User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Contents |
Some Wikipedia guidelines, for 81.155.58.135
Hello. Firstly, I'm new to talking through Wikipedia, so I apologise if I have placed this message in the wrong place. I am one of two people who has attempted to edit the section in relation to Patricia Kennealy Morrison. To clarify, my point of view in relation Ms. K is really not relevant to the edits I attempted to made. That these claims are alleged is a point of fact, regardless of other sourcing which also make claims in respect of the alleged nature of her relationship with Jim Morrison. In regard to a 3-change revert rule, I was obviously unaware of such a rule. Being aware of it, I will cease any further attempt to make a change to the article, until such time as I obtain the surname of my source, a mutual friend of the late Jim Morrison. Strictly out of curiosity, does the 3 change revert rule apply to members of Wikipedia who change an article back to it's previous state on 3 seperate occasions? I am merely curious from an academic standpoint and am not in any way questioning your reversions at this time to the article by making this enquiry. Finally, just to reassure you, I have never met Ms. Kenneally Morrison, and beyond my concern for historical accuracy have no bone to pick with the woman - in fact I have enjoyed her works as a fiction writer over the years - she is indeed a very good fiction writer. It is a shame also that her website is no longer as active as it was once, but I digress. My thanks to you for your polite messages - it is better to have someone point out the rules of Wiki posting before I go rearranging great swathes of it! I look forward to your reply Ms. NicDhana.
- The Three Revert Rule is largely there to prevent edit wars. Rather than have people revert back and forth between their preferred versions of the article, the point is to encourage people to dialogue about their differences on the article's talk page. This is so a productive solution can be reached, as opposed to pointless back and forth reverts that eventually cede the "victory" to the one with the most stamina and determination. The one time the 3RR isn't in effect is when potentially libelous material is being posted about a living person. Then those who are removing the potentially libelous statements can revert as much as is needed to avoid Wikipedia being sued for libel.
- Another Wikipedia principle that we must observe as we contribute to this encyclopedia is Verifiability:
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
The points you were indicating as "alleged" in the article are from sources that meet the Wikipedia standard of reliability and verifiability, so it is inaccurate and potentially libelous to make some of the changes you made. The witnessed document which Jim and Patricia signed at their handfasting/wedding has been reproduced in Strange Days, and Jerry Hopkins has examined it (and other letters and poems Jim gave Patricia); Hopkins also discusses their relationship and wedding in No One Here Gets Out Alive. Other friends of Jim's have examined the materials Jim left with Patricia, and have agreed that these materials were written and signed by Jim. Also, Jim spoke to Max Fink about Patricia, and about changing his will, so Jim's lawyer is also a witness to their relationship.
- I also know someone who knew Jim, Patricia, Pam, the rest of the Doors and various others in the saga. This person was also at the wedding. However, though I also know previously-unpublished facts, opinions and juicy gossip about these people, neither you nor I can add any of these things to a Wikipedia article as this would be inadmissable, due to the No Original Research policy.
- Please check out the links I've included. Also, if you register an account, your changes can be credited to you by name. It is also appreciated if you sign your comments on the talk pages, this is easily done by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your post, or by hitting the third button in from the end in the list of buttons above the editing window. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Jim Morrison article
Hello Kathryn,
I was wondering if you could give some explanation to the somewhat obscure comment by John Densmore ("Nietzsche killed Jim Morrison...") you quoted on the article's talk page. Please answer there so that everybody can benefit from your answer. Thanks ! - Fils du Soleil 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Replies I left on another users talk page in a very similar discussion
- Hi [user], I do not post on any of the Doors boards, but I am aware of their existence, and of the fact there are many fans who like to duke it out over Jim's love life. I think Jim has made it hard on his biographers in many ways... it does seem that he was no stranger to self-contradiction, and there are a significant number of people who say he said polar opposite things to them at one time than he said to others at other times. As we both know, some of these contradictory accounts have been due to confabulation or outright lies by fans or acquaintances of Jim's, but at other times due to the fact that Morrison simply could be inconsistent, impulsive, and rather the trickster.
- So what it comes down to is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one of the core policies is No Original Research. Therefore, if there is a published record, in what Wikipedia considers to be a credible, verifiable source, the statement can be included in an article. If it is hearsay or personal opinion, it simply cannot be included. Due to having mutual friends with Jim, I also know things about him and things he said that have never been published anywhere, but as interesting as they may be, I cannot include them on Wikipedia as they would be considered Original Research.
- One of the problems I see with the Balfour book, and I need to pick up a copy because it's been years since I've seen it, is that it's not clear to me from the quote whether "Patricia doesn't know how seriously Jim took the ceremony ("probably not that seriously")...etc." is representing Kennealy's statements or Balfour's opinion. I tend to think the latter, as I have never known Kennealy to say that sort of thing. Either way, if Kennealy did indeed say that, and she has disputed it, an interviewee wondering whether he took it seriously is different from stating that he did not take it seriously.
- Jerry Hopkins also saw the signed document in which Jim and Patricia declared themselves wedded, this is why he was the first to mention it, in No One Here Gets Out Alive. The fact that the Presbyterian Minister was also a Pagan High Priest was not known to his church. I think the fact he was a minister in two different faiths is interesting, and relevant, even though the ceremony was not Presbyterian. Even if the ceremony had been Presbyterian, it still would not be legal as they didn't file the paperwork. I have seen the signed, witnessed document and I find it credible, as do others who are familiar with Morrison's handwriting. And there are also people who say Jim did mention the officiators of the ceremony to them, and I personally know someone who was at the ceremony and upholds the description of it published in Kennealy's book.
- So, the case of Jim's love life will never be simple. There are still people coming out of the woodwork wanting to talk about it. However, we have to observe Wiki policy on this. I hope you learn your way around Wikipedia, as I'm sure you'll have interesting things to add to music articles in general. If you want to do any more work on the Jim Morrison article, please first discuss any proposed changes on the Talk:Jim Morrison page. And please remember the policies I've noted, especially those about original research and what constitutes a Verifiable source. Hope this helps! --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where does Kennealy discuss Balfour? Though I think it's human for Kennealy to have wondered about Jim's feelings, if she did, as the quote is so out of character with everything she's ever written about the situation I would not feel right including that without then devoting space to her assertions to the contrary. And that seems like too much of a tangent in an article that is not about Patricia (or Pam), but about Jim. I don't think the article needs to go there. The article is already incredibly long. And it already mentions the Balfour book, among others, so people can check it out and evaluate it for themselves. Another thing to bear in mind here is the guidelines about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Morrison and Courson are dead, but Kennealy is not. I don't see what trying to call Kennealy a liar would accomplish except to be hurtful, cause conflict, and possibly cause problems for Wikipedia. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
