Talk:Patricia Kennealy-Morrison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Edited the section on her marriage to Jim Morrison from "Although handfasting is not in itself recognized as marriage," to "although handfasting, like other religious ceremonies, is not legal unless the appropriate State paperwork is filed," to make it clear that no purely religious ceremony is recognized by the government, and that this is not something discriminatory against handfasting. Septegram 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder if it is worth mentioning that one of the people who performed the ceremony was a legally-ordained minister? --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- If it can be documented, I don't see why not.
- Septegram 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in Strange Days, and possibly some other interviews. However the minister himself died some time in the '80s, IIRC. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Proper Nomenclature
Due to PKM's name-changes, I'm not sure how this should be done. Up until the mid-'90s, her books were all published under "Patricia Kennealy". After that point they are under "Patricia Kennealy-Morrison". Her legal name is Patricia Kennealy Morrison. I think that, as it's the name she now publishes under, the simple "Kennealy"'s in here should probably be changed to "Kennealy-Morrison"'s. Thoughts? --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there were no thoughts, apparently ;-)
An anonymous editor just went through removing hyphens. I think that it makes the most sense to stick to the name under which most of her books are now published. The first edition of Strange Days was published under Kennealy; I don't know which version reprints are under. --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV Edit War by 81.155.58.135
This London-based user refuses to discuss changes on the talk pages, and has been cutting and pasting their POV version, delting cited sources and effectively blanking all the wikification in the article. They have been warned on their talk page. I also added this to the 81.155.58.135's talk page:
- It is obvious you have some issues with Ms. Kennealy-Morrison, but it is inappropriate for you to delete cited sources and repeatedly insert your Point of View. It has been a while since I read the Balfour book, but I have no recollection of it saying what you claim it does. I think I would recall it if it did, as it contradicts everything I've ever heard Kennealy-Morrison say on the topic. In any case, please cite the page number where you believe Balfour makes those claims. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - -
26/10/2006 - Reply from 81.155.58.135 - Daniel-James Right. I'm pretty new to this Wiki-business, so if I've put this in the wrong place, my apologies in advance. First off, I'm not London-based. I'm Bolton based. Second, I haven't "refused" to discuss anything. I simply have not had the opportunity to log on to Wiki for a while. Third, I do not have any "obvious" (or non-obvious) issues with Ms. Kennealy Morrison, I merely took issue with content on Wikipedia that is disputed by people I know, who knew Jim Morrison, who is referred to within this article. And as for a POV Edit War, I didn't even know what a POV Edit War was until it was kindly explained to me by yourself. Can someone be at war if they don't the definition of that war?!? lol I don't question Ms. Kennealy Morrison's, or other authors rights to be considered as sourcable or expert opinions on the topics raised within this article. I just believe that there are other people who can be considered sourcable experts, such as Ray Manzarek for instance. I would think that when people are writing articles that as well as sourcing and making their points from one set of sources, they would also take the trouble to consider sources and expert opinions from other sets of sources that present conflicting information. Why other people should have to do this for them is beyond me. Objective writing does IMHO, involve this process. Why does it not appear to apply to this article and to others on Wiki concerning the people around Jim Morrison, such as Pamela Courson Morrison for instance, who despite having a death recorded as something other than suicide by a California Coroner, is noted on Wiki as having committed suicide? I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but to use an old phrase, I smell a rat. Nothing personal against anyone here or Ms. Kennealy Morrison. Many thanks, Daniel
