Talk:Jewish views of Jesus: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger m (Talk:Jewish Views of Jesus moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus: Lowercase title) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
==removed template== | ==removed template== | ||
I [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Jewish_Views_of_Jesus&diff=100028949&oldid=100028908 removed the template] giving credit to wikipedia and ensured the radio button title "from wikipedia" was checked, however, there is nothing in the article citing wikipedia. I do notice in the history there is a W rahter than an N. Is that all I should see, or is the option not full functional? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 20:07, 5 February 2007 (CST) | I [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Jewish_Views_of_Jesus&diff=100028949&oldid=100028908 removed the template] giving credit to wikipedia and ensured the radio button title "from wikipedia" was checked, however, there is nothing in the article citing wikipedia. I do notice in the history there is a W rahter than an N. Is that all I should see, or is the option not full functional? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 20:07, 5 February 2007 (CST) | ||
I have set the Wikipedia flag. You have to accompany it with an edit. (I usually add a carriage return somewhere that doesn't matter.) [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 13:12, 1 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
:Thanks, at the time I made the comment there was a bug that messed it up. It has been fixed now but I didn;'t come back here to sort it out. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:11, 1 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
==No long quotes, please== | |||
The reasons we should have a policy against many and long quotes are (1) this prevents collaboration on the substance of the quote (quotes are uneditable); (2) it is inherently biased to have an extended quote that speaks ''for'' CZ, since in that case CZ is made to endorse that source's idiosyncratic views; and (3) it is inherently not uniformly generalizable. Probably, (3) is most important and most generally applicable. If we have a long quotation that supports one point, why should we not have long quotations that support ''every'' point? There is a vast universe of books and other potentially supporting verbiage. We can find long quotations for ''everything,'' folks. Unless there is some particularly good reason to use a quotation beyond one sentence, don't do it; summarize. | |||
The exceptions will, perhaps, be in cases where texts themselves are the ''primary'' subject of an article. As someone who has written quite a bit about history of philosophy, though, I can tell you that even in this case, extended quotations are used sparingly and only with excellent justification. | |||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:12, 6 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:31, 3 November 2007
|
| Metadata here |
removed template
I removed the template giving credit to wikipedia and ensured the radio button title "from wikipedia" was checked, however, there is nothing in the article citing wikipedia. I do notice in the history there is a W rahter than an N. Is that all I should see, or is the option not full functional? Chris Day (Talk) 20:07, 5 February 2007 (CST)
I have set the Wikipedia flag. You have to accompany it with an edit. (I usually add a carriage return somewhere that doesn't matter.) Petréa Mitchell 13:12, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks, at the time I made the comment there was a bug that messed it up. It has been fixed now but I didn;'t come back here to sort it out. Chris Day (Talk) 14:11, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
No long quotes, please
The reasons we should have a policy against many and long quotes are (1) this prevents collaboration on the substance of the quote (quotes are uneditable); (2) it is inherently biased to have an extended quote that speaks for CZ, since in that case CZ is made to endorse that source's idiosyncratic views; and (3) it is inherently not uniformly generalizable. Probably, (3) is most important and most generally applicable. If we have a long quotation that supports one point, why should we not have long quotations that support every point? There is a vast universe of books and other potentially supporting verbiage. We can find long quotations for everything, folks. Unless there is some particularly good reason to use a quotation beyond one sentence, don't do it; summarize.
The exceptions will, perhaps, be in cases where texts themselves are the primary subject of an article. As someone who has written quite a bit about history of philosophy, though, I can tell you that even in this case, extended quotations are used sparingly and only with excellent justification.
--Larry Sanger 12:12, 6 February 2007 (CST)