Talk:Jim Morrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeJim Morrison was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)