User talk:Hallward's Ghost/Archives/2020/August

Archives

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

In the media: Dog days gone bad

Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

Traffic report: Now for something completely different

Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U2 Edit "warring" . . .

Regarding the U2 edit "warring" referred to earlier, I actually took care to read Wikipedia's policies on this again before my first edit . . . and it was clear to me that page vandalism doesn't involve mere interpretive disagreements and consequent reciprocal edits and counter-edits. It's beyond dispute that my edit was a matter of reasonable interpretation - I understand you may disagree with the conclusion, but you cannot categorize it as "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." It's not like I got on there and stated that "U2 is a French band," or "has recorded 27 studio albums," or anything patently, factually, false or even inflammatory or controversial. As such, any talk about "edit warring" or page vandalism is inaccurate.

The qualifications concerning the alterations I made were provided in the reference, and are *already referenced* elsewhere in this same Wikipedia article. This does not mean I should have omitted it the first time around - that was simply *MY MISTAKE.* But it *does* mean that we are dealing with facts already documented in the piece (and then re-referenced by me) and how they should be interpreted-- *not* false claims of fact, and certainly not deliberate attempts to disrupt a page/project. Referring to it as "edit warring" on my part any more than yours is nonsense. And just for clarity - yes the "Q" edit was a typo on my part. But after I added the reference AND fixed the Q mistake, AND reiterated my argument supporting the changes, that should be enough, if not to convince you on the topic, to at lease demonstrate that I was not edit warring or vandalizing the page.

Furthermore, I surmise you saw my arguments for the alteration in the talk link in my last edit. But if not I'll provide them again below. I reverted back to your previous edit myself because I figured you'd keep changing it despite my having provided you with a reference *and* constructive arguments supporting my edit. While you responded with a rebuke, you did not respond with any substantive points concerning the change, despite in your message inviting me to let you know if I think you've made a mistake. So, in case you didn't see that (and maybe I didn't post it in the best place? I apologize if that's the case) I'm putting it here now. Maybe at some point I'll go back and physically track down references in my books and make another offering later to see what you and others think, although I think what's below should be enough, considering it's already corroborated in the original/approved/current approved version of the article.

Thanks, LNW

Argument for changes re-posted below (I added the sentence in double brackets since the original post):

I changed it back to what you prefer, but for the record, the initial objection was that it wasn't sourced. Then, when I provided the source, the objection transformed into The Hype not being a "completely different" (in *all* respects??) band. Duh. [[ Nor do you have a source saying they are completely the *same* band. The line-up changed, the name changed, and all their recording and record deal history is with the latter name and latter line-up. That this is a distinct, legal, cultural, and musical entity is quite obviously not a ridiculous claim. And this does not mean that I don't recognize their connectedness, too, as one of my edits referenced the fact that these musicians with Feedback and the Hype were not removed from the body of the article, but only the "Former Members [of U2] section. ]] They certainly weren't "the same band that *just* changed their name," as one response earlier stated. Interestingly, the source I provided was also used for several points in the article (including this same point) - about which there was language *in* the article explicitly stating this very thing, that *not only* the name, but *also* the lineup, and *also* their entire record-deal/recording history was distinct . . . so *NO*, it wasn't just "the same band," that *JUST* changed their name. Besides, if you are going to use that argument, it's not consistent with a claim for Ivan McCormick's membership, who the article states was no longer involved after "a few weeks," meaning he wasn't involved in that "Hype-to-U2" transformation gig later on. Dik was, of course, though involved. Again, it's not as simple as either "an entirely different band" (if this is the standard then are any overlapping lineups a conflation of various different bands?) OR "an entirely different" band. It had substantially the same lineup, but not entirely, and its *entire* professional recording career, starting with the *very first single* is particular to U2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D70D:11D2:818A:FE95:BD79:3133 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]