelow, someone who has publicly acknowledged that she and Jim Morrison were in love with each other and that they had an intense personal relationship received maybe a couple of sentences. References made to Pamela Courson-Morrison received a "just the facts" tone and that the individual responsible for creating Jim Morrison's page took care to state that Morrison and Courson-Morrison were in an "open" relationship, that certain Doors' songs "may" have been written about Courson-Morrison and the editor or creator of the page gave very vague reasons as to why Pamela is referred to as "Pamela Courson-Morrison".
And yet the statement, "First written about in No One Here Gets Out Alive, and later in her own memoir, Strange Days - My Life with and without Jim Morrison, Morrison participated in a Celtic Pagan handfasting ceremony with the rock and jazz critic Patricia Kennealy," is simply presented as a fact when this "marriage" and this "ceremony" is a claim that has been made only by Kennealy without having provided any legally verified or authenticated proof.
I also noticed that an article, "Patricia Kennealy: 'Tiffany' Talks. Your Ballroom Days Are Over Baby" written by a former friend and associate of Patricia Kennealy's, Janet Erwin, is referenced and Erwin's account of having an intimate relationship with Jim Morrison is referred to only as a claim. The reference to this article also failed to point out that Erwin's account completely refutes Kennealy's version of events that Kennealy offered in her memoir 'Strange Days' or that Kennealy has never directly denied Erwin's claims publicly or that Kennealy never took any legal action against Erwin after the article was published.
Since Jim Morrison's relationship with Pamela Courson-Morrison has been acknowledged and verified - even by Huddleston and Kennealy themselves - and that Courson-Morrison is acknowledged by those who knew both she and Morrison personally and professionally as being one of the few common threads in Jim Morrison's life I feel that in the interest of fairness and accuracy, and going by Wikipedia's own guidelines, that Huddleston's and Kennealy's unproven claims of having had a significant relationship with Jim Morrison could be better summed up in a couple of sentences and it could be made clear to the reader that both women have simply made claims, nothing more. (Based on the fact that all encyclopedic information must be verified references to Huddleston and Kennealy's statements and claims really should not be included at all.)
An Administrator was willing to edit Kennealy's for the reasons I have outlined here in order for the tone to sound more neutral and I think it is only fair to make similar changes to Jim Morrison's page, for the reasons I have outlined. Minima© (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- This has all been answered already above in the section about sourcing. This is not about individual user opinions, it is about quality of sourcing. See the policies outlined above at #Quality of sourcing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, visually, the section is quite large now. BUT... in fleshing out the section to be more balanced, I tried to integrate biographical material about Morrison himself, such as the info about the trial in Miami, how Pam supported his writing, etc. Though the section is hefty, I think it's well-integrated, and contextualizes (with sources) why most of these relationships are being mentioned. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
"Relationships" Nico?
I understand that the relationship between Jim Morrison and German singer and actress Nico is not discussed a lot (The two met in 1967 during Andy Warhol's "Exploding Plastic Inevitable" music and film events) but it appears to have been an intense relationship and one-time Doors' publicist Danny Fields has publicly confirmed their romance and Nico herself went record in 1985:
"Nico stated in 1985, 'I was in love with him, and that is how love goes, isn't it? He was the first man I was in love with, because he was affectionate to my looks and my mind. But we took too much drink and too many drugs to make it, that was our difficulty. Everything was open to us, there were no rules. We had a too big appetite". "
Shouldn't Nico's account of her time (an admittedly wild time)with Jim Morrison also be included? It would appear that Nico also had deep feelings for Morrison just as the other women who are included in the "Relationships" category of his Wikipedia page.
Just a suggestion, just an opinion, but Nico's story really should replace the paragraph written about Judy Huddleston. Huddleston wrote a memoir about a relationship she says she had with Jim Morrison that no one who knew Jim Morrison or anyone associated with The Doors has ever acknowledged. Huddleston also uses some strong language and has thrown some damning accusations at Morrison, accusations that cannot be verified and that are backed-up only by Huddleston. Is it really fair to Morrison to include her?
Jim Morrison's liaison with Nico, for better or for worse (for weirder or for wilder, as some people may see it) is acknowledged by Danny Fields and Nico, unlike Huddleston, was someone who was also known in rock music circles and was also in the public eye and it would seem that Nico would be held more accountable for how she describes her relationship with Jim Morrison as it her status as a minor celebrity would make it easier for any of the surviving Doors or friends of Morrison to publicly counter her claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyna010208 (talk • contribs)
- Nico is already mentioned, but for any more content that what we have now, it will take much better sourcing than that webpage. It's unclear to me what is from just that site and what is from elsewhere, and how strong a connection that webcrafter had to Nico. Reviewing the Huddleston bit, I now see that the only third-party mention is a very brief interview with a fanzine; this also does not pass WP:RS. I don't see a reason to expand material on Nico at this time, but I think Huddleston's books should be solely mentioned in the "books about Morrison" section. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reading that website, and the sad state of Nico's article, it seems that the time she spent with Jim meant a lot more to her than him (though, to be fair, there are many people that could be said of). I think it would make more sense to add any content about their connection to that article, and do cleanup on that article while you're at it. But even there, it needs to be sourced to WP:RS standards. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
First, I would to thank you for taking a second look at the paragraph about Judy Huddleston. It is known that Jim Morrison was not always a perfect gentleman but her inclusion on his Wikipedia page always made uncomfortable because Huddleston gave a version of events that, according to her (and her alone), took place while only she and Morrison were present and that really isn't fair to him. So I am grateful that you took my suggestion into consideration.
I realize that I must've skimmed over the part where Nico is already mentioned, so I made you read a big, long (and rather weird) paragraph for nothing, my apologies for that. I think you are correct. Jim Morrison's affair with Nico has not been included in any of his biographies so she probably did make more of it than he did (makes one wonder why his biographers shied away from her)and, yes, Nico appeared to have some odd ideas about immortality and I understand that there should be more than some quotes from a website in order to consider their relationship a significant one.
Thanks again for your time. Leyna010208 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"he lived on canned beans and LSD for several months"
TOTAL BS. There is no nutritional value in LSD for the sustenance of the human body. So,WHAT, exactly, is this piece of poor writing intended to propagandize and lie about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Bernett and other "it is rumoured" and "some believe" speculations about Morrison's death
Here's the past discussion. Maybe look it over before adding it again. If that doesn't do it, discuss here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The meanings and themes in Jim Morrison's songs
The article of this date is all about style and not substance. What about are the themes and meanings common in his music? There's nothing about the relationship between sex and death that appear over and over again in his lyrics. Joan Didion noticed it in her "White Album" essay of 1968. Is she the only one that has noticed the obvious over 51 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8980:4B20:811E:D64D:BE98:CED3 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"Legacy" section
The Legacy section becomes a tedious list after the the first sentence in the third paragraph so if someone could take a look at it, that would be great.
A list of other prominent artists who have cited him as a key influence is fair enough, but to then start listing Doors covers, fill-in performances and songs that sample, reference or are about Morrison... it doesn't make great reading. The list of covers and who filled in for him should be chopped, you'd have to be living on canned beans and LSD to care about that.
If the list of references etc has to stay, it should be bulleted. It should also be pointed out that Radiohead's reference in "Anyone Can Play Guitar" is actually sarcastic and is intended to denigrate Morrison and those that aspire to be like him (see https://www.loudersound.com/features/jim-morrisons-a-talentless-bastard-and-hes-dead-thom-yorkes-long-lost-interview). It was only noticing this minor inaccuracy that set me off on wanting to edit this section in the first place, and that lead me to start thinking "hmm now I look at it, half this section's a bit dodgy"..! 81.96.199.160 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Crosby's opinions
The presentation of David Crosby's account of what happened between Morrison and Janis Joplin is preposterous. 'He (JM) was mean to her at a party.' Wait, what? How is that presented as though it's a fact here?
For the record, in a recent LA Times article, Crosby referred to Morrison as a 'dork.'
The idea that anyone would take David Crosby's accusations of bad behavior seriously is patently absurd. But when they lack any detail or corroboration, it reads like an account supplied by an 8 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.218.235 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)