Talk:Jim Morrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Morrison article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] Please don't replace his entire life story with, "he is a god."

That's all... please respect the man and don't destroy this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sholt8 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC).



   Why not?--Jimbolives (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete the information regarding the Ed Sullivan show, about the two songs.

There were two songs performed on Ed Sullivan the day that Light My Fire became controversial, which also included People are Strange. There are numerous videos available and even a TV Episode guide website features the songs performed on Ed Sullivan. Please, let's do some research before we delete information that is credible.

[edit] Influence on some hip hop artists

I would just like to add these hip/hop songs and artists influenced by Jim Morrison: On Jay-Z's sixth album his song "Takeover" uses a sample of The Doors "Five to One". On Talib Kweli's first album the song "Down for the Count" contains a lyric by Talib Kweli saying, "Like Jim Morrison we break on through before I care about your take on me, we take on you".

[edit] Encounter with Janis Joplin

The "alleged alcohol-fueled encounter with Janis Joplin that left Joplin in tears." is describes differently at http://www.janisjoplin.net/friends/?id=3. The article there is allegedly taken from "Break On Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison" and left Jim "crushed" because she rejected him due to his violent behavior when drunk. Of course, that doesn't rule out she was left in tears, too. 87.123.52.37 09:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop "editing with an ax" !

These sentences were in the opening of the article :

  • (...) and is considered to be one of the most charismatic frontmen in the history of rock music.
  • Morrison's death at the age of 27 in Paris stunned his fans; the circumstances of his death and secret burial have been the subject of endless rumours and play a significant part in the mystique that continues to surround him.

A user (Tecmobowl) removed them abruptly, citing respectively "npov" and "made it encyclopedic". He changed the second one to : "The circumstances of his death and burial are not fully known".

I think this raises an important question about Wikipedia : does "being encyclopedic" mean sounding like a police report ? It is policy that edits be NPOV and verifiable, and rightfully so ; but it doesn't mean that they can't also be pleasant and stimulating to read whenever possible - in particular when the subject is a music icon.

I did not write these sentences - and I don't know who did, although it could be found by sifting through the history of the article. But they had been in the opening of the article for a very, very long time. So I put them back in, considering that they are well-written and set the backdrop about Jim Morrison pretty well. This is obviously open to discussion.

More generally, please consider that being true to Wikipedia's spirit and policies doesn't necessarily mean acting like Torquemada. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The same user (Tecmobowl) also arbitrarily removed entire chunks of the section "Early years" ([1]) on the same ground that he deemed it "unencyclopedic". This section contained much valuable information, in particular about his family and early years, or important developments about the "dead indians" episode by which Morrison claimed to have been strongly influenced. Again, it is far from being "encyclopedic" to arbitrarily remove big chunks of the article just because you deem them, by your own standards, "unencyclopedic". This could even be seen as a form of "soft vandalism". Please first discuss here on this talk page any other changes of this nature that you intend to make in the future. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not arbitrarily remove anything. While you may wish that articles here have a bit more color, the goal of wiki is to serve as an encyclopedia. This is not a place for literary creativity. If you have a problem with the style, then rewrite it. However, many of the statements and claims in this article are made without reference. This needs to be fixed. If you want to expand on the section I have edited, please do so. But use encyclopedic information that is based on relevant and reliable sources. // Tecmobowl 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well. I think we have a problem here. You removed even more information, this time to the section "The Doors". I do not question your good faith, but the fact is that you are deleting much valuable information based only on your personal and restrictive view of what you deem "encyclopedic". Again, I did not write these parts, so this is not a defense of "my" edits. They were here when I started contributing to the article, and they had already been here for a very long time.

Clearly, we now need some outside input so as not fall into some pointless "edit war" (see below). I will revert your last edits until this question is solved, to the state were the article was before the disputed changes. Please do not make further edits of this sort before a consensus is reached on the question. Thanks - Fils du Soleil 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CALL TO OTHER CONTRIBUTORS : the opinion of other contributors to this article would be much appreciated, so we can try and reach some sort of consensus. See above for the details of the dispute. Here are some of the questionable edits made by user Tecmobowl :

1) Abrupt changes to the introduction, the ending of which now reads like a police report : [2], [3].

2) Removal of many external links, with only this justification "enough with the external links" : [4].

3) Suppression of much valuable information about Jim Morrison's early years, including his family background : [5].

4) Same thing for the section of the article "The Doors" : abrupt changes, with no other effect than removing information and making the article less pleasant to read : [6].

- Fils du Soleil 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    • You want to avoid a revert war yet all you do is revert my changes. The fact of the matter is, the information I removed was not sourced. Being from the States, I am very familiar with Jim Morrison and the Doors. Unfortunately, this article is for the general public. I am not suppressing information, just removing information that is irrelevant, in the wrong place, and/or non-encyclopedic. More does not always equal better. If you want information in the article, then provide sources. You'll notice that the article is tagged because it lacks sources. // Tecmobowl 06:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For that matter, it was difficult not to edit out more of the content. This article is in horrible shape. It is absent a neutral point of view and is not written like an encyclopedia entry. // Tecmobowl 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to the newly titled section, I have every intention of axing information that does not belong. I will do so when my schedule permits. Statements of opinion and unsourced "facts" do not have a place on wikipedia. // Tecmobowl 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're free to do what you want. But in the future you may want to ease up a little bit, and have a little more consideration for the contributions of other editors that don't fit exactly in your vision of things. Again, it is an excellent thing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ; but that doesn't mean one has to act like Torquemada. - Fils du Soleil 00:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind also that an encyclopedia, especially one like Wikipedia that transcends the space limitations of print, enjoys the luxury of covering its subjects in considerable depth. Brevity is not a virtue here if it means short-changing the readers and giving them less than a complete view of not only the person Jim Morrison was but also his place in the music and culture of his times. It is neither an exaggeration nor POV to state that Morrison was and is widely "considered to be one of the most charismatic frontmen in the history of rock music," and I can't imagine any definition of "encyclopedic" that would require such an important background detail to be omitted. One of our goals here ought to be to help the reader understand the significance of Morrison's work and his place in American rock music of that period. An encyclopedia doesn't have to read like Jack Webb narrating an episode of Dragnet. If a better job of sourcing and footnoting needs to be done, then let's work on that, instead of just hacking out potentially important material that others have contributed. Let's treat each other with respect, and make sure that our only agenda here is creating the best article about Jim Morrison that we can. - Mark Dixon 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life in Paris

[edit] Grave popularity

From the article: "Morrison's grave is amongst the most popular graves in the cemetery and has become one of the most popular tourist destinations in Paris" Yeah right. In a city where you can choose to visit the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Versailles or the Notre Dame among many other places. Does someone really believe that many people will visit Jim Morrisons grave over those places(+50 more) i mentioned?

Er, yes. They do. And the gravesite is featured in the definitive guide, Cimetières et sépultures de Paris. 69.3.210.139 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, Jim Morrison's grave is one of the 10 most popular attractions in Paris - after la Tour Eiffel, le Louvre, Notre Dame or l'Arc de Triomphe, of course. But I should add that the whole Père Lachaise cemetery is a popular visit in Paris, both for locals and tourists, notably because of the many famous people buried there. Special "theme circuits" are even organized - eg "Romantic writers and poets", "Historical figures", "Practionners of the occult", etc. - Fils du Soleil 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I currently live here in Paris and have been to Le cimetière du Père-Lachaise several times in search of graves of artists I work on (and because it is fantastic and peaceful). Anytime I am anywhere near division 16 I am constantly asked by people from all over the world where the grave of Jim Morrison is. As a matter of fact, if you even look a bit lost in the part of the cemetery near the entrance served by the Philippe Auguste Métro stop, the guards who work there will ask you if you are looking for the grave of Jim Morrison. It is assumed. Just the other day, while leaving, I encountered a Polish family, an older Japanese woman, three blonde Californian teenagers, and a smootching couple of indeterminate origin, all hurriedly making the pilgrimage in the last 15 minutes before the cemetery closed. "Où est la tombe de Ghzeem Moreeszohn ?!" Right outside that entrance there is a bar completely devoted to Jim Morrison with a painted mural, a bunch of newspaper clippings, etc. So even though this is my own anecdotal contribution I can well believe that it is a very visited site. I have not seen his grave personally, but if it is anything like Oscar Wilde's grave there it is pretty popular. I was actually surprised that he is still this popular all over the world. Saudade7 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Someone may want to get a 3RR against Referento.--Epeefleche 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hrs for spamming. The 3RR was a factor, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Hennigan "Tribute"

I'd hardly call it a tribute. If John Morrison is indeed a reproduction of Jim Morrison, it's hardly a flattering one.Quadrophenic youth 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's OR. I say we ditch it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that at least speculate on the subject. I think it's okay to say that there is speculation that has not been confirmed. I'm just not sure "tribute" is the right word. Not only does he play the "bad guy", he also uses Jim Morrison's trademark slightly mystical way of speech to make himself seem pretentious.Quadrophenic youth 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Didn't know where else to put this: What about the cowboy in Oregon who claims to be Jim and lists Densmore and the FBI as his proof that he is Jim??? Can anyone in Oregon verify?rodeoswest.com

[edit] Sparking a riot??

I just happened to be reading Jim Morrison and I see that the famous indecent exposure incident has been rendered incomprehensible. I know that there are folks who say it didn't happen and I also know people who were at the concert and say it did. It certainly was a huge deal at the time so why isn't it discussed here? Can we not mention penis and masturbation in Wikipedia? Or is this gap part of the bickering over style that seems to be afflicting this entry? (For what it is worth, I vote for interesting style over Jack Webb every time.) Parsnip13 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Sad

Only in the current state of the U.S. and (Britain?) would a page about Jim Morrison be constructed wherein "Estate Controversy" came before "Artistic Roots". I am not even a Jim Morrison or Doors fan but when I compare the French version [7] to this one, with its careful emphasis on the person as an artist and poet and on his artistic and intellectual influences, I realize more and more that I was born on the wrong continent (North America / U.S.). Saudade7 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Brodsky

There's a mistake in the "Doors" section of this article at the beginning. The article makes it sound like Joel Brodsky took the famous "Young Lion" photographs in 1965 before The Doors formed. They were actually taken at the end of a Doors photo session in either 66 or 67...either way, the article makes it sound like Joel Brodsky approched Jim when he was a bohemian on Venice beach...that's not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.93.221 (talk) 19:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I've added about 15-20 sources in the last few hours. Is that enough to remove that God-awful tag at the top of the page? :P faithless (speak) 10:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on our goals here. If we have a goal of making this a Good Article, or better, it will need additional sourcing and work. In that case, it would be useful to leave the flag up top. However, in terms of the general run of articles on WP, I think the sourcing is at a mid-level now, and requests for additional citations could probably be served well enough by calling for citations on specific statements or sections.
I haven't gone over all the sources yet, but thanks for taking the time to add them! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jim Morrison photo.jpg

Image:Jim Morrison photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

I added a "weasel" tag to warn people about this.Boab 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

QUOTE: "While there are many conspiracy theories concerning Morrison's death, the official version is widely accepted as the most likely."

  • "He died on July 3, 1971, at age 27, and, in one account of his death, was found in the rue Beautreillis apartment bathtub by Courson."
  • "no autopsy was performed"
  • "Courson had given numerous contradictory versions of Morrison's death"

What is "the official version"? Death2 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Death2 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work done on sourcing this

It needs more citation, and a bit of cleanup, but I think it could get GA at some point at this rate.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CLIFF MORRISON - is he Jim's son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.189.44 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] umm

in one place it says he dropped out of ucla an in another it says he graduated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.244 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant and Daltrey

"He was likely the model for other highly charismatic rock front men of the same era, including Roger Daltrey and Robert Plant."

I dispute that sentence. The Who, and hence Roger Daltrey, were famous before The Doors even formed. He damn sure didn't model himself after Jim Morrison. If anything, Morrison copied off Daltrey (although, more off of Jagger, but still...). As for Plant, I can't speak to it, but I would wager that he never saw The Doors or Morrison perform until they were on the same bill as Zeppelin, by which point he already had his persona down. Certainly, there are those who modeled themselves after Morrison; Plant and Daltrey aren't among them. -R 208.101.170.64 (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] main pic

should artwork be used as the main picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.147.234 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no photo with proper licensing or source information available on Commons. --Cyfal (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraph

Every so often someone edits the introductory paragraph by removing the "widely considered to be one of the most charismatic and influential frontmen in the history of rock music" text. Some editors have offered objective criticism by deeming it "un-encyclopedic," and others offer no helpful insight. Calling it "fanboi gushing" does not offer constructive criticism, but derides the efforts of others. Since such a comment is not truly objective, I can only address previous editors' "un-encyclopedic" remarks.

First, other, professional encyclopedias, such as Britannica do not simply recite Mr. Morrison's life in a dry manner. For example, Britannica calls him "one of rock music's mythic figures." Certainly, this type of comment is along the lines of "influential" and "charismatic." To someone unfamiliar with the subject, such a sentence places Mr. Morrison in the context of rock music as a whole. Additionally, it makes the reading less dry and more interesting.

Second, the sentence is not inaccurate. One would be hard-pressed to find him not to be extremely influential, and his charisma is evidenced by many factors, one of which is that The Doors did not survive long without him. The fact that his grave is one of the top five tourist attractions in Paris is further evidence of his influence and charisma as people are still drawn to him decades after his demise.

Third, the sentence does not have to be read as unobjective. "Influence" and "charisma" are not necessarily noble traits. They can be dark and destructive. Some of the more charismatic leaders of the 20th century were the direct cause of the death of millions. Thus, this sentence has been constructed to convey traits that many said he possessed and were not always something for which to revere him.

Finally, the assertion is supported by citation, and no less a source than the BBC. Certainly this is a well-established news source with strong enough credentials so as to qualify as a source for a Wikipedia article. The citation is there to show that this is not mere hyperbole, but well-thought-out and researched.

If you read other comments in Jim Morrison's discussion page, you will see that other editors support the assertion and do not see it as "un-encyclopedic". It has been in the introductory paragraph for years, and no one has yet provided a strong or objective enough argument to justify its removal.

I would like to hear what other editors have to say about this subject. I would like the sentence to remain, although it well may be that the consensus has changed over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogbank (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it the same way as Fogbank, although I would "dampen" the style somewhat, e.g. "widely considered to be one of the most charismatic and influential frontmen in rock music." (instead of "...in the history of rock music.").
Let me argue like this: An article about Elvis Presley without mentioning that "he is a cultural icon" would be clearly misleading, the phrase in this case is obviously not "fanboi gushing". Now well, how big is Morrison on the scale of charismatic and influential frontmen in rock music? The answer is somewhat POV-dependent, but nevertheless I assume there is no dissent that he is in the top five or top ten of the "charismatic frontmen". Thus, his charisma should be mentioned in his article.
I havn't the Encyclopedia Britannica at hand, but at least here is a link that states "The dark-edged eroticism of Morrison's baritone voice and pseudo-poetic lyrics helped make the band one of rock's most potent, controversial, and theatrical acts.", isn't this even more than "charismatic and influential"?
--Cyfal (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive input Cyfal. After reading your comments, I can now see how a dampening of the language might be a good idea. "[T]he history of rock music" might indeed rub some editors the wrong way. As a result, that language has been removed.
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, but I believe that it encourages this type of discourse so editors can come to a consensus. I look forward to others' comments, especially if you believe the mention of Morrison's charisma or influence here is inappropriate. Others may have a better and more objective way of stating his position in rock history without cutting it out of the intro paragraph entirely.
--Fogbank (talk) 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, look at how the Elvis entry reads. Clearly he was a as big or bigger star, than Morrison, but there is no over the top "gushing" in there. In fact his article is written in a very professional tone. Please keep this article encyclopedic. I'm not gonna revert war with you, but I think that opening paragraph is not acceptable and not NPOV. That's why (as you have noticed) when other editors come across this sentence, they remove it. Cshay (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not entering into a revert war as others have done in the past. Yes, the Elvis entry is more neutral, and he definitely was more popular and influential than Morrison. However, it does mention that Elvis was one of the "most influential artists in the history of popular music." Also, the entry for one of Morrison's contemporaries, Jimi Hendrix, reads very like Morrison's present entry.
Perhaps to find some kind of happy medium however, something like "He is best known as the lead singer and lyricist of The Doors, and through his charismatic and sometimes controversial performances, became one of rock music's iconic figures" could be substituted for what is presently in there. Anyone have comments?
--Fogbank (talk) 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would keep the term "frontman", because when it comes to rock music in general, there may be more "bigger" figures. But few, if any, frontmen exist that were more influential than Morisson – in the same league is, e.g., Kurt Cobain, above Mick Jagger, but below, e.g., John Lydon, to give a few examples. Elvis is not addressed as frontman. Therefore, I don't see now over the top gushing. (Thanks, Fogbank, for realising my suggestion.) Any suggestions how to express Morisson's position in a neutral and professional encyclopedic tone are of course always welcome, but I would prefer to at least mention it in the opening paragraph. --Cyfal (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Doors

I don't feel there is enough about The Doors in this article. He is primarily known as their lead singer, yet the band is barely mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.155.122 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See The Doors. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death Rattles

OK, I've cut a lot of the excess verbiage and redundancies that were added to the Death section. Our role here is not to cover every version of every theory and what has been opined by everyone about each theory. The major theories are discussed and sourced, so readers can go to those sources for further information. We simply cannot repeat all of that stuff here and be encyclopedic, and the way it was written, "It is said that he said that she believed etc." was not encyclopedic nor particularly readable.

If you really think more of that needs to be added back in (and personally, I think the section could be tightened up even more), discuss it here first. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, we need page numbers for a lot of the text in that section, as well as the indication of which edition of the book it is. The things that are sourced to articles, that's sufficient because an article is short enough to skim for the relevant content. With books, however, we really need accurate page numbers. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indecent Exposure

Why is there no mention of Jim getting arrested for indecent exposure in New Haven, ct? See New Haven (under Popular Culture) for more info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New chapter about Morrison's relationship with Thomas Reese

Why does the article omit the allegation in the Patricia Butler book that Jim Morrison, while a Florida student, had a gay relationship with an older man who ran a poetry coffeehouse in Pinellas Park? This comes from a published source. I plan to add a chapter about it. I am citing sources on the two men's relationship, which was about a lot more than sex. The coffeehouse owner, Thomas Reese, told author Patricia Butler how he had coached Morrison to recite his poetry theatrically. Reese did not seek publicity about this, spending the 1980s and 1990s helping young poets, painters and musicians who needed the patronage. But he did tell all about Morrison to Ms. Butler when she approached him in the 1990s.

Because the 18-year-old Morrison evidently started honing his theatrical skills in Reese's coffeehouse, I'm giving the new chapter the ambiguous title "Relationship with Thomas Bruce Reese in 1961-1962." I'm omitting the words "gay" and "homosexual" from the chapter title because several people confirm that Reese tutored Morrison in theater, but only Reese knew for sure about their sexual behavior. Morrison evidently never mentioned Reese to anyone in California. Reese is the only person who has said for publication that Morrison experimented with gayness. Nyannrunning (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your addition is very well written and no doubt made in good faith. However, this appears to be a fringe theory at best. I've never heard that allegation made, nor have I heard of Patricia Butler (nor has Wikipedia, for that matter). It is very important that we not give this sort of thing undue weight, especially when the allegation is so controversial and unsupported (don't get me wrong, you did well with sourcing, but again, this seems a very fringe theory). Considering the unfounded and inflammatory nature of the allegation, this deserves perhaps a passing mention, but certainly not the four paragraphs it currently has. Some might even object to a passing mention; after all, we're dealing with a claim by a non-notable person in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publishing house (I apologize if I'm mistaken in any of that; however, that does seem to be the case). I wouldn't object to a few sentences mentioning the allegation, but it just doesn't warrant this kind of coverage. faithless (speak) 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: A Google search suggests that this woman and her book are quite controversial to say the least. For instance, this is the first G-hit. I'm no longer sure her writing deserves any mention in an encyclopedia, unless corroborating can be found. Cheers, faithless (speak) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a shorter version.Debbiesvoucher (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no section on his involvement in the Doors?

It seems like it would be logical for there to be a section on his involvment in the dorrs between his early life and the section on his solo work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.98.113 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The section was evidently removed by a vandal some months back. I've found it and reinserted it. Thanks for pointing that out! faithless (speak) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)