Revision as of 18:38, 18 February 2011 view sourceSean.hoyland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers34,523 edits →caption← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:47, 18 February 2011 view source Jiujitsuguy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,155 edits →caption: rplyNext edit → | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
If the statement in the caption is sourced with RS, what's the problem?--] (]) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | If the statement in the caption is sourced with RS, what's the problem?--] (]) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
:The problem is the use of Misplaced Pages for the purposes of propaganda, and I use the word in the neutral, academic sense. I don't think you guys even realise you are doing it. The caption is an example of the card stacking/selective omission technique. While the statement is true it only tells one side of the story. I think it's better to stick to neutral facts in these articles, just say what the picture shows and leave the story telling/selective narrative sampling out of it. It's like someone changing the caption of the picture in the ] of the Israeli kindergarten hit by a rocket to include "''About 280 schools and kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were destroyed or damaged by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. See Goldstone report, page 271.''" That is also true but it would completely change the nature of the picture's caption and the effect of the picture. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | :The problem is the use of Misplaced Pages for the purposes of propaganda, and I use the word in the neutral, academic sense. I don't think you guys even realise you are doing it. The caption is an example of the card stacking/selective omission technique. While the statement is true it only tells one side of the story. I think it's better to stick to neutral facts in these articles, just say what the picture shows and leave the story telling/selective narrative sampling out of it. It's like someone changing the caption of the picture in the ] of the Israeli kindergarten hit by a rocket to include "''About 280 schools and kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were destroyed or damaged by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. See Goldstone report, page 271.''" That is also true but it would completely change the nature of the picture's caption and the effect of the picture. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Oh, I see your point. In the spirit of collaborative editing I will remove the portion of the caption that you object to.--] (]) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Norman Finkelstein is recognized by most mainstream historians and researchers as an extremist partisan with fringe views that are rejected by most impartial observers. His inclusion as a source in this article tarnishes any shred of credibility this article may have.--] (]) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | Norman Finkelstein is recognized by most mainstream historians and researchers as an extremist partisan with fringe views that are rejected by most impartial observers. His inclusion as a source in this article tarnishes any shred of credibility this article may have.--] (]) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
:That's a different issue. RSN is there to deal with those issues. I don't have an opinion about it. My only concern was that information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source. I don't know why you would do that but I don't think you would accept it if someone else did it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | :That's a different issue. RSN is there to deal with those issues. I don't have an opinion about it. My only concern was that information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source. I don't know why you would do that but I don't think you would accept it if someone else did it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
::You're correct. I should not have done that.--] (]) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:47, 18 February 2011
Template:Archive box collapsible
Copyvio
moved to article talk page Talk:Organ_theft_in_Kosovo#Video
Dearest Mr. hoyland
I find myself in the midst of a deep wiki-spiritual/moral dilemma and would greatly value your input before I take it to Arbcom/AE. If you would be so kind as drop me a line or contact me telepathically, I would appreciate it. Sol (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- As one of the most fair-minded editors I've run into, if you are a sociopathic bastard then I'm not sure what that makes the rest of us. Actually, I am sure, and it rings true :P This is one of the few things that needs off-wiki engagement, just send me an email. Fear not, paranoid-minded watchers, this is not a canvassing attempt or plot, all shall be shortly revealed! Sol (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Someone has sent you a very special message! BEQUEST FUNDS ON YOUR NAME and $150 Rolex Replica Watches. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am very disappointed, sean! The email said if I gave you my credit card and bank account numbers then I'd get a free Ipod and a pony instantly but they aren't here! The nerve of some people! Sol (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Someone has sent you a very special message! BEQUEST FUNDS ON YOUR NAME and $150 Rolex Replica Watches. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
caption
If the statement in the caption is sourced with RS, what's the problem?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is the use of Misplaced Pages for the purposes of propaganda, and I use the word in the neutral, academic sense. I don't think you guys even realise you are doing it. The caption is an example of the card stacking/selective omission technique. While the statement is true it only tells one side of the story. I think it's better to stick to neutral facts in these articles, just say what the picture shows and leave the story telling/selective narrative sampling out of it. It's like someone changing the caption of the picture in the Gaza_War#Rocket_attacks_into_Israel of the Israeli kindergarten hit by a rocket to include "About 280 schools and kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were destroyed or damaged by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. See Goldstone report, page 271." That is also true but it would completely change the nature of the picture's caption and the effect of the picture. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see your point. In the spirit of collaborative editing I will remove the portion of the caption that you object to.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Norman Finkelstein is recognized by most mainstream historians and researchers as an extremist partisan with fringe views that are rejected by most impartial observers. His inclusion as a source in this article tarnishes any shred of credibility this article may have.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a different issue. RSN is there to deal with those issues. I don't have an opinion about it. My only concern was that information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source. I don't know why you would do that but I don't think you would accept it if someone else did it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct. I should not have done that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)