Talk:Van Morrison

Peacocking in lead
I've again reverted the recent addition to the lead. Namely;

''He is one of the most acclaimed and renowned songwriters of the rock era. ''

It has been suggested that this is a summary. Which would be fair enough, but I don't see anything in the article that establishes this as a fact. And if it was, as the lead is supposed to be, a summary of sourced content in the article, then we wouldn't be citing a source there.

I don't dispute that Morrison has been acclaimed and renowned. Nor do I dispute that Paul Sexton is of this opinion. But if we are to state such a bold statement in the lead it would be nice for it to be clearer on what basis it is being made. How was it determined that he is "one of the most". Who performed this measurement? Against what other artists?

I would suggest that there are better and more factual ways to demonstrate the regard Morrison is held in, without this apparent peacockery. It sounds rather like a claim that could be made of hundreds of artists, so perhaps we can have something that is more informative for the reader? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think that's an accurate summation of Van_Morrison? --Neil N  talk to me 18:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article mentions how he compares to any other artist, so it's not possible to say if he is "one of the most" anything How does he compare to, say, Paul McCartney?  Rod Stewart? Billy Joel? One of them? Not them? More renowned than them? Less? I've no idea, and neither has the reader because the article doesn't say.  It's classic peacocking.  What would be better is if we promoted what the lead says at the end about six grammys etc, to the first paragraph.  That is factual, clear, doesn't involve someone's opinion or an unclear ranking against unspecified contemporaries. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

atypical lead seems to be focusing on importance of subject rather than basic facts
Surely the lead of an article should focus on basic facts, such as where the subject is from, what they have done as a profession, etc.

This instead uses words like "sublime" in the opening paragraph which are subjective and better left for later in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:B4F4:1ADA:65E7:A55C (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The lead should be primarily factual.  Cherry picked words out of a review and opinion of one critic don't belong here.  It should be possible to convey the high regard he is held in some other way for the lead.  I'm also not sure about the prominence given to his reputation for being stubborn.  This is not what makes him notable.  Does it belong in the lead?
 * There is also no place for peacocking like "critically acclaimed" in the lead sentence. If this was there when the article was judged a GA, I don't know how it wasn't picked up on. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Working toward agreement on the lead
There has been disagreements about the wording of the lead for some years. Recently I moved the lead back closer to what it was when it went through GA, but that has been reverted with the concern that the language is not neutral and uses peacock terms. At the same time, to follow guidance in MOS:LEAD, we need to " identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." When someone has been prominently praised it can be difficult to square the circle of saying enough to meet the requirements of MOS:LEAD without appearing to be individually praising someone and so falling foul of NPOV and Peacock. What wording should we have in the lead paragraph that quickly sums up for the reader why Morrison is notable. At the moment we simply have that he is Irish, that he plays instruments, and that he has had a lengthy career. We need more than that to meet the guidance of LEAD, and to give the general reader some explanation as to why he is notable. Suggestions? SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A sentence that summarises (rather than lists) his extensive back-catalogue and awards? There is a paragraph of them at the end of the lead, so the detail doesn't need gone into. Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article's neutrality has been the subject of contention for decades, but I don't see a problem with the current version of the lede. This edit, which restored portions of an older version, also restored the article's old neutrality issues. It violates WP:PEACOCK (and MOS:FIRSTBIO) to describe Morrison as a critically acclaimed Northern Irish singer and songwriter in the first sentence. The stubborn, idiosyncratic, and sublime line is a textbook example of WP:PUFF. Something like that should not be said in WP:WIKIVOICE, though I'm not opposed to quotations. Also, the lede used the word “acclaimed” three times...way overkill. Novemberjazz 03:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Escape_Orbit and Novemberjazz for getting involved. I think we are agreed that there are issues with the lead, and that at the moment there isn't consensus. What I am looking to do now is move us forward so that there is consensus. It may help us if we look at other articles on music bios which have been through an audit process such as GA and FA. Not all audits are the same because they will involve different users, and some audits will have been done a while ago. However, they may give us some indication of what is regarded as good practise. The Beatles is a high profile FA article. The opening paragraph there says: "". That is the sort of thing I think we need to have here for Van Morrison. A summary of why The Beatles / Van Morrison are regarded as notable. We can look at other good examples, and then start working toward something we agree on. I'm busy this weekend, but I can look again on Monday and start making suggestions along the lines you've both indicated above. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've not had time to get back to this - it's been one of those weeks. I hope to be able to propose some ideas moving forward during the coming week. SilkTork (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Van Morrison and the Coronavirus Epidemic
So what it the most responsible way for us editors to deal with this on the page? I think it needs to be recorded.Realitylink (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what's there now is good, aside from the mention of him being called "covidiot", I don't think that's necessary. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That has been done today and almost word-for-word what I had in draft form! Great communication. We wait and watch to see what emerges as I am sure this story has more distance to go.Realitylink (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The guy has been in the public eye for 40 years. I think the current version suffers from extreme WP:RECENTism. His covid opinions should be a single sentence, if mentioned at all. Ashmoo (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it mentions three songs, it seems slightly misplaced in the "Career" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Ashmoo. Why don't we include Morrison's opinion on cheese, automobiles or log cabins also? Single sentence is all that is necessary, if at all.THX1136 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)