Jump to content

Talk:Greenwich Village townhouse explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

[edit]

How can "a terrorist attack" target the military? Isn't targeting the military the definition of non-terroristic violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.56.68 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not consider the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon a terrorist attack? --CliffC (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2008 wholesale deletions of cited material and citations themselves

[edit]

Humata, I have reverted those changes. I've never heard of an article being "overfootnoted". These are cites from a WP:RS, mainly the New York Times. The quotes you so happily deleted are the leads from each article cited, that's why the {{cite}} template has a "quote=" parameter . And I see no "trivia" in the article. --CliffC (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Have you noticed Wikipedia's prohibition against reproducing copyrighted material (repeated at the bottom of every entry page)? Quoting six or more paragraphs exceeds fair use. (2) Some people don't write well because they can't distinguish the trivial from the important. For example, how Kathy Boudin escaped detection for weeks as having been at the scene. Four example, exactly how many days later each corpse was discovered. For example, the names of the reporters who wrote the various articles. Next, what are the purposes of footnotes? To show *where* you got info (which aid future researchers) and to prove that you didn't invent. It's a waste of space to DUPLICATE text from the article in the quote of the citation -- that was done at least four times. The person who wrote that way lacks judgement in a big way. Hurmata (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(This section copied from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for the record)

I am the original writer of Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Expecting parts to be challenged, I cited it thoroughly, using 12 sources – 11 in the New York Times and one at a Weather Underground figure's website. Each citation used the {{cite news}} template with its "quote=" parameter, and each citation included the cited story's lead paragraph as the "quote=" value. The idea was to provide footnote followers the essence of each story so they could decide whether to click on through to the page-image PDF of the original. I believe this is fair use.

Between the article's first posting last year and April 22 it drew only a few edits, but after the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers/Weather Underground so-called "connection" story broke last week, it attracted more attention and a major rewrite and trimming. In the rewrite, the article was described as "overfootnoted", a term I have not heard before. The original citations were retained, but their "quote=" values were removed, with the single exception of a self-serving statement by Mark Rudd describing his Weather Underground comrades' nail bombs as "...crude mirrors of the anti-personnel weapons the U.S. was raining down on Indochina".

The rewriting editor and an anonymous IP from the same geographical area have accused me on the talk page and in edit summaries of copyright violation, as well as of "lacking judgement in a big way", and have given an uncivil recounting of my other alleged crimes against Wikipedia. I admit that I am not the world's best or most terse writer, and now that I have had time to cool down I will not deny that the rewrite generally improved the article. But I do need to know whether citing a news article's lead in a footnote constitutes copyright violation. --CliffC (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a secondary issue, the names of the reporters writing the various Times articles were also removed from the citations, as "trivial". I'd like to have an opinion on this action as well. --CliffC (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better place would be to head to the requests for thirs opinion page or list a request for comment. These will help you to draw more comment on the content of the page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree with those suggestions. This is a broad policy question, not a question about a single article. I know copyright is a sensitive subject and questions about it can take a long time to answer, but I'd like to see a statement of Wikipedia policy on this. Surely it's an issue that has come up before. I have removed the 'resolved' tag. --CliffC (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be sorry. Consider reading these policies dealing with copyrights and how material may be used in Wikipedia articles. I don't see that they definitely discuss what you're talking about, but they're a start. I applaud your attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, but you never responded to Hurmata's reply. If you cannot resolve things on the talk page, then you may consider following Pastordavid's advice or even dispute resolution. Fleetflame 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, although I had expected to be pointed to specific policy on the fair use of copyrighted material in {{cite news}} templates, and perhaps on whether reporter names are "trivia". I don't have time at present to pursue this, so for the purposes of EAR you may mark the subject closed. I'll copy this section to the article's talk page for the record. --CliffC (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted three or four long quotes out of media reports from footnotes. First off, quoting whole sentences, half paragraphs, violates copyright. Fair use means quoting sparingly: just a few quotes, and only a few words long each. Next, people who put long quotes in footnotes totally misunderstand how footnotes are used in academic literature generally, and particularly how they should be used in an encyclopedia. To the editors of this article who are putting masses of event detail in the footnotes, here's a question: why on Earth wouldn't this information belong in the body of the article? In a year and a half with Wikipedia, I have not seen your goofy practice in any other article. In fact, some of the material I deleted probably could be appropriately added to the body of the article (but the people who are misusing the footnotes in this way have tended to put in rambling, pointless detail, so beware of that). Besides that, the main purpose of footnotes is bibliography. Sometimes footnotes are an appropriate place for BRIEF clarifying notes, e.g., about terminology, where the alternative would be to put clarifications inside parentheses in the body of the text, which could cause an awkward read. In a monograph by an expert, the expert may choose to muse about some point and put the musing in a footnote to avoid distraction in the body of the article. But an encyclopedia is not a place for musing by an author. Hurmata (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you want to incorporate additional material from a particular source, you gotta paraphrase it, to respect copyright. Hurmata (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When people quote large chunks from an article which is available free online, I just have to shake my head. Hurmata (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These criticisms are brash but hollow. Hurmata (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples of what was wrong with older content, for those unfamiliar with the older content

[edit]

In April 2008, the article had content like this:

* (text} An initial search turned up a 1916 37-mm. antitank shell.

* (footnote: source headline) 1916 Antitank Shell Is Found In Rubble of 'Village' Building"

* (footnote: source text) "A live 37 mm. antitank shell was found by the police last night in the ruins of a Greenwich Village townhouse that was wrecked last Friday by explosions and a fire."

So we see, the same information is given three times. Of the 12 distinct footnotes in the article, the bulk of them were like this. The kind of person who doesn't see the needlessness and inappropriateness of this redundancy is a kind of person who should find something else to do other than help write for Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To give or not give reporter's name

[edit]

The news report citation template includes fields for the reporter's name. But this is usually irrelevant information. Giving an author's name is about credit and about responsibility. In the case of a book, 99 percent of the time the content is the brainchild and the labor of the credited author. The publisher is just an agency that makes a business out of publishing and marketing the book. A news report is usually different: although writing is usually not equivalent to baking bread or producing paper clips, it is pretty routine. Some news writing is more literary than other news writing, but really, when the article is basically a report, the byline is sufficient credit. The key point is, we expect whoever is sent to gather "the facts" to come up with essentially the same set of names, dates, places, birth dates, who, what, when, where. Especially if they write several reports in the short space of a week or two (no single article may gather all the data available in that week, but four or six reports certainly should). At one extreme is a news report based on press releases or public records of types that everyone is familiar with and are easily accessed, so that very little journalistic skill is required to gather the story. At the other extreme are long investigative articles (involving tedious, expert gathering of data and intelligent detective work) and long analytical articles (which are about the reporter's educated opinion). Only in the latter cases should you include a journalist's name. Hurmata (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to beef up your sniping by invoking two policies that have nothing to do with the remark you're replying to. What nonsense to invoke the "original research" objection against DISCUSSIONS at Wikipedia and against a discussion of an INTERNAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY. The "original research" policy applies to ARTICLE CONTENT. You also shoot totally off target with the invocation of "good faith" -- there's nothing in the comment you're replying to that touches on my motivations. Aside from that, for you to complain I'm "rambling", the your only motivation for saying so is your own disagreement with my argument. Hurmata (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1916 "antitank" shell

[edit]

Why would a New York City journalist, or the fireman he interviewed, necessarily be an authority on antique ammunition when you have a collapsed building and corpses and a terrorist plot and serious issues to deal with? Why would you want them to be experts on trivia like that?
It's a minor error, or a misrepresentation, or even an adjective added for dramatic effect.
The round could be used in an antitank capacity, for sure, but against what?
You could simply shoot an existing round at any lightly armoured tank that comes along, but that does not make it an "antitank shell" per se.
Just because something appears in a newspaper does not make it gospel.
Varlaam (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I didn't say on the first pass, it's the Entente powers who introduced the tank in 1916, specifically us, the British Empire. So if anybody has an "antitank shell" from 1916, it would be an Imperial German terrorist group. The USA isn't even in the war until 1917, so why would they be manufacturing ammunition in Poughkeepsie in 1916 to contend with a top secret weapon possessed only by their friend, Britain?
Yes, it is a 37mm shell. No, it would not be a 37mm "antitank" shell. That is World War II thinking about the uses of 37mm, which is an antitank calibre, but at a later time.
Varlaam (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this before I reverted you just now, but my edit summary stands. Let's stick to WP policy and leave editorial commentary about our sources to the talk pages. --CliffC (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'd be alright with "identified as..." without any commentary. --CliffC (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shell in question was probably from a French Canon d'Infanterie de 37 modèle 1916 TRP (37mm mle.1916), which as the name indicates was a light infantry gun meant to be used against machine gun nests etc.. The gun was also used by US forces once they entered the war. It was used in WW2 as an interim anti-tank gun by both the French and the Americans, but as pointed out above, the first use of tanks was by the British in September 1916 and the Germans only fielded tanks in 1918, so the gun was definitely not originally designed as an anti-tank gun. The 37mm M1916 was originally furnished with a HE shell and was used by the US Army and National Guard until 1941. Some were still in use in the Philippines in 1941-42 when the Japanese invaded, so the shell wouldn't necessarily or even probably have been of WW1 vintage. Death Bredon (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved without consensus

[edit]

Requesting any passing admin to move this article back to Greenwich Village townhouse explosion‎‎. It's the Weatherman bombing and deaths that make this building notable, not its street address or architectural style. --CliffC (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, moved it back myself, I thought I'd have a problem with the redirect. Any future move needs to be discussed here first. --CliffC (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of new house

[edit]

Following my expansion, this article could use a photo of the current house on the site, which got a couple of grafs. It shouldn't be too hard to get. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion&oldid=1252602549"