Talk:Pamela Courson

message: If there is someone who's skilled at uploading photos (I never got the hang of it myself), please add one of Pam to the article. Remember to follow Wiki's upload image policy. --Pinko1977 03:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of Courson 

message: she didn't do drugs..she watched MLK get shot on tv..and died of a broken heart...just so you know..don't write false things with your head up your asses.   how about we break that video out for all americana to see????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.99.105 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael David 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide? 

message: Hi i'm editing this because Pam dated Arthur Lee of The Band "Love" also signed to Elektra Records, I doubt she dated Manzarek.
Jim was Obsessed by Arthur Lee and used to always turn up at Love gigs on the sun set strip.  05:26, 28 January 2007 84.68.142.108 Moved by nut-meg 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article 

message: I don't understand the reference www.swinginchicks.com/pamela_morrison.htm
Its in here for nearly a year. But the link target seems to be removed. I better also remove the reference. --80.171.10.130 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reference? 

message: I'm restoring a paragraph from a previous edit.  The first words are "Eve Babitz."  It is sourced.  Feel free to remove it if you like. Newcastleind (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the name used, it is fairly easy to identify a new incarnation. Why are you now using this particular town name, Dooyar? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That has nothing to do with it as you know. Besides, you said feel free to remove it. Almost the only activity this article has had in the last few months was additions by one of several sock puppet accounts, Dooyar. This addition is being removed once again as a contribution by a sock puppet account. Unless you can explain the very doubtful coincidence that you are returning the exact same wording of a paragraph as the socks wrote at the same time using a username that once again makes reference to my location, then it will remain reverted, and yet another sock puppet case will be opened. There is no doubt that this is another case.  It is most strange that these new identities would prefer to use duplicated content, rather than at least make an effort to rewrite the content to at least appear to be something new. The only conclusion is that it is done deliberately to call attention to the fact that a sock has managed to slip back in. The adminstrators who reviewed the last sock case didn't buy the "lazy users who were mesmerized by the material" defense for using the same content. This is quite tiresome, but I will continue to open the cases, and they will continue to block the sock puppets. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Adding the article's title doesn't constitute an effort to rewrite this. I notice you're not bothering to deny you're a sock. At this time, I'm concerned with edits that confirm sock puppetry. I find it interesting that you refer to overthinking, like was made during the sock puppet case here. The adminstrator who closed the 3rd Nyannrunning sock puppet case was notified an hour ago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I addressed that: At this time, I'm concerned with edits that confirm sock puppetry. Please don't try to divert the discussion to articles that aren't relevant to this page, or edits that aren't reversions to edits made by a sock puppet. It's wise to be concise, it's what has tripped up socks in the past. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eve Babitz 

message: Blowback from the super-clandestine "image police" rally I have referred to in earlier edits is here, y'all!  All images are fair game for image deletionists, and it seems that only one non-free image is allowed per page (apparently: NFCC rules #3[a] and #8, so vaguely worded, continue to allow for death squads to roam the WP landscape unchecked).  So, we've got to pick an image for Pamela here (one out of two).  I uploaded both of them (since no image existed before, probably deleted in a previous "pogrom" of images).  I opt for the one of Pam and Jim, rather than the one "chosen" of just Pam.  Pam was famous and notable because of Jim, so why not have that pic in her Infobox?  Anyone? Doc9871 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in that page that limits it to one image. Who told you that?? I restored the image of Pam and Jim because the one put in its place was of poor quality in comparison. I commented at the deletion review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick an image, any image... 

message: It states in this article that Pamela Courson attended Capistrano Valley High School for her senior year rather than returning to Orange High School.  This is quite literally impossible as CVHS was not even built and opened until 1977, three years after Pamela passed away and long after her senior year of high school.  I just thought someone ought to edit that.  I am new to this and don't want to edit the article and mess something up.  Just a heads up though.  That info is clearly false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.195.248 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info about her high school attendance 

message: At the bottom of the article under the "external links" list there is one entitled: Investigative Findings on the Death of Jim Morrison.  This is a bogus link that someone has either hijacked somehow, or is intentionally misleading people to for advertisement.  The links real address is: http://www.subcin.com/chaos.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.205.116 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus external link 

message: they are often making such strange decisions!
Ricky59 from Austria  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.252.59 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courts 

message: ... which is Wonderland Avenue.  I added to the article details from author Danny Sugerman about how deeply Pamela Courson became addicted to heroin after Morrison's death.  She was concerned about law enforcement's possible knowledge of her smuggling drugs in her car.
Also, I added the words "loud arguments" to the section about her marriage to Morrison.  Prior to my adding this, the article cited "infidelities" as the only example of the marriage being "tumultuous."  Many married partners who cheat on each other don't necessarily have loud arguments, but Morrison and Courson did, so I added that detail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.176.223 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added four new citations from legitimate source, ... 

message: "In his follow-up book to the seminal Jim Morrison biography, No One Here Gets Out Alive, Jerry Hopkins mentions that Courson might have prostituted herself after Morrison's death, probably to keep up with the costly lifestyle she was used to, and was apparently pimped by a former Doors chauffeur."
* If she inherited Jim's estate how could she be destitute to the point where she had to resort to prostitution? It doesn't sound plausible, especially considering the known "dead star" effect. If anything, she probably earned more than Jim ever did while alive. Does Hopkins provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, or he simply concluded that a mentally unstable junkie would not have been above prostitution, so therefore she most likely engaged in it? 143.239.66.140 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim's estate was tied up in legal issues for years after he died. As the legal issues weren't really cleared up till after she died, it was Pam's parents who wound up inheriting everything. Both Hopkins and Sugerman had direct knowledge of Pam's being prostituted; they knew her personally and Pam herself was the source on this. This was also corroborated by others in her social circles. The only reason anyone has every downplayed it and said, "might have," is that if Pam's parents didn't approve of an author's or filmmaker's portrayal of Pam, said author of filmmaker would not be granted permission to use any of Jim's poetry, the copyrights of which were inherited by Pam's parents. Sad but true.  - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the aftermath of Jim's death 

message: So Corbievreccan undid my edit, in which I disputed and corrected the notion of Pamela Courson being on a "quest" to inherit Jim Morrison's estate. The simple overriding fact is that Morrison wrote a will leaving his estate to Courson (with certain conditions, which were met). Although the will was contested, Courson subsequently inherited Morrison's estate as per his wishes. Therefore she was never on a "quest". She simply got what was always coming to her. Other people came forward to try to claim his estate: they may well have been on quests. Corbievreccan's commentary on his undoing of my edit mention that Courson was financially dependent on Morrison? So what? That has nothing to do with a falsely claimed "quest". Corbievreccan says that Courson's parents produced an unsigned application for a marriage license: this is immaterial as Jim Morrison's will left his estate to Courson irrespective of whether or not they were married. Furthermore, Courson's parents being "pushy" (according to Corbievreccan) might (possibly) indicate they were on a quest: but their actions in no way justify Corbievreccan's insistence on claiming that Pamela Courson was on a "quest". It is very typical of old-time Wikipedia editors like Corbievreccan to resist edits to *their* articles, to be unable to accept their shortcomings, and to use unscientific, inaccurate, opinionated language. I realise it is pointless for me to reinstate the edit I made as Corbievreccan is too obstinate and self-assured to admit their errors. Plus ça change. Quel domage. 2A00:23EE:15C0:6829:6D13:A2D4:B98:A5EC (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "editors" like Corbievreccan are Wikipedia's biggest problem