Talk:Van Morrison: No Surrender/Archive 1

Contents section - para. 7

As sourced by an Irish Independent article this portion of the material is misleading in my opinion, not through any fault of the editor's, but because the newspaper article it was sourced from did not represent it exactly as it was written in Rogan's book:

From this article:

"Morrison signed a contract with Bert Berns, and just before he left for New York made a speech to his friends and ended with: 'One day you'll see my picture up on the wall and you'll all say 'I knew him'... And I'll just say 'Fuck you!'"

As quoted in the Irish Independent:

"On the eve of his departure to New York he met up with his friends and made a big speech, concluding with the words, 'One day you'll see my picture up on the wall and you'll all say 'I knew him'... And I'll just say 'Fuck you!'".Irish Independent 04/25/05

And directly from P. 198 of Johnny Rogan's book No Surrender:

"Relieved that the recordings were actually happening, Morrison could not resist some small gloating over his good fortune and returned to Fitzroy Avenue just before his departure. 'He was in the kitchen talking to all the boys and we were all lying around in the front room settling down for the evening,' Janet Martin remembers. 'Then Van walked in and came out with this big speech. Everybody just sat there in shocked silence. He said, 'One day you'll see my picture up on the wall and you'll all say, 'I knew him.' It was just silence after that. But he was bloody right!' Gwen Carson confirmed Martin's account verbatim but remembers a vicious punchline directed at one of the musicians in their company. Turning to his victim, Morrison sneered: 'And I'll just say, 'Fuck you!' Carson notes."

There's a big difference in using the term to include "all his friends" and in specifically directing it at "one musician", with whom he had a personally negative relationship and it might also be noted in the quotation from Rogan's book, the first witness did not quote Morrison as using the "FY" term at all! Agadant (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed, per talk page suggestion by Agadant (talk · contribs), above [1]. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt - All the best and Happy Holidays, Agadant (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. And to you as well, Cirt (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding unsourced info about BLPs

[2] = Let's please not get into the habit of adding unsourced info about WP:BLPs to articles on Wikipedia. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am gobsmacked, as we say here in Ireland...

• Firstly Diarmaid Ferriter is a him, not a her, so correcting that is not a biggie, and not anti-WP:BLP.
• Secondly the "Ian Paisley" mentioned needed a link, and it was amusing to note that he was described as a republican when he has been monarchist for decades in the convoluted reality of Northern Ireland. Again, not anti-WP:BLP.
• This isn't a page on Van M, just on a book about him, so WP:BLP is a bit marginal.
• We should keep Krewen's stuff as it is so amusingly wrong. Could you "please .. get into the habit" of giving us some logical reasons why you edited my corrections?Red Hurley (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the unsourced addition. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

...And now you've removed the mention of Paisley. It is notable that a reviewer knows so little about Northern Ireland, where Van M came from. A quick glance at Irish republicanism, Unionism in Ireland and Paisley's own party, the Democratic Unionist Party, would make that clear. Leaving the rest of Krewen's comments in the article may allow it to become GA, but a serious researcher looking further into the reviews cited could be seriously misled about Van's formative background.Red Hurley (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read that paragraph again, after I trimmed the quote. It removes all the above issues you had a complaint about, but still conveys the critique from the book review. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But that is part of the problem - you have removed the aspects that show it to be a pretty worthless article. Best to scrub the whole review. Isn't it awful to think that some of us wikipedians actually live in Ireland and know what they are talking about.Red Hurley (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as it presently stands in the article, this portion of the review used is suitable. Please understand that I made the edit in order to go along with the complaints. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as you realize how stupid your original edit was, Cirt. You actually removed a correction to what would be a extremely serious libel of a BLP (if it weren't so obviously and laughably wrong to any person with the slightest knowledge of the subject) and then actually noted it here with the heading "Adding unsourced info about BLPs". Amazing. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The addition was unsourced. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is common knowledge if anything is, and the point is you left the BLP libel (did you actually add it?) and removed the correction. That the libel was sourced is no cover. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"It is common knowledge" is not an excuse for someone to add completely unsourced info to a page. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Er, yes it is actually, especially in this context. I note you offer no hint of apology for not only maintaining the BLP libel on the page, but obstructing attempts to point out it was just the moronic ignorance of some American music critic too stoned to read the book he was reviewing properly (sorry, a "reliable source"). Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maintain? There is no "BLP libel" currently on the page. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the case after the edit you so proudly give the diff for above. And I see you did indeed add the libel in the first place. You really don't get it, do you? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of not getting it - "so proudly", "don't get it"??!! Please identify the problem content with civility, and cease your accusatory tone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I advise you to read WP:NPA and refrain from attacking and insulting other editors. Failure to treat others with civility may lead to sanctions, including blocks. Remember, we are all on the same team. Your being rude does not make the article any better. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What incivility? Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as you realize how stupid.... etc. General tone. "Amazing". Seriously, try to imagine you received that kind of bitchfest at one of your edits. AGF and be more polite and friendly, less accusatory and belittling. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)