Hooter13
Welcome! edit
|
Jethro Tull edit
The situation is uncertain, however the source you added does not say the Jethro Tull, the band, doesn't exist. It says that Jethro Tull past members will not reunited to form a Jethro Tull, because there already is a Jethro Tull with its current members. Or at least that's my understanding of what it says.
If you believe it says something different, then please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- You need to discuss these changes on the talk page first. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Jethro Tull broke up when Martin Barre left the band. Ian Anderson has toured as Ian Anderson since 2012. There is a setlist site here:
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/jethro-tull-3d6b523.html
As you can see, the last setlist for Jethro Tull was July 31, 2012. Ian Anderson setlists begin after that:
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/ian-anderson-1bd69578.html
Other references for you: https://www.songkick.com/artists/111953-jethro-tull
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/15/ian-anderson-end-of-jethro-tull Ian Anderson has called an end to Jethro Tull, announcing that from here on out he will record and tour exclusively under his own name. After half a century and almost two dozen albums, Anderson said he is ready for Jethro Tull to live on as "the vast body of [its] repertoire".
Ian Anderson has never stated that the band is reforming, only that there will be a 50th anniversary to celebrate the music of Jethro Tull. Stating that the band has reformed is misleading. They have not. The confusion stems from the fact that Ian uses "Jethro Tull" in naming his tours such as "Jethro Tull by Ian Anderson" or "The Best of Jethro Tull". He does this because of the name recognition and to help sell tickets. He is entitled to do this; after there would never have been a "Jethro Tull" without Ian Anderson. Unless Ian gets together with Martin Barre, there will not be a reformation. The current band is Ian Anderson's band, not Jethro Tull, and has been since 2012, though two of them, O'Hara and Goodier, did play in the last incarnation of Tull.
- My apologises, I pointed you to the wrong page. I have moved your post to the correct page here. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!
I follow everything you are saying, Hooter13, but as I said, the situation remains unclear. It appears that Anderson has changed his tune on this at least once, or at the very least has been unclear, or has been misunderstood. Personally, I think he's not too bothered either way. From his point of view; Jethro Tull is he plus others, and he plus others is Jethro Tull, what does it matter what they call themselves? But referring back to a newspaper article from over three years ago does not clarify anything. Things could easily have changed. If you have anything more recent that clears up the matter I'm sure we'd all be happy to read it.
In the meantime, edit warring over the issue will get you no-where, other than blocked. Please try and collaborate with others and we may get to the bottom of things. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion on the talk page, thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Jethro Tull members. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jethro Tull (band) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Jethro Tull (band), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
When you don't sign your comments, you run the risk that people will look through the discussion and think you didn't participate. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Ray Thomas' cause of death edit
Hi Hooter13. I'm sorry you feel that way about the article. As I said before, personally I'm not disputing the claim made by Lee on her Facebook page. I'm also very sorry if she has felt upset by anything she's read at Wikipedia. It's not my decision that Facebook can't be used to support this, it's the view of the project. If you feel so strongly about it, then you can still comment here. The matter isn't closed. Maybe an exception can be made in this case? I don't know. But Wikipedia works largely by consensus; you and I might get the satisfaction of adding a cause of death which look perfectly accurate, but there is nothing to stop many other editors immediately removing it on the basis that Facebook is not a reliable source.
You also say that it's "ridiculous" to ask if you have a copy of the death certificate or a coroner's report. But those are two primary sources that are often consulted here to determine a correct cause of death. You ask "What happens if the media never reports this?" Then my answer is that we can't change anything. If you have a major problem with the press for not reporting things "correctly", or with the record company for not including enough detail in their original press release, that's something you need to take up with them.
I'm sure those people who knew Ray as a friend will be aware of what Lee has posted on her Facebook page and will know more than the public at large. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I think it's out of our hands. If someone chooses to write a new book about the band, or updates an existing one, or even writes one just about Ray, I'm sure we'll then have a reliable source for all sorts of details. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)