User talk:Salliort

Your edit to Jim Morrison
Welcome!

Hello Salliort, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia Policy on Sockpuppets
I noticed that your recent, and first registered, edit is identical to edits that have been made repeatedly by another editor on the Jim Morrison article. Most of these edits were also made anonymously by   IP 69.140.12.112, so I assume those were made before you registered. However, if you have received this message from me or other editors before, under another registered account, please be aware that it is inappropriate to edit a Wikipedia article under multiple accounts, and even the possessing of multiple accounts is generally frowned upon. If you have not previously contributed to Wikipedia under other names, my apologies. However, the material you removed from the Jim Morrison article is sourced and had been discussed with other editors, so simply deleting it and inserting your POV is considered a form of vandalism. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of sourced text to substitute POV
As you've been told before, if you disagree with the article you need to discuss it in a civil manner on the talk page. Simply continuing to ignore these messages and blank the sourced text you dislike and insert your opinion is inappropriate, and if you continue to do so your editing privileges may be suspended. Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Jim Morrison, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you did not read the Wikipedia guidelines about sourcing text and not inserting gossip or personal opinion. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines linked in the welcome message, and here: Reliable sources  --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Later Discussion
Hello Kathryn NicDhàna,

My name is Salli Stevenson. I interviewed Jim Morrison for Circus Magazine in 1970. I have been quoted regarding Jim Morrison as someone who knows a great deal about Morrison and his life. The most recent reference is in the 40th anniversary book The Doors on the Doors by Ben Fong-Torres to be officially released November 7, 2006.

I hate to bother you all about this, but I am flummoxed. I am a brand spanking new newbie here and thought anyone could correct mistakes.

I have just opened and read for the first time all of your notes to me this evening (November 1, 2006 at 5:13 pm), after trying several times over the last few days to edit the Jim Morrison entry to more accurately reflect the truth about Jim Morrison and his relationships.

I had been alerted by posters on the Doors Official website (The Lizard Lounge) regarding the section on Kennealy Morrison. They have all expressed discomfort at what they perceive to be inaccuracies about her affair with Morrison. They thought a Kennealy Morrison fanatic who posts on the LL had created your entry and asked me to correct it.

One of your notes says, "If you have not previously contributed to Wikipedia under other names, my apologies."

I haven't ever contributed anything to Wikipedia.

Your note continues: "However, the material you removed from the Jim Morrison article is sourced and had been discussed with other editors, so simply deleting it and inserting your POV is considered a form of vandalism. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page."

Now I see your warning. " Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you did not read the Wikipedia guidelines about sourcing text and not inserting gossip or personal opinion."

I tried to correct the entry where it pertains to Kennealy Morrison, because I got complaints from Doors fans that the Kennealy Morrison section is not neutral, that it is not completely accurate in data or tone.

The problem with the entry as far as I can tell is that it uses only Kennealy Morrison's POV as written in her book and in dozens of interviews she gave. They were not independently verified as true. All information until recently has used Kennealy Morrison as a primary or secondary source.

Morrison corrected the whole thing when he was alive, but his version has been superceded by that of Kennealy Morrison. There is information out there that disputes her version of events and I am surprised that it has not been used by Wikipedia. While the entry itself does contain some facts, it also conveys in tone a great inaccuracy regarding Jim Morrison's intentions and the actual importance that the handfasting held for Jim Morrison.

Here is the section of the Jim Morrison entry in question.

In 1970, Morrison participated in a Celtic [Paganism|Pagan]] handfasting ceremony with rock critic and Science fiction/fantasy author Patricia Kennealy. Before witnesses, one of them a Presbyterian minister, the couple signed a document declaring themselves wedded; however none of the necessary paperwork for a legal marriage was filed with the state. Kennealy discussed her experiences with Morrison in her autobiography ''Strange Days: My Life With and Without Jim Morrison, and in an interview reported in the book Rock Wives''.

There is a conflict between fact and truth here. (1) There is a question as to whether there really was a witness. Jim Morrison told Leon Barnard (his publicist at the time), me, and other friends that there were only two people at the handfasting, Kennealy Morrison (at that time Kennealy) and Morrison. Jim's statement was, "No one was there. Just the two of us. Nobody else."

So the presence of anyone, let alone a Presbyterian minister, is in question. It should not be related as fact, when the only source is Kennealy Morrison.

Furthermore,the Presbyterian Church does not allow its ministers to witness at, officiate at, or sign documents at pagan ceremonies. A handfasting is a pagan ceremony according to all the Wiccans I have discussed this with. Kennealy Morrison in her book claims that this person officiated at and witnessed in writing the ceremony. That would have violated the precepts and rules of the Presbyterian Church.

(2) Kennealy Morrison contradicts herself as to Morrison's commitment to her.

In her book Strange Days K-M claims that Jim Morrison took the whole ceremony very seriously and felt that he was indeed her husband and wedded. Yet Wikipedia does not address the contradiction that is found in the interview she did for Rock Wives.

The Rock Wives reference fails to mention an important fact; a statement by Kennealy Morrison in that interview on page 149, "Patricia doesn't know how seriously Jim took the ceremony ("probably not that seriously")...etc." Author Victoria Balfour quotes her.

Resolution: Since there are articles that debunk her version of her relationship with Morrison, including her own words in the above Rock Wives interview, is it possible to try and work at this to make it more accurate without relying on source material as issued solely by Kennealy Morrison? Thank you for your attention to this matter, Salli Stevenson, Salliort Salliort 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Salli, 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)

November 3, 2006 8:16 pm.

Hi Kathryn,

You will be happy to know I am acquainting myself with Wikipedia policy. That is why my suggestions/corrections for comment--three of them--are listed on the Jim discussion page.

What I'm looking for in this article is accuracy as well as balance where opposite versions of the same incidents arise in the public perception. Thanks for the correction on Patricia's book. I started reading after that page, so missed it. That'll teach me to read after midnight when I'm tired. ;)

Regarding my attempt at trying to balance the ceremony issue, (his POV, her POV as expressed by her) you said that the quote I submitted from page 149, Rock Wives, could be taken as Balfour's opinion instead of a quote from Patricia. You weren't sure about it.

Here is the section in question on p. 149, top of the page,lines five through nine. - Patricia doesn't know how seriously Jim took the ceremony ("probably not too seriously"), but to her, going through with the ceremony was "like being validated the way I wanted to be. It was a very private thing for me, a bond I wanted to make with this person." In reviewing it, it's clear that the ("probably not that seriously") entry is not the author's opinion, but a direct quote from Patricia, inserted into narrative and further quotes from Patricia.

Interviewer/writers do not use quotes around their opinions of what people say in interviews, because they and their publishers can be sued for misrepresentation if they do. As I understand it, Patricia never took this to court. She could have if there was any question about the quote's authenticity. Since Patricia took no action against Balfour, it would seem that Balfour quoted her correctly. Balfour certainly had the original uncut tapes available, which would prove the statement.

As a journalist--30 years in the entertainment industry--I have run into people who claim not to have said what was written in quotes. Since I keep my tapes, I have always been able to prove the quote every time. In fact my work at the LA Times always had me check my sources as to quotes. They had some tough, but excellent editors. Balfour was a professional and IMO had the question come to court she could have proved Patricia's quote.

I agree with you that Jim has made it hard on his biographers, but not because of any inconsistency on his part. Jim was many things, among them impulsive (consistently impulsive), but he was neither inconsistent nor a trickster.

I rather think the problem lies with who the biographer chooses for his sources on Jim and what their particular agendas are with regard to Jim. As you said, "confabulation or outright lies." ...and copious amounts of both to sort through.

I think the information would be somewhat different if Jim were alive and could speak for himself. In fact, I'm sure it would be, as my info on Jim was first-hand. Minor points:

- You mentioned the handfasting document. Jim never said he did not sign it. He did. I have no doubt that he did. What he did say was that he was not fully aware of its import when he signed it. He was not functioning on all levels that day. So there is a situation here where he admitted to the signature, but not the serious intent of the ceremony. He made it clear to several people that he did not undertake the handfasting with the same degree of solemnity that Patricia did. She later agreed when she talked to Balfour, which is why I feel it is valid to mention that quote in this article.

- I am academically curious as to how you personally know if something is truly Jim's handwriting or not? It has sometimes been difficult to separate the authentic from the fake, as there were a couple of people who could imitate Jim's handwriting almost perfectly. It's been something of a headache at times to sort the wheat from the chaff.

- Regarding ceremony witnesses, I thought I had read somewhere that both Maura and Bran were now deceased, if you go with Patricia's version. If you go with Jim's, than of course Patricia is the only survivor of the ceremony, so I assume that Patricia is the one who described the ceremony to you as it appears in her Strange Days autobiography?

At the time, Jim told both me and Max, his attorney, that he and Patricia were the only two people there. He also told Harvey Perr the same thing. I am curious to know who the people are "who say Jim did mention the officiators of the ceremony to them." On one hand we have Jim saying one thing. On the other hand, we have people saying something else. I've met several people who "knew" Jim who never met him (Linda Ashcroft and her four-year affair comes to mind.) I hope these people have more credibility than Ashcroft in this "he said she said." Of course, the case of Jim's love life during his singing career is simple. Bottom line, whether one likes it or not--and there are several women who didn't like it--it was Pamela. She was there at the beginning and at the end. That point cannot be argued. Jim did had affairs, his share of quick flings, and fewer one night stands than are attributed to him. Jim was not exactly a rock and roll Lothario. The point is he always came back to Pamela.

Thanks for your help in pointing out the pitfalls of Wikipedia. All I'm trying to do is get a more balanced and correct entry for Jim. SalliSalliort 01:27, 4 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 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)

Hi Kathryn, At this point I do not remember if Patricia mentioned a writer who published a book in her Strange Days or if the reference appeared on her now defunct website (of which I have copies). Patricia never did, as far as I know, mention Balfour by name, but when I have time I will find it. Trust me.

I mentioned that Patricia never took it to court, because there was--as far as research of NY court records goes--no such case, or action brought and no trial.

Further, since there was no talk of any actualized legal action on Patricia's part against Victoria Balfour in publishing circles, it is also reasonable to conclude that Patricia did not take action against Balfour.

Since this is an article about Jim, it should be an accurate one. My very real concern for factual representation here is that when you read the section on Patricia and her handfasting, you can assume from it that Jim also took it as a sincere marriage committment. Since he did not, and it is documented, I think it is only fair and accurate to indicate that he did not. Otherwise the entry is misleading in what it implies about the two of them, has no place whatsoever in the article, and the whole section should be deleted. As I said, I think Jim's take on the handfasting should be in Patricia's own words, quoted from Balfour's book.

I might also point out that Rock Wives is much harder to find than it once was and most people will not be looking for it as a source of fact with regard to Patricia and Jim. They will just assume from your edit that it doesn't do anything but back up Patricia's POV 100%.

As to devoting space to her assertions to the contrary, her whole autobiography represents that POV. One more line of type isn't going to kill you. After all the Ashcroft material was removed after it was found to be fake by me, so there is copy space. That is the joy of Wikipedia. It can be edited for accuracy.

As to the biography of living guidelines, the degree of serious factor is in her own words, so no problem with biographies of living people.

Regarding your assertions that I am trying to call Kennealy a liar, as far as I can see nowhere here have I called her one. I am just maintaining that there were two people there and two different POVS. The other POV, Jim's, should be represented, and in Patricia's words from Rock Wives. It's only fair. SalliSalliort 21:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Since he did not, and it is documented..." Where is it documented? --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The data in in the new Doors book that was just released written by Ben Fong Torres. It is their 40th Anniversary book called, The Doors on the Doors. Page 186 covers Patricia's wedding.

I just received a copy of page 186 this morning. I had been told prior to this that it was not favorable to Patricia, which is why I suggested earlier (Saturday or Sunday) that the Victoria Balfour section quoting Patricia be used. It allows her to save face and not be subjected to quotes by Babe Hill, the Doors, and me in what will be the definitive book written about and by The Doors.Salliort 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really comment on Fong-Torres's book until I see it. I'm also trying to remember where I saw Kennealy-Morrison comment on the Balfour book.  I think that if we introduce quotes about others' opinions about the Kennealy/Morrison relationship, that opens the door to including quotes from those who say Morrison said he was trying to leave Courson, and his reasons for doing so, and his reasons for delaying the complete breakup.  All of these things feel like tangents to me, and a bit more detail than the section in the Morrison article merits.  Perhaps the Patricia Kennealy-Morrison and Pamela Courson articles are a more appropriate place for those details (again, assuming they can be done in a way that meets Wikipedia criteria).  --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. You shouldn't post until you have seen the Ben Fong Torres book. It's on Amazon and at Barns and Noble. Maybe you could go in and just read the page in question, or I could try and send the page in question to you.

I'll try and find Patricia's comment on Balfour for you. It may take a couple of days.

I am trying to spare Patricia's dignity by letting Patricia's quote to Balfour be the one to indicate that while she took the ceremony seriously she felt that perhaps he did not. That would balance the whole thing without bringing in more quotes or making it an unweildy tangent..and it would meet the Wikipedia criteria. I have not seen the separate Patricia and Pamela articles. BTW, I like your livejournal page. It's interesting and informative as to RC. I had not been aware of RC or its history before.Salliort 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn,

The following is from THE DOORS ON THE DOORS. It was emailed to me, so that I could post it here for you.

As you will see, there are several people with whom Jim shared his feelings about the handfasting. As it is now officially documented by Ben Fong Torres and the remaining Doors in thier book, there seems to be no reason left to avoid posting Jim's POV, by using Patricia's Balfour quote...unless, of course, you'd like to use another instead. There are several quotes you can use in Ben's copy, below. Salli

Doors on the Doors. p.186

Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered

A funny thing happened to Jim Morrison on his way to Europe. He got married.

Well, first, he got sick. He was staying at Patricia Kennely's apartment when he woke up with a temperature over100 degrees. After reaching as high as 105, the fever broke, and by late afternoon, Morrison seemed to be all right, and they joined Leon for dinner.

The next night, she claimed, they really bonded. In her book, Rock Wives, Victoria Balfour writes:

In Patricia's eyes, the high point of her romance with Jim was when they were married in a Wiccan, or witch, ceremony in her apartment on June 24 -- Midsummer's Night-- in 1970. Patricia, it seems, was involved with witchcraft. "It's not Satanism," she is quick to say, :It’s basically a mother religion, but there is also a god figure, a horned god of the hunt." Jim apparently was intrigued with all this, and it was he who suggested that they have the Wiccan wedding ceremony.  So they were married by a high priest and priestess of the Celtic coven, who could have made the marriage legal, only Jim and Patricia didn’t bother to get a licensed.  "We just did the ceremony, which is binding a lot longer than till death do us part. It's a karmic sort of thing that links people through further reincarnations."

The ceremony itself involved "all kinds of rituals and candles and vows" …Patricia doesn't know how seriously Jim took the ceremony ("probably not too seriously"), but to her, going through with the ceremony was "like being validated the way I wanted to be. It was a very private thing for me, a bond I wanted to make with this person."

Although Kennealy would ultimately write a book, Strange Days, that made a case for the validity of the ceremony (she even displayed a handwritten statement declaring them "wedded" and signed, in one spot, "J Morrison"), her comment to Balfour that Jim probably didn't take the event "too seriously" seemed to be more on the mark. Babe Hill, a close buddy of Morrison's, recalled asking him in Miami about the wedding. Jim told him, "I don't know what I did! I was drunk.  Maybe I did, but there was no emotional involvement with her."

Morrison never told his bandmates about the ceremony.

Robby: He did mention being with a witch and stuff. But no, he never said he was married.

John: Give me a break. Pamela was Jim's soul mate. They were Romeo and Juliet and fought like hell, but they were meant to be together.

Salli Stevenson, the writer who also knew Morrison intimately, once told of playing a storytelling game of "top-this" with him. After she told her tale, Jim responded: "I got married in a witch's wedding ceremony!" When she expressed her shock, he smiled and reassured her: "Don't worry; it wasn't a real wedding; it didn't mean anything.  This chick I met in New York is into witchcraft, and she was telling me about witch weddings.  It seemed like a fun thing to do at the time.  I was so stoned!" When Stevenson pressed him about whether or not he was "married," he responded, "Definitely not! It was joke!"

Morrison was soon off to Paris with Leon Bernard, ostensibly to do advance work for a planned tour of Europe in September. But they got little work done. Morrison had heard a lot about Paris from Alain Ronay, and this was his first chance to check it out.

He and Bernard checked into the pricey Hotel George V, and Morrison proceeded to absorb the city's sights, culture, and alcohol, visiting dozens of bars and sidewalk cafes. After a blissful week of anonymity in a beautiful city, and additional traipses through Spain and Morocco, Morrison began to feel feverish and returned home, by way of New York. But he did not visit Kennealy. Three weeks after he'd left, he was back at the apartment on Norton Avenue, where he and Pam now lived, together and apart.

He was just in time to hear the news from Miami. The federal court there had turned down his attorney's motion to stop the trial on constitutional grounds. He responded by getting drunk.

While he was overseas, Elektra released Absolutely Live, which would join all the other Doors releases to quickly become the band's sixth consecutive gold record.

END OF COPY FROM THE BOOK.Salliort 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn, It's several days later and no reply yet? I find it very hard to believe that either you or Patricia has been unable to obtain a copy of the Doors new book by now, so you can both decide what to do about my requested change, which you have so far blocked. The request is simple. Make Jim's article a balanced one where Jim has as much say about their short time together as Patricia does. All it will take is allowing Patricia's quote from Rock Wives to be used.Salliort 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)