Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11/Pentagon"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (reply)
(Added Talk template)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{talk}}
 
== Good Stuff ==
 
== Good Stuff ==
  
Line 5: Line 6:
 
== Quotes and structure ==
 
== Quotes and structure ==
  
I don't like having so many quotes together, without explanatory text, so will either be trimming some or trying to give them context and work them into the main text, so the "quotes" section gets absorbed into the article itself. There is no explicit policy on this, but I might add a "message rather than medium" suggestion to the [[WikiSpooks:Style Guide]]. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (IST)
+
I don't like having so many quotes together, without explanatory text, so will either be trimming some or trying to give them context and work them into the main text, so the "quotes" section gets absorbed into the article itself. There is no explicit policy on this, but I might add a "message rather than medium" suggestion to the [[Wikispooks:Style Guide]]. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (IST)
:I agree that an extended quotes section on the subject page undermines the overall page objective somewhat A few quotes in context and to support assertions and argumant are what is needed. However, There may be a case for having a quotations sub-page where there is a surfeit of good apposite ones. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (IST)
+
:I agree that an extended quotes section on the subject page undermines the overall page objective somewhat. A few quotes in context and to support assertions and argument are what is needed. However, There may be a case for having a quotations sub-page where there is a surfeit of good apposite ones. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (IST)
 +
::That's an interesting idea. I've added it to the [[Wikispooks_talk:Community_portal|discussion list here]]. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 07:05, 19 September 2014 (IST)
 +
:::Same applies to maps, especially in light of the potential for detailed and complex subject-specific overlays - well illustrated by [[User:Two Dogs]] work on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]]. Whilst zooming in and out is OK, maps like that are best viewed as near to full screen as possible. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:21, 19 September 2014 (IST)

Latest revision as of 17:11, 14 October 2018

Good Stuff

Thanks for that major edit/input TS. I have been meaning to include a section on the CIT and the fact that emergency calls (911) phone records for the DC area have remained classified whilst those for NYC were released -allegedly anyway (can't recall exactly where I read that now but think it was the CIT work). The thinking - by CIT is that there were many calls reporting the flight of a large plane over the pentagon and on a similar heading to the one alleged to have hit it. The witnesses interviewed by CIT - especially the police officer, are very compelling evidence that the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon. For my money, an overflight together either pre-planted explosives or a missile fit the available evidence best. Here's the CIT web site --Peter P (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2014 (IST)

Quotes and structure

I don't like having so many quotes together, without explanatory text, so will either be trimming some or trying to give them context and work them into the main text, so the "quotes" section gets absorbed into the article itself. There is no explicit policy on this, but I might add a "message rather than medium" suggestion to the Wikispooks:Style Guide. Robin (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (IST)

I agree that an extended quotes section on the subject page undermines the overall page objective somewhat. A few quotes in context and to support assertions and argument are what is needed. However, There may be a case for having a quotations sub-page where there is a surfeit of good apposite ones. --Peter P (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (IST)
That's an interesting idea. I've added it to the discussion list here. Robin (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2014 (IST)
Same applies to maps, especially in light of the potential for detailed and complex subject-specific overlays - well illustrated by User:Two Dogs work on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Whilst zooming in and out is OK, maps like that are best viewed as near to full screen as possible. --Peter P (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2014 (IST)