Talk:JHS Pedals

Latest comment: 29 days ago by Spittfire72 in topic Recent controversy section

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2019 and 6 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Garrett77hall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Date style

edit

There are inconsistent date styles in this article. I've looked at the article history, and the 'original style' (appearing in the second version of the page) appears to be dmy. I'll fix everything to match. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why should it be dmy? It's an article about a store in the US. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
For clarity, JHS is a manufacturer rather than a store. It is indeed based in Kansas City, Missouri in the US. JHS sells widely, and you can find its products in many music shops in the US and beyond.
Regarding dmy, I was following MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATERET, and I checked the revision history to see what was there first. (I must admit that I was surprised to find that the first writers had gone with dmy but they did!) The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Right, but I think MOS:DATETIES applies here, which takes precedent. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have classed the national ties as strong myself. However, I'd certainly have no objections if there is a consensus for change. I did my best to implement consistent dates using the dmy template, so if anyone wants to make a change, it is easy now - just search for |dmy and replace with |mdy. The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
edit

We know that KelseyNoelle2021 has declared connections to JHS Pedals, which resulted in the addition of the {{Paid contributor}} template to the article. The {{Paid contributor}} template's documentation says 'This page may be used on pages that have disclosed, but still problematic, paid contributions and that require cleanup.'

I've edited the page myself to deal with several problems. What problems do we feel remain, please, and what else would we need to do so we could remove the {{Paid contributor}} template? (The {{Connected contributor}} template would of course remain on this Talk page.) The Parson's Cat (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

As no one has said anything, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the {{Paid contributor}} template. If you object, you know what to do ... ;-) The Parson's Cat (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Recent controversy section

edit

I removed the "Controversy" section again. The sources don't implicate Scott or JHS pedals in any controversy. From what I can see, this is just a rehash of a debate on Reddit and social media from years ago in which people were trying to manufacture a guilt-by-association controversy over Scott briefly attending IHOP with its alleged anti-LGBTQ+ activities in Africa. On social media, Scott vehemently denied any knowledge or involvement in what IHOP was allegedly doing and points out his activities with the church were music-related--all of which the editor adding this content omits--and that was the end of it. No media outlet has picked this story up and portrayed it as any kind of controversy. All it amounts to is trivia over Josh Scott attending a controversial church with no connection to his company. Unless we have some real sources covering this, this content just looks like trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize a failed character assassination attempt from social media. Mbinebri (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

He did not merely "attend" as you suggest, but if you check the source from IHOPKC's store, you'll see he in-fact sold his own music through the church. That does not suggest just briefly attending the congregation, but instead, an association. What's more, "Controversy" should be kept as a section for future inclusion of the several documented instances of stolen circuit designs passed off as original. Spittfire72 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply