This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liftarn (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 30 July 2007 (→Request for comment: Size of quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:49, 30 July 2007 by Liftarn (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment: Size of quote)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Film Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Palestine Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Film needs synopsis Template:Film needs cast section
work work work
i've been working on preparing this article for a while, just havn't gotten around to finishing it.... will probably get around to making the big change from this initial version to a more complete version next week... i hope. Jaakobou 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please only use reliable sources. // Liftarn
please don't remove text which is obviuosly connected with the film, such as the "see also" link to the battle of jenin, i would also request that you avoid introduction of weasel terms, by changing the wikilink of the battle to "jenin massacre". Jaakobou 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since it's already mentioned in the text it should not be in the "See also" and the movie is about the Jenin massacre so it should say so. Oh, and you should find som eacceptable sources for your claims. // Liftarn
- (1) i consider this edit of yours to be borderline vandalism. please explain why you would remove the citation and insert the {{fact}} template.
- (2) changing the name to "jenin massacre" and removing the see also at the same time, makes for what could be regarded as highly suspect considering the actual name of the article is battle of jenin and the way the issue is presented with the double ommision.
- -- please keep in mind WP:NPOV and consider reinstating the information the way it was before. Jaakobou 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- The sources were not in English or any other language that can be translated using online tools so they could have been describing a football match or anything. Please use verifiable sources. Since it's already mentioned in the article it shouldn't be in the "see too" section. Changing the name is done because that what's it should be called in this context. // Liftarn
- pleas see WP:AGF, and then reconsider to return both the proper name for the battle (context does not matter because we are not quoting him as calling it a massacre), and also both refrences that are the correct refrence to the statements in the paragraph. Jaakobou 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- did you read the text you just linked?
- "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" (emphasis in original).
- considering i'm not an anonymous vandal, you should either look for english sources so they will have preference, or accept the hebrew sources as the english-language sources are not available or at the same quality.
- btw, my translation/quote for the english was more accurate than that of the BBC, so you ended up getting a stronger "WP:RS" (BBC translations are considered more reliable than my OR translations) comment because of your not assuming good faith... i thought your old request to "Please only use reliable sources" meant that you will be able to differentiate a reliable source from a non reliable source in hebrew rather than claim "they are all unreliable" because of the language of use. Jaakobou 08:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I don't understand Hebrew the sources could (as I said earlier) be anything or totally made up. I (and most other Misplaced Pages editors) would have no way to verify them. // Liftarn
- i gave you the rules, if you disapprove of them, you may raise the issue with other wikipedia admins. Jaakobou 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- btw, i did not use hebrew blogs, but sources that fit the WP:RS descriptions. Jaakobou 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Considering your history of claiming that terrorists groups are reliable sources you may understand that I'm a bit sceptical. Especially since I have no way to verify that the sources say what you claim they do. // Liftarn
- (1) i have no idea on what you're talking about and i request you maintain WP:AGF. (2) please avoid WP:NPA and stick to the topics on the article. (3) if you are uncertain about a source and need some assurances that it's a serious source, you may point it out on the talk page, however, there is not validation to blanking of these sources just because you can't read hebrew... (3) perhaps, considering all the trial and debate about this film were in hebrew, and wern't of much concern to other english sources, you are not the most fitting editor to work on this article. Jaakobou 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for comment: Size of quote
Should a single cherrypicked quote be blown out of proportion? // Liftarn
- it's not "cherrypicked", if you go over the court transcripts, this quote appears separately from the body of text immediately after the decision of the court appears (at the first page of the document) - it is the courthouse chosen summary for the event, the one quoted by BBC (who cannot be accused as fans of Israel), and most certainly fits to describe the sentiments of the courthouse in relation to the ban and the film. please stop reverting this. Jaakobou 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't challenge the inclusion of the quote, but the undue weight you bring to it by inflating it. // Liftarn
- there's no "inflation", only the standard {{cquote}} template for the only headline relating this movie which is truly worth quoting. please accept that the film is a mixture of "figurative speech" and that the supreme court noted this while it was lifting the ban. Jaakobou 08:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I challenge that it is "the only headline relating this movie which is truly worth quoting". That is your own personal opinion. // Liftarn
- ok, do you have some better suggestion for quoting on the court's decision? Jaakobou 13:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. // Liftarn
- hopefully my latest edit sorts out this issue as the headline quote is not the one used by the BBC and YNET. Jaakobou 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Moses Maimonides has any relevance since he was longe dead before the movie was made. // Liftarn
- User:Liftarn, just choose the quote you'd like highlighted, the one by the BBC or the headline on the court records - both were given by supreme court judge dalya dorner, the head of the
trialpanel of judges. Jaakobou 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why choose? Why not have them at normal size. I see no point in blowing up quotes. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. // Liftarn
i think a fair way to solve this would be to give a look to the rules relating to quotations. Jaakobou 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Quotation marks says "We use quotation marks or block quotes to distinguish quotations from other text. Multiparagraph quotations are always block-quoted." so it's not that helpfull. Since it's clearly not a multiparagraph quotation that doesn't apply. But WP:QUOTE do say that "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article. Longer quotes may need to be set apart, generally through the use of block quotes.". Since it's not a long quote it shouldn't be a block quote. // Liftarn
- the way i read into it, is that if a certain quote "stand apart from the text of a page" and it's short yet important as "to help emphasize the content of the section" (as judge dorner thought, when she made her court statement), there is room to place it in {{Cquote}} or a close friend of {{Cquote}}, like {{Quotation}}. it is suggested to place the quote at the start of the section, but personally, i don't feel that works in this case. anyways, a couple offers for settlements i'm suggesting are to either use {{epigraph}} at the same location the text sits right now (as i just did), or use {{Quotation}} or {{rquote}}. Jaakobou 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- A quote of a quote? Especially of soemeone long dead when the movie was made. // Liftarn
- supreme court judges like to quote very intelligent people (and previous court judgments) when they make their own judgment so they won't be blamed for making precedents based only on their own opinion... it matters not if the people/judgments used for the new case are alive or deceased. Jaakobou 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of the quote. // Liftarn
- judge dorner saw something else... if you can read hebrew, you can read her entire notes and maybe understand why she used that quote in the headline. Jaakobou 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be original research? // Liftarn
- only if i was quoting him, not if the supreme court judge quotes him. Jaakobou 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about reading the notes and making guesses why the quote was used. I still think it's trivia at best. // Liftarn
- what's going on here is very obvious, maybe you should listen to what the rambam has to say. p.s. the location on the text makes it more than obvious. Jaakobou 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you are going with this. Anyway, I removed the quote since it's entierly irrelevant. I donät insert quotes from Jabberwocky in the article do I? // Liftarn
The supreme court judge used it in the heading of the court summation. if she had used Jabberwocky quotes (heh), then it would have been valid to do the same here. Jaakobou 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, as it has no relevance at all (except that one person used the quote to sound intelligent) it doesn't belong. But OK, as a compromise I think it can be included if it's given a sensible size. // Liftarn
more sources... more work
i'm planning on inserting informations based on these articles/transcripts sometime when i get a chance to inspect this input more seriously.
-- Jaakobou 00:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: