Talk:Patty Hearst/Archives/2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Patty Hearst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
New York Times quote
This reference does not support the addition of In a different account, Hearst was recorded as saying "she had been offered the choice of being released or the chance to join the underground terrorist group."
. What it says is She said that she had been offered the choice of being released or the chance to join the underground terrorist group. “I have chosen to stay and fight,” she said.
Her own words ("I have chosen to stay and fight") are clearly marked as a quote, the other part is not marked as a quote, so her exact words are unknown. I have rephrased accordingly. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This was even acknowledged after it was added, with "change wording to avoid implying she said those specific words". If you agree there's no evidence she said those exact words, don't put them in quotation marks. FDW777 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The quotations are to quote the article. If you had bothered to read my comment, you have have seen that it was edited to avoid imply she said those exact words. Given that you have a penchant for strict adherence to in text citation which require a direct quotation of the source material, I fail to see how you object to quoting the source material. Transcendence (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hearst was recorded as saying "she had been offered the choice of being released or the chance to join the underground terrorist group."
is attributing a direct quote to her. FDW777 (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)- That is clearly not a direct quote. She would have to be talking about herself in the third person in order for that to be interpreted as direct quote. That is absurd. That is clearly a quote from the NY Times that is paraphrasing her. Transcendence (talk)
- You're presenting it as a direct quote. And it's perfectly obvious why you want to add it... FDW777 (talk)
- Feel free to attempt to mind read me. I'm sure that's standard policy for a supposedly experienced editor such as yourself. If I may be so bold as to mind read you myself, it's quite clear why you don't want to and it has nothing to do with policy. As for the direct quote, if you are so insistent on this, I shall use a different format. Transcendence (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't need to be a Weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. Your only edits since July have been to add negative information to articles about left-wing radicals. FDW777 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I only added *back* information that *you* removed from pages where the entities are much terrorists as the sky is blue. They are clearly referred to as such in numerous sources. The fact that you are so opposed to this indicates an agenda on your part, not mine, Transcendence (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- My removals are backed by WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST, and very often WP:BURDEN. Once again, you are still implying a direct quote. It is also completely needless, since its sole purpose is to insert the word "terrorist" at a random point in the article.
Hearst said she had been offered the choice of being released or joining the SLA
is quite obviously a more neutral phrase thanwhere the Times describes her options as "of being released or the chance to join the underground terrorist group."
FDW777 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- My removals are backed by WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST, and very often WP:BURDEN. Once again, you are still implying a direct quote. It is also completely needless, since its sole purpose is to insert the word "terrorist" at a random point in the article.
- On the contrary, I only added *back* information that *you* removed from pages where the entities are much terrorists as the sky is blue. They are clearly referred to as such in numerous sources. The fact that you are so opposed to this indicates an agenda on your part, not mine, Transcendence (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't need to be a Weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. Your only edits since July have been to add negative information to articles about left-wing radicals. FDW777 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to attempt to mind read me. I'm sure that's standard policy for a supposedly experienced editor such as yourself. If I may be so bold as to mind read you myself, it's quite clear why you don't want to and it has nothing to do with policy. As for the direct quote, if you are so insistent on this, I shall use a different format. Transcendence (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're presenting it as a direct quote. And it's perfectly obvious why you want to add it... FDW777 (talk)
- That is clearly not a direct quote. She would have to be talking about herself in the third person in order for that to be interpreted as direct quote. That is absurd. That is clearly a quote from the NY Times that is paraphrasing her. Transcendence (talk)