User talk:Kitchen roll/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Beautiful Vision

This listing of VM under former members says that BV was influenced by Scientology.here I think that is wrong as I have always read BV was influenced by the teachings of Alice Bailey and Glamour. Agadant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've read as well. TBH I think that VM should be removed from the list, as (I think it was in Rogan) I read that Morrison said he was just interested in different religions in the '80s but didn't join or believe in any of them. I'll have to look that up though. But the references given in the article you've linked are just speculation and none of them study Van in depth.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Heylin, Page 374-375... for one. I don't believe he should be listed as a former member but as you remember I fought that battle on the VM main article all by myself. This write-up is the result of what that editor then wrote up after I kept his lengthy edit out. I thought you took his side at the time though? maybe just remained uncommited? Agadant (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No I think that was when I said I'd not edit the VM page, so therefore I felt it was none of my business to comment: Talk:Van Morrison/Archive 4#Scientology.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

He also wrote up the two book articles on VM after that - one of them containing a lot of really inflammatory and unsubstaniated comments by so-called friends of his - which to me violate WP:BOLP. When you have lived longer you will see that derogatory remarks by past friends who have not been as successful can usually be chalked up to "sour grapes". I don't trust them at all and try not to repeat them, therefore not giving gratification to the so-called friend. Not directed to you but just to explain my personal views of this type of so-called "reliable sources". Agadant (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I found that nothing could be done about any of it, although it did seem retaliatory and was told to not "rock the boat". Agadant (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't quite follow you (my fault); how are people's friends related to reliable sources? Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean I try not to use derogatory quotations by so-called past friends from the biographies or elsewhere unless I really feel like other material backs the remarks up and that the information is pertinent and not just interesting. It would be considered a "reliable source" if the book or article it's taken from is.Agadant (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense. I can see your point; however if we use quotes from biographers the info isn't necessarily going to be that much more accurate than that given by his so-called friends: Hinton is blatently innacurate in quite a lot of aspects of his book; Brooks seems to want to make himself seem incredibly more intelligent than Van and Rogan provides links to Northern Ireland throughout Van's career that just weren't there. Everyone seems to make up points about Van that aren't there to suit their own needs, not just his "friends", so at the end of the day any of the sources can be described as unreliable or inaccurate in some way or another. If someone's given their opinion we should cite it (unless it goes against WP:BOLP) and explain in the article that there are arguments against this point of view. The only info on the former scientologists page suggests Van was a former scientologist, but yje article fails to mention the numerous sources that suggest he wasn't one, which, in my view, needs to be amended.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points, but the biographers are at least professionals and not some non-entity with "an axe to grind". Although it should be the responsibility of the writer to make sure the source is reliable. Of course, their main purpose is to sell books, so you're right - is anyone neutral? We just have to pick the "lesser of the evils" and a venomous ex-friend is the most evil to me. At least the biographer has gone to some trouble to write and publish the book. If you want to try to neutralize the list with sources that say he wasn't, have a go at it. I just feel like, if I do, I will just cause retaliatory editing on the VM article. If you want to archive this, please do - I've no objections. I'm just learning some battles are not worth the energy it takes to fight them especially with the odds against me. :) Agadant (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't replied earlier; I've been busy. Surely the biographers will evaluate the comments made by Morrison's friends and pick the ones they feel seem most reliable. Clinton Heylin for example seems extremely professional - I read today (on the back of a Bob Dylan bio) that he was considered as the best rock biographer out there (I know that doesn't say much, but he's definately the best out of Van's biographers). It definately seems he's done his research on Van. So in my opinion he wouldn't put a quote in that is untrue; he even explains when, I think it's Peter Van Hooke, is mistaken in his account of a 30 minute song in the ISOTH sessions, which he says is "Showbusiness", but it's in fact "Rave On, John Donne". This is later supported by Mick Glossop on his website, years later: http://vanmorrisonnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/mick-glossop-on-mixing-vans-albums.html (link's broken so I used vanmorrisonnews website instead).

I'll have a crack at making the Van's entry on the list page more ballanced.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. If you do please archive this section just for diplomacy and for best results for your endeavors. I reverted your BEG edit in a friendly manner but I'm still a little surprised sometimes to see that you have all the VM articles on your watchlist and always assume I don't oversee the ones I work on the most and that I've been keeping an eye on for almost four years. Agadant (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that - I thought you hadn't edited since - I missed your Veedon Fleece edits. The only problem with archiving this before I edit the Scientology page is that I get more suggestbot messages for some reason and they clutter up the archives quite a bit, so I might wait a while. Anyway, surely it doesn't matter if Cirt sees this discussion, because the edits'll be made in good faith.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My edits are and were (in the previous example) made with Good Faith too and for the sake of accuracy and in the best interests of Wikipedia. I still took quite a going over for it as you know. It's really difficult to have honest dialogue on a talk page and I thought you have asked for such discussions on many occasions. I don't think your reasons given for not respecting my concerns are as important as continuing with those efforts. It's your decision though. Agadant (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my comments. I'm not going to edit the Scientology page until this has been archived. I'll just archive this and edit the article at a later date, but I've had a better idea that leaves this current discussion redundant anyway; I'll just leave the suggestbot message at the top of this page and archive the rest. If my editing the article gets to the talk page in an edit dispute, are you willing to join in the discussion there if it gets to that stage? I think we've got more of a chance if there's two of us, but ofcourse you don't have to. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I will. :) Agadant (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WOAD Tour GA review

Re Talk:Working on a Dream Tour/GA1, I've finally finished my changes for this. Apologies again for this dragging out. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4