Talk:Van Morrison/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nomination for GA

I've now nominated Van Morrison for GA. There is sometimes a little delay before a reviewer can get round to the article. It helps when people nominate an article fo GA that they select and review someone else's article while waiting. That keeps the backlog down, and also helps the nominators understand the reviewing process. Go here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations and get stuck in! SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking the Lead

I think it's worth rethinking the Lead, and agreeing on the best approach.

The lead section is a summary of the topic and an overview of the article. As such in the first paragraph it needs to say what the topic is, and what are the main points of interest. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The second paragraph would summarise the history. Then the next two or three paragraphs would pick out the important sections of the article and summarise them. The first stage here is to decide what are the main points regarding VM. What is he notable for?

We have the basic information regarding place and date of birth. So it's just the notability/interest points.

• Critically acclaimed singer and songwriter
• Major albums - Astral Weeks and Moondance, and the live album It's Too Late to Stop Now
• Astral Weeks is one of the highest critically acclaimed albums in Rock music
• Major songs - "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Gloria"
• Member of Them - then solo artist
• Critically acclaimed live performer
• Stubborn character - quite demanding
• Recently performed Astral Weeks live for the first time since it was recorded

What else needs adding - what needs taking away? What order should it appear, and how do we word all that as neutrally as possible?

History paragraph currently ends in the 1970s. We need to summarise the rest of his career up to the live performances of Astral Weeks. An accepted overview is that the 1970s was Morrison's classic period, and that while he has produced albums since then that have sold well and been warmly recieved, his most important work was done in the 1970s. A good way of saying that would be useful, along with a decent source or two.

Then an overview of the remaining main sections in the article. Which I think would be Live performances, Critical assessment (which is currently called Music, but which might be better named as Critical assessment) and Awards and recognition. Possibly Collaborations. It is common to have a brief summary of the Personal life as well. I know we have issues regarding that - but a neutral statement that he has a well known daughter from his first marriage and is now with his current partner would be appropriate. The info about his children from his current relationship can be left out - though it is considered acceptable to mention he has children. It is details about their names and ages that is considered questionable. However, it is appropriate to leave them out completely as it is not a major point, and few sources mention them.

I think when we have the structure and tone of the Lead sorted, it will be a little easier to see how to deal with the rest of the article. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I always find it useful to look at some FA articles (aiming for the highest eventually) of musicians that are of note for an example — instead of reading all the dry encyclopedic terminology and guides that I must confess bore me to death. (And can be easily misinterpreted.) Currently, I feel like the lead on the article on Bob Dylan is an appropriate example as the article has recently gone through a major reworking and if I am not mistaken a reassessment for a FA rating. Dylan's career in someways parallels Morrison's and their personalities are somewhat similar. Just a suggestion of what to aim for. What do you think, SilkTork? Agadant (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I really like the boldness and accuracy of the first paragraph. I have doubts about the rest of the lead. The 2nd paragraph is transitory and trivial - it doesn't belong there. The third paragraph is dicey - I'm not sure all of that is what would be accepted as the conventional view of Dylan. There's a lot of important stuff left out. Nothing about his live performances, and his transition from acoustic folk to electric pop. Some of it is very wordy - "he has explored many traditions of American song, from folk, blues and country to gospel, rock and roll and rockabilly to English, Scottish and Irish folk music, and even jazz and swing." should be condensed, and at the same time could include reference to his notable transition - "he has explored a variety of song traditions, especially folk; and his transition from acoustic folk to electric blues caused controversy." Recent FA acceptances for music bios are Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Noël Coward, Silverchair and Alice in Chains. Looking at those, I don't think Van Morrison is too bad! SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I love the one on Noël Coward!! So professional and so well-written with great descriptive phrases and language. Seems like we need to clarify the meaning of "peacock terms". I notice that they use : best-known, success, popular, hugely successful, enduring, supreme success etc. and the words, of course, add to the interest of the article and must not be considered "peacock terms" or POV. So that's what I mean about becoming confused now about what is permitted on this article. There shouldn't be two sets of rules for different articles. And especially for the lead and the body in the same article.....and this one was only going for a GA... I do like the boldness of your lead for Van Morrison's. But we do have to change the sentence about WB giving him 2 days to record before I will fully endorse it. Agadant (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to use words like hugely successful. Where questions are arising in regard to the VM article is the amount of times these words are used. It's the same as linking. Link Astral Weeks once per section. OK. Mention it's been acclaimed the greatest record perhaps just twice in the article. OK. That sort of thing. The word "greatest" appears 14 times in the article - most of that in reference to awards he's been given, but subliminally the reader is picking up an overkill message. It's difficult when dealing with an artist who has received huge acclaim to convey that acclaim in an article without making it look as though the editors have gone overboard - and I think that's why we are finding it hard. But it's up to us to look carefully at the article and justify every use of praise. We need to be careful when using quotes from one critic, that it's not the critic's personal viewpoint, rather than a critic summing up the general consensus. Essentially we need to have a critic saying: "Morrison is generally regarded as a soulful singer who at times can be sublime." Rather than a critic saying "I think Morrison is the best singer in the world. Bar none." Extremes of response are not helpful, except as examples of extremes of response. So, we can say - "VM is generally regarded as a soulful singer who at times can be sublime,{cite} though Critic A feels that his voice is the best in the world,{cite} while Critic B feels he is more often flat and uninspired.{cite}" So we cover the consensus and the extremes, and we don't present the extremes as fact. SilkTork *^YES! 23:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to concentrate first on the lead? I think you already have a plan in mind. I can finish going through Scott's list for peacock terms, and looking for wording choices that might need a little sprucing up in the rest of the article. Is that a good approach? And I definitely need to finish the Genre section. I may be doing most of my work on Friday and over the weekend. Agadant (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on the Lead and you work on the Genre section and peacock terms, and then we can review each other's work. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFC and the sound files here

Dear colleagues, I believe that of the five sound files, for which fair use is claimed, only one—Wavelength—passes WP's NFC rules for admissibility, since the accompanying text refers the readers to the actual sound features. The first sound file, for example, is referred to only by this statement: "On the final night, the two Morrisons and the two bands jammed together on "Gloria"."

"Astral Weeks" might just qualify (maybe not), with this text: "described variously as hypnotic, meditative, and as possessing a unique musical power.[76] It has been compared to French Impressionism and mystical Celtic poetry.", although it's rather vaguer than we'd hope for (how, excactly, are these qualities achieved in the texture, melody, rhythms, instrumentation, etc.?). Astral Weeks has TWO files, one live; this breaches NFC3a, I believe.

Probably three will need to be deleted, and even if there were excellent textual references, five is more than normally accepted by NFC3.

Can regulars here negotiate which ones should be trimmed / work on the text? I'll return in a few days. Thanks for your cooperation. Tony (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My immediate concern would be how can we apply such strict rules to this recently passed GA article and not apply the same to FA articles, which I myself used frequently for examples to follow as a guide: Quickly looking at FA articles and # of audio files some passing WP's NFC rules for admissibility - others not: Please see:

Frank Zappa (8), Bob Dylan (7), Celine Dion (7), Sly & the Family Stone (6), The Smashing Pumpkins (6), Radio Head (5), Sex Pistols (5), Tool, (4), Phil Collins (4), Mariah Carey (4), Joy Division (4) For examples of GA articles see: Patti Smith (6) - (one a cover of Morrison's own "Gloria"), Green Day (6), Aerosmith (5) and that was just a quick look.

When this article was up for review, I mulled over the question of whether the audio files were pertinent to the article and the reader's understanding of Van Morrison's music and career and perhaps the only one without as much relevance is "Wavelength". But it is useful for an example of his voice in falsetto and the 1970s use of synthesizers in his music. I originally asked the nominating administrator to upload the audio file of 2009s Astral Weeks Live to be used along with the 1968 Astral Weeks audio file as an excellent comparison of the changes in his voice in forty years time. Which he himself comments on and certainly should be useful as an educational tool for this article. "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Gloria" are invaluable as examples of his early career musical styles especially since he also wrote both songs and they are Hall of Fame inductees. So perhaps the descriptive text should be worked on but I disagree with deleting the number of audio files down to three, especially in light of the FA articles that do not comply. We should always try to apply the rules fairly across the board, right? Agadant (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agadant, you certainly sound as thought you're an expert at adding such connective text. I've got this on my watchlist, so I look forward to assisting (I know nothing of the music, but may be able to help with the linguistic side). Tony (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the rules that apply here and to the aforementioned FA and GA music articles. I would think that most of the articles including this one are in compliance with it: Music samples Inclusion in article. It actually doesn't seem that strict at all. Agadant (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony1 for the inspiration to move the descriptions for vocals on the two "Astral Weeks" songs already in the article to the music samples tying them together as I had intended to do. It does make the article more informative as does the expanded description for "Gloria" audio. All the best, Agadant (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agadant, thanks for that: I've passed on a note about the lavish advice on that page to WT:NFC. Tony (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

Can we please stop reverting and discuss here? Per WP:BLP:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: 1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; 2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

So if Morrsion publically denies ever being a Scientologist I'm not sure adding a Former Scientologist tag meets WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the category itself for the moment, I am not sure why Agadant (talk · contribs) has chosen to engage in disruption and in addition to removal of the category, has decided to remove information I added to the article sourced to multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The continued disruptive editing by Agadant (talk · contribs) has in effect driven me off of the article and relegated me to working on the sourced material in my userspace. Not an atmosphere constructive to improving the article, and suggestive of instability failing WP:WIAGA. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources say one thing about a subject's religion but the subject himself contradicts the statements what does WP:BLP say? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time he has been added to the category of Scientologist. After much research on the subject, it has only been determined that he dedicated an album to Ron Hubbard, studied the religion for a period of months, and then withdrew as he did not find it what he wanted. He studied many religions during the 80s. It has never been proven that he joined and he denies it. This is an encyclopedia and should furnish facts. I am convinced by many sources that he never joined Scientology and that is what I am defending. Otherwise, I am completely neutral on the subject matter of his religious affiliations. Agadant (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the category itself for the moment, please, the removal of sourced material on the topic is inappropriate. We should include both what secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources have to say about the matter, and what the subject himself later said about his ties to Scientology, after the fact. Cirt (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, do your sources definitively say Morrison joined Scientology? Or was there a looser link? I just want to be clear as this article has had an OTRS issue in the past. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read the information that was disruptively removed by Agadant (talk · contribs). I will provide additional sources later that specifically refer to Van Morrison as a quote "Former Scientologist" and others that simply say "Scientologist". Cirt (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For the time being while I have disruptively been driven off the article, some material is here: User_talk:Cirt#Work_in_progress. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see Agadant reverted your edits once so can we cool it with the disruptive comments? I can only access one of your sources so that's why I asked the question. Here's my thoughts: WP:BLP only dictates what we can write about the subject's current state. If X says "I'm not Y" then we cannot put X is Y even if we have other sources saying X is Y. However, WP:BLP does not prevent us from saying X used to be Y if strong evidence exists as X's statements cannot change referenced history (X's denial of being Y should be noted). I would prefer that the evidence exists in a strongly reliable source (as opposed to the usual newspaper puff pieces) but again, that's just a personal preference. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you for your help with this issue. I think both Cirt and I should step back for a while and let the issue cool somewhat. That is the reason I reverted his edits, not to be disruptive but to restore the article to the former revision as it stood when passing GA. The Scientology topic was already examined, his 80s delve into many religious studies and interest was addressed and therefore, it doesn't seem that the article should be challenged and changed without some discussion and I reverted it back to where it had stood for a long period of time. This is an important matter and should not be arbitrarily changed by one editor. Agadant (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out the entry stating unequivocably that Van Morrison is a former Scientologist. The referral to the List only indicates that an editor found a source he thought was applicable and included him on the List. I think we need to decide that. I had missed that edit in going back to the time before this new material was entered. Not trying to cause more discussion or charges against me as being disruptive. I hope not anyway.Agadant (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agadant, if reliable sources are found stating Van Morrison was a Scientologist, what is your position on what should go in the article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Neil, thanks again for your time and efforts on this matter. I've been busy in real life and haven't had time to reply. Do you mean if it can be shown that he formally joined the Church or that he studied Scientology for a matter of months? Agadant (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are probably going to say "...is a Scientologist" or "...was a member of Scientology". P.S. No problem about replying; there's no urgency to decide whether to include/remove this material. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Having edited for 3 years now, a lot of that time spent here on this article, I find that reliable sources are still often not reliable. If you have a strong foundation of knowledge of your subject matter, you can pick the sources that verify what you have seen repeated numerous times and feel assured is factual and disregard other sources that although meeting the Wiki criteria for reliable sources are not in fact - reliable. As an example I will copy a comment that I made to another editor regarding Allmusic:

Here's an example of how ALLMUSIC is not always to be believed: I know Kenny Rogers recorded "Have I Told You Lately" by VM but I'm having a hard time finding a reference with the song by Kenny Rogers listing VM as the composer. Allmusic lists Wiseman as the composer and yet the audio sample is definitely VM's song:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:kzfwxq80ldje

So according to this reliable source, an editor could say "Kenny Rogers recorded a version of "Have I Told You Lately that I Love You?" written by Scotty Wiseman while an editor that knows the actual facts could and should disregard this as a reliable source. All editors who have helped to build this GA version of the article: the reviewer, the admin who added and deleted some (and sourced material at that) and myself have a good, basic knowledge of Van Morrison, his life and music and therefore know what is reliable and what is not. I don't know if my viewpoint is considered approved Wiki thinking: I only know I believe it serves the reliablity of Wikipedia, the interests of the reader and also preserves the integrity of the article and presents the subject in as factual a manner as is our responsiblity as editors who have taken on the invasive and BOLD task of actually writing about someone else's life, without their approval or input. Thanks again, Neil, All the best, Agadant (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, May be true, I'm only saying common sense, good taste and sensitivity to writing about another person's life should prevail and can work alongside of all these WP: gudelines you have a fondness for citing. All the best, Agadant (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I am just saying that WP:V and WP:RS prevail over someone who may proclaim WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cirt (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about that. You must have misread what I wrote in your haste to reply with these WP articles and rules. I don't feel that it is true or that relevant or that he was or "ever" intended to be a Scientologist without intense study and conviction. And he studied, opted out and therefore never intended to be known as a Scientologist for all the rest of his natural life. Agadant (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, these are your own personal assertions, literally to use your words, what you "feel" to be true, as opposed to WP:V. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, from "knowledge" based on reading 8 biographies, numerous articles and reviews over a period of 3 years. The same as a biographer in "real life" should base his material on. Agadant (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not from my research on the topic in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, why are you so interested in this one "topic"? and am I wrong in "feeling" you have a certain amount of animosity towards me if only because I reverted your edits. Agadant (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no animosity towards you, please WP:AGF. It piqued my curiosity and I have since done a good deal of research on it. Cirt (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

But you accused me of being a disruptive editor and having a toxic environment, I assume you meant anywhere in my presence. Is that WP:AGF on your part? Agadant (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

NeilN (talk · contribs) asked us to step back from that and engage in discussion, I have WP:AGF and have done so. It appears you have not. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought we might want to "clear the air" so that constructive discussion could take place. I am not feeling any undue bias towards you and just wanted you to state the same towards me. Agadant (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider it stated. :) Cirt (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. I think we can work together on this for the betterment of Wiki and the article and topic. Can we continue this discussion later as I am getting rushed from "real life" now and do not want to be careless in what I say? If you will always feel assured that I don't reply to anything that you say only because I am occupied elsewhere at the time, I will very much appreciate it. Agadant (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I am still doing a bit more research on the subject matter, and also on a biography of Van Morrison. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agadant, I have a lot of respect for you and your work (especially on this article) but we need to be careful of WP:SYNTH. Cirt will have sources that will say Van Morrison was a Scientologist. You need to present sources (besides himself) that clearly say Van Morrison was not a Scientologist. Then we can come up with the appropriate article changes (if any). --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

I would say that the entire article is written along these lines and it certainly is the way I have always edited and will continue. I may not always be able to quote all the WP:Rules but I have a strong sense of responsibility and do know all the Wikipedia rules for good editing and I practice them. After a very detailed and intensive GA review, the reviewer remarked that this article was better sourced than any he had seen on Wiki, save one. I'm not taking all the credit for that but it is the way it has been maintained and I will and have done my best to keep it that way.

NeilN, this is not directed towards your remark at all, just wanted to point out that I do know about WP:SYNTH and have always been cautious of it. All the best, Agadant (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison Interview

I hopped in my car this morning, turned on the radio, and was treated to an in-depth interview of Van Morrison. Found the uncut interview here [1] (Oct 1, 2009). Not sure if we can use anything as it's a primary source but maybe some quotes can be extracted or it can be added as an external link to here or to Astral Weeks. And hey, listening to a rare Van Morrison interview is just cool :-) --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, NeilN: It was a good interview! Did anything stand out specifically to you as new or important information? I think it should be added as an external link, at the least. I wish it was in print also as they often are but this was a long one. (for him, especially) Thanks again for just being a really good editor who goes to the trouble to get involved and help out when you see a need. Agadant (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed that the first part of this interview is now posted as the first of a four part video feature on the OfficialExileFilms Youtube Channel.Van Morrison CBC Radio Interview - Part One I think it definitely should be listed as an external link or referred to somewhere in the article as it is unusual to find such an indepth interview given by Morrison. But unless I hear otherwise, I'll leave the editing to you as you first brought up the subject of the interview. Agadant (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Caravan YouTube video

NeilN (or any knowledgable and/or interested editor), now that the video for "Caravan" has officially been posted by Van Morrison's OfficialExileFilms channel on YouTube, would it be appropriate to link to it as a very good illustration for the text under Live Performances pertaining to this performance? I'm not a great advocate of YouTube videos on Wikipedia, but it almost seems a disservice to the reader and to the article to not provide a link to it as example below:

"Van Morrison turned the show around...singing to the rafters and ...burning holes in the floor. It was a triumph, and as the song ended Van began to kick his leg into the air out of sheer exuberance and he kicked his way right offstage like a Rockette. The crowd had given him a fine welcome and they cheered wildly when he left." Van Morrison: The Last Waltz: link

Scandandinavia

I'm just wondering why info. on the instrumental "Scandinavia" was added to the Inarticulate Speech of the Heart part of the article, when it's on Beautiful Vision? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

already corrected. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)