Jump to content

Talk:Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:IDF Tik Tok)

abaut the suondtrek of the video: In the tolkbacks of this artical, n.23 : [1]:

"This is my platoon that is performing in the video. These are guys who have served a tough three years and second time doing duty in Hebron within those years.

This was mean to be a private inside humor to take from our service in the army. We actually are not sure who uploaded the video originally.

Now I just want to clarify some things. The Meuzzin call at the beginning that is causing such a fuss with some folks was actually edited in after the footage was shot. Also it was most definitely not shot at 4:30AM.

We definitely did not expect the video if uploaded to youtube to become such a viral clip. Also there were security measures in place while it was being filmed, of which I cannot go into detail.

We express gratitude to everyone who enjoys the video and gives us support. Please everyone understand that this was just our way of letting off a little steam and enjoying ourselves in a very tough place that takes a heavy toll, both mentally and physically. "


Palhod 50 , Israel (07.07.10)"

also, I know the soldiers in personal, as a soldier in the Nahal brigad. 109.67.17.139 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) (forgot to log in : Nizzan Cohen (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Heads-up

[edit]

Please see Talk:Tik Tok (song)#RfC: Should the IDF dancing incident be discussed in this article? __meco (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tick Tock or TiK ToK?

[edit]

Can one of these variants be settled on? Varlaam (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should be "Tik Tok". There is no reason to deviate from the spelling of the song itself, as far as I know. __meco (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have full confidence in your response, then you should correct the article text, and move the page to match.
Varlaam (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "as far as I know". I am not omniscient. __meco (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article by accident.
Never seen the video.
Don't know the song.
On the omniscience scale, I'm zero and you're non-zero.
If you are in error, then some other authority is free to override your changes at a later date.
As someone said to me once, be bold.
Varlaam (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, wasn't that satisfying?
Don't forget to change the main page camelcase to correct mixed case.
Varlaam (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the only issue that remains is the fact that this title, regardless of spelling, is completely unreferenced, I think(?). So, if no other than Wikipedia use this name to reference the incident, then we should change the article's name again. __meco (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

[edit]

The current title of this article is pure invention by editors of this article. I suggest that the article is given a more generic name, such as e.g. 2010 dancing Israeli soldiers incident or 2010 Hebron dancing soldiers incident. __meco (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Seems fine to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot simply invent names for incidents. either we must have a title which neutrally describes the subject or we can use a name which has been shown to be in widespread use through reliable sources. Do you have any references for the current name? The article shows none __meco (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. I think it is therefore appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, recognizable, natural, precise, and concise is your opinion. Mine is that it is none of those, except for people who know about the incident by that name (which would be people who have read this Wikipedia article). Also you fail to address the issue of original research. __meco (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There aren't any new issues that you are raising that haven't been dismissed at the AfD or talk page already. And ... to pick one ... you don't think it is concise? And to pick another ... you believe we need a reliable source ref for the name, or else the name is original research or not appropriate? You're welcome to your views, but I don't see a basis for them.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree on the part that the name was made artificially, and to give credit it was made short and simple, but how user Epeefleche has stated we can't rely only on an opinion that the current title is convenient and easier, we should also take into account other aspects. This isn't like some term or idea, it's an event which took place at fixed point of time (and other impact which sprung out of it), therefore I suggest a title which may suit both of you - IDF 2010 Tick Tock dance / incident., you may object it, but at least admit it's way more informative as points out the year of this event, which is in most cases here being used as an important criteria for adding to title. It will show clear that this an event which took place in this year. Because if some stranger who never heard before about this event would read the current title might assume that IDF issued its version of this song. If it was so, and there was a song called Tick Tock and it was issued by the IDF then a title which current title holds would be correct and wouldn't possibly mislead readers. Of course the current title IDF Tik Tok could be redirected to the newly, more appropriate title. Userpd (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Userpd's initiative is a constructive move, but Epeefleche seems to want to hold their ground. As for Epeefleche's latest argument I think it is quite inappropriate. __meco (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

[edit]

Is this even relevant to anything? I mean, there are videos made by Holocaust deniers that have several million views and none of them have their own Wikipedia page. Why would this even be considered for special mention? 173.34.108.86 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad international RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is RS coverage please? 173.34.108.86 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources". Please see WP:VRS, WP:PILLAR and WP:RS. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal II

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/c 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Tik Tok → Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah – The current title is an invention by Wikipedia. It is a name that has never been used by anyone other than Wikipedia. I propose changing the title to the name of the video as first uploaded to YouTube. __meco (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Yes, it appears this is the best course of action. With the - wikipedia qualifier, Google gives 18,400 hits for "IDF Tik Tok," 20,100 for "Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah," and an additional 7,230 for the latter with the corrected spelling of battalion. A quick look at the refs suggest the "Casbah" name is more prominent. --BDD (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batallion_50_Rock_the_Hebron_Casbah&oldid=1199600198"