Talk:Where the Streets Have No Name/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Streets Video
Respectfully, I have been attempting to update this page with accurate information and my edits have been deleted several times. The already page contains unreferenced and incorrect information. If there are specific things in my edits that you know to be incorrect then by all means raise the issue here in talk and we can resolve it. The priority would be to have an accurate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.193.153 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where are you getting your information from and can you not provide that source? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 I was there. Not proper to reference oneself in Wiki, as I now understand. Clearly there is a thin line between self interest and accurate information, but that knife cuts on both sides. Can the video be referenced as a source? For example the article states that the audio is from the album, whereas you easily can hear that it is in actuality a combination of live and album audio. You can see LAPD disconnect the generator etc. Can someone with an interest take the time to look at my edit and see what they think is relevant/useful and what may be incorrect rather than just a revert. Information wants to be free. The article will be the better for it. 76.175.193.153 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I am fairly convinced that 76.175.193.153 has a conflict of interest. Which I find impressive, because I enjoy his work, but the series of edits he—or someone representing him—in Wikipedia have been fairly argumentative, narcissistic and downright arrogant. I first discovered his edits while monitoring the flash mob page and having to deal with 76.175.193.153’s endless desire to claim that the U2 music video for Where the Streets Have No Name is an early example of a flash mob when it clearly is not. Not to mention his forcing this specific video at the top of list as if it is somehow the seminal moment the concept of flash mob’s were created. I think everyone on Wikipedia welcomes first-hand accounts from entities connected to articles here, but the additions need to be cited and have non-neutral sources provided. Heck, a lot of the edits 76.175.193.153 have made include negating cited references in favor of providing the “reference" of a URL to a personal portfolio site, a conflict of interest. Please, this is childish 76.175.193.153 Stop it. --SpyMagician (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4"argumentative, narcissistic and downright arrogant" that sounds like him, certainly. You must know him personally, as its not really a judgement that can be based on the entries on the flash mob discussion page, or the entries above. In spite of repeated ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and personal POV from editors, the entries seem respectful, logical, and detailed. As for the replaced urls, they were links to IMDB, which site has been discouraged by Wiki policy. Perhaps it is against Wiki policy to link someone's name to the site bearing their name, but it's hard to understand how that would be in the interest of accurate referenced information 76.175.193.153 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The specific edits in the flash mob page alone, do not prove you 76.175.193.153 are, but rather your whole edit history that includes removing valid sources to link to your personal portfolio site and your multiple edits everywhere that simple come down to “I know this is true because I was there.” It’s utterly unbelievable someone with a respectable history such as you would behave like this on Wikipedia playing games like this. But hey, what do I know anyway. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4"argumentative, narcissistic and downright arrogant" that sounds like him, certainly. You must know him personally, as its not really a judgement that can be based on the entries on the flash mob discussion page, or the entries above. In spite of repeated ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and personal POV from editors, the entries seem respectful, logical, and detailed. As for the replaced urls, they were links to IMDB, which site has been discouraged by Wiki policy. Perhaps it is against Wiki policy to link someone's name to the site bearing their name, but it's hard to understand how that would be in the interest of accurate referenced information 76.175.193.153 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I am fairly convinced that 76.175.193.153 has a conflict of interest. Which I find impressive, because I enjoy his work, but the series of edits he—or someone representing him—in Wikipedia have been fairly argumentative, narcissistic and downright arrogant. I first discovered his edits while monitoring the flash mob page and having to deal with 76.175.193.153’s endless desire to claim that the U2 music video for Where the Streets Have No Name is an early example of a flash mob when it clearly is not. Not to mention his forcing this specific video at the top of list as if it is somehow the seminal moment the concept of flash mob’s were created. I think everyone on Wikipedia welcomes first-hand accounts from entities connected to articles here, but the additions need to be cited and have non-neutral sources provided. Heck, a lot of the edits 76.175.193.153 have made include negating cited references in favor of providing the “reference" of a URL to a personal portfolio site, a conflict of interest. Please, this is childish 76.175.193.153 Stop it. --SpyMagician (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 I was there. Not proper to reference oneself in Wiki, as I now understand. Clearly there is a thin line between self interest and accurate information, but that knife cuts on both sides. Can the video be referenced as a source? For example the article states that the audio is from the album, whereas you easily can hear that it is in actuality a combination of live and album audio. You can see LAPD disconnect the generator etc. Can someone with an interest take the time to look at my edit and see what they think is relevant/useful and what may be incorrect rather than just a revert. Information wants to be free. The article will be the better for it. 76.175.193.153 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to add to the article in question? If so how would you suggest moving forward?76.175.193.153 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Find a source/reference that can be used to reliably back up any information that is added. I don't see what the confusion is. If there is no source available, then the information shouldn't be added. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Respectfully. The first paragraph of the video section of the article is a less than accurate description of the video, presumably based on observation of the video itself, without any reference. Is this paragraph considered axiomatic? Perhaps not everything needs to be sourced as some things are considered self-evident? Is the editor agreeable to edits based on accurate observation of the thing itself? If this principle is not acceptable to the editor, would he delete the first paragraph, as it is currently without a source?76.175.193.153 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Based upon Talk:Flash mob, and here, this is a classic case of WP:SNOW for Mr. Avis. Mkdwtalk 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The first paragraph is a summary of the video as it was edited and intended to be viewed. For this summary of the video, there is no need to give the context of what is happening behind the scenes. The backstory of the video's filming and organization is explained in subsequent paragraphs. I don't see anything wrong with the first paragraph. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Thank you for the guidance. Just to clarify: changes to the first para don't need to be supported as long as they are a summary of the video as it was edited and intended to be viewed?76.175.193.153 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Respectfully and in the spirit of compromise, can the editor agree to delete two sentences, if not the whole unreferenced "summary" paragraph? The paragraph in question includes the sentences :"The music video itself was heavily edited and overdubbed to make it look like the band defiantly started performing after being told to shut down by the police. In reality they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." The word "itself" is redundant. The use of POV adverbs like "defiantly" and "heavily" is POV, or perhaps personal research, and not cited. The video is not self-evidently "heavily edited", within a music video context. The statement "edited... to make it look like" is open to question for POV in the absence any citations as to the contemporaneous intentions of the editor himself. The statement that the video was "overdubbed" needs citation. The word "overdubbed", while sometimes used derogatorily, is technically used to refer to the recording and addition of new instrumental and/or vocal tracks after the event. The choice and combination of the words "heavily edited " and "overdubbed" is either POV, or infers that there was something synthetic or intentionally misleading about the edited record of the event. This artifice would need to be cited. Finally a direct statement of fact such: " "In reality they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." requires supporting citation. Notwithstanding that "reality" is a tenuous construct, whether a unique personal experience, or an agreed understanding of a shared experience, there is no citation to support whether the band "started the performance" before, during or 'after being told to shut down", or that "they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." Can one delete these two sentences?76.175.193.153 (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to reword it as you please, so long as it doesn't introduce information that cannot be verified. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus that the last two sentences of the first para should be deleted?76.175.193.153 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to reword it as you please, so long as it doesn't introduce information that cannot be verified. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Respectfully and in the spirit of compromise, can the editor agree to delete two sentences, if not the whole unreferenced "summary" paragraph? The paragraph in question includes the sentences :"The music video itself was heavily edited and overdubbed to make it look like the band defiantly started performing after being told to shut down by the police. In reality they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." The word "itself" is redundant. The use of POV adverbs like "defiantly" and "heavily" is POV, or perhaps personal research, and not cited. The video is not self-evidently "heavily edited", within a music video context. The statement "edited... to make it look like" is open to question for POV in the absence any citations as to the contemporaneous intentions of the editor himself. The statement that the video was "overdubbed" needs citation. The word "overdubbed", while sometimes used derogatorily, is technically used to refer to the recording and addition of new instrumental and/or vocal tracks after the event. The choice and combination of the words "heavily edited " and "overdubbed" is either POV, or infers that there was something synthetic or intentionally misleading about the edited record of the event. This artifice would need to be cited. Finally a direct statement of fact such: " "In reality they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." requires supporting citation. Notwithstanding that "reality" is a tenuous construct, whether a unique personal experience, or an agreed understanding of a shared experience, there is no citation to support whether the band "started the performance" before, during or 'after being told to shut down", or that "they shut down immediately upon being instructed to do so." Can one delete these two sentences?76.175.193.153 (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Thank you for the guidance. Just to clarify: changes to the first para don't need to be supported as long as they are a summary of the video as it was edited and intended to be viewed?76.175.193.153 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The first paragraph is a summary of the video as it was edited and intended to be viewed. For this summary of the video, there is no need to give the context of what is happening behind the scenes. The backstory of the video's filming and organization is explained in subsequent paragraphs. I don't see anything wrong with the first paragraph. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Based upon Talk:Flash mob, and here, this is a classic case of WP:SNOW for Mr. Avis. Mkdwtalk 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Respectfully. The first paragraph of the video section of the article is a less than accurate description of the video, presumably based on observation of the video itself, without any reference. Is this paragraph considered axiomatic? Perhaps not everything needs to be sourced as some things are considered self-evident? Is the editor agreeable to edits based on accurate observation of the thing itself? If this principle is not acceptable to the editor, would he delete the first paragraph, as it is currently without a source?76.175.193.153 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleting last two sentences. Trust that"s OK?76.175.193.153 (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: For the public record, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) has made minor alterations to the text above, to remove some personal information and allow the original version to be suppressed. The context of the original discussion has been preserved as much as possible. (Cf VRTS ticket # 2011090610015598.) AGK [•] 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
