This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jonathan Glazer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"But other Jews condemned Glazer's speech. Jewish columnists John Podhoretz and Batya Ungar-Sargon criticized Glazer for using the words 'men who refute their Jewishness'"
I know that using "Jew" as shorthand for Jewish people is common, but I think when the situation is so polarized we need to take extra care. Jack-Vidence ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I can see that this is highly contentious and so I am putting a comment here before editing to see if any other editor has a view. The paragraph largely frames criticism of Glazer's speech as an error of interpretation. While it does presently reflect the truth that some critics wantonly misrepresented Glazer's meaning, many (more?) simply referred to the equivalence he drew between the two sides in the present Gaza conflict (I'm trying to write that as neutrally as possible). To my mind, that paragraph does not reflect the nature of the criticism well enough; in effect it appears to rebut criticism of Glazer rather than describing the criticism correctly. I will wait to see if anyone has a view before editing. All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that his speech generated a lot of controversy, we can't just ignore the controversy and
delete all the reactions to the speech.
Up the Walls (
talk) 02:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike
"a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
I've undone a revision of today which cited WP:Recentism and removed much of the text. This is a live discussion of exactly that matter so I have applied WP:BRD. In conjunction with that, I will leave another couple of days - owing to the fulsome and constructive discussion here - then propose a form of words (other editors are of course welcome to do the same). All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 16:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The article also does not mention that some sources misquoted Glazer. As reported in Vulture:
Shortly after the speech, Glazer was misquoted online, including by Variety, which later corrected a story. It originally wrote that Glazer said, "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness.” The full quote is, “Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people."
I am not sure if this is worth mentioning, but if we are already going to list a bunch of authorities condemning him for something he didn't say then maybe the media disseminating falsehoods would be important to mention? Οἶδα ( talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Currently the
The Zone of Interest section of this article takes up 7,261 bytes out the total 33,918 bytes of the whole article making it the largest section of the whole article. Refer to
Special:Diff/1214424815 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the whole section, inclusive of any subsections and quotes, be trimmed so that it is no larger than half its current size?
TarnishedPath
talk 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I vote yes. I keep re reading it. 8barzmusic ( talk) 04:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Emmentalist, @ Blotski, @ 8barzmusic, @ StarkReport, @ K.e.coffman, @ Up the Walls and @ Sirfurboy who have been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath talk 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
If we said this section had to be cut below 250 words, someone could just coatrack this information in a political views section instead". I think that would be covered by WP:GAMING and actionable at WP:AN/I if someone wanted to make a dispute out of it.
"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that elicited mixed reactions. He stated:"
Looking forward to what others think. StarkReport ( talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that was praised by some "for speaking out against the atrocities in Gaza." and criticised by some who perceived it to be Glazer "refuting his Jewishness." He stated:"StarkReport ( talk) 11:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine"
At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine", two sentences of quote at most and the rest of the material on the movie itself. TarnishedPath talk 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. One could also say in the end the article is not about reactions to a speech by Glazer, but about Glazer himself. However, both things are connected to Glazer, so we need to consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE amongst other considerations. The first sentence of the lede of this article states that Glazer "is an English film director and screenwriter". So obviously this gives us some indication about what is of more importance to talk about in the article, his speeches or his works as a director and screenwriter. We can talk about both but we need to apply appropriate WEIGHT and DUE. TarnishedPath talk 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
most explosive subject at present(my emphasis). Basing an editorial decision on that strays into news reporting. I understand that you will probably feel that we cannot know how deep the repercussions of this speech will be. Sometimes speeches do go down in history and become world changing. But Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. We don't guess what will be notable one day, we wait for the notability to be established, and then cover the matter.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. [1]: 69
References
There seems to be consensus on not referring to this week's worldwide criticism of the subject of the article so I'm going to leave it now. I see reference above to WP:Coatracking, which I think is in error. The article is about Glazer and reference to worldwide comment on his own comments, which were clearly designed to elicit worldwide comment, is manifestly not coatracking. That may be relevant if any editors look again in future. In the meantime, interesting chat and all the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 07:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we at least list that he won Best International Feature in green for the Academy Awards? Emma Oakley ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jonathan Glazer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"But other Jews condemned Glazer's speech. Jewish columnists John Podhoretz and Batya Ungar-Sargon criticized Glazer for using the words 'men who refute their Jewishness'"
I know that using "Jew" as shorthand for Jewish people is common, but I think when the situation is so polarized we need to take extra care. Jack-Vidence ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I can see that this is highly contentious and so I am putting a comment here before editing to see if any other editor has a view. The paragraph largely frames criticism of Glazer's speech as an error of interpretation. While it does presently reflect the truth that some critics wantonly misrepresented Glazer's meaning, many (more?) simply referred to the equivalence he drew between the two sides in the present Gaza conflict (I'm trying to write that as neutrally as possible). To my mind, that paragraph does not reflect the nature of the criticism well enough; in effect it appears to rebut criticism of Glazer rather than describing the criticism correctly. I will wait to see if anyone has a view before editing. All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that his speech generated a lot of controversy, we can't just ignore the controversy and
delete all the reactions to the speech.
Up the Walls (
talk) 02:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock strike
"a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
I've undone a revision of today which cited WP:Recentism and removed much of the text. This is a live discussion of exactly that matter so I have applied WP:BRD. In conjunction with that, I will leave another couple of days - owing to the fulsome and constructive discussion here - then propose a form of words (other editors are of course welcome to do the same). All the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 16:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The article also does not mention that some sources misquoted Glazer. As reported in Vulture:
Shortly after the speech, Glazer was misquoted online, including by Variety, which later corrected a story. It originally wrote that Glazer said, "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness.” The full quote is, “Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people."
I am not sure if this is worth mentioning, but if we are already going to list a bunch of authorities condemning him for something he didn't say then maybe the media disseminating falsehoods would be important to mention? Οἶδα ( talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Currently the
The Zone of Interest section of this article takes up 7,261 bytes out the total 33,918 bytes of the whole article making it the largest section of the whole article. Refer to
Special:Diff/1214424815 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the whole section, inclusive of any subsections and quotes, be trimmed so that it is no larger than half its current size?
TarnishedPath
talk 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I vote yes. I keep re reading it. 8barzmusic ( talk) 04:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Emmentalist, @ Blotski, @ 8barzmusic, @ StarkReport, @ K.e.coffman, @ Up the Walls and @ Sirfurboy who have been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath talk 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
If we said this section had to be cut below 250 words, someone could just coatrack this information in a political views section instead". I think that would be covered by WP:GAMING and actionable at WP:AN/I if someone wanted to make a dispute out of it.
"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that elicited mixed reactions. He stated:"
Looking forward to what others think. StarkReport ( talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
"At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine that was praised by some "for speaking out against the atrocities in Gaza." and criticised by some who perceived it to be Glazer "refuting his Jewishness." He stated:"StarkReport ( talk) 11:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine"
At the 96th Academy Awards, accepting the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest, Glazer addressed the war in Palestine", two sentences of quote at most and the rest of the material on the movie itself. TarnishedPath talk 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
In the end, the article is not about the movie work of Glazer, but about Glazer himself. One could also say in the end the article is not about reactions to a speech by Glazer, but about Glazer himself. However, both things are connected to Glazer, so we need to consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE amongst other considerations. The first sentence of the lede of this article states that Glazer "is an English film director and screenwriter". So obviously this gives us some indication about what is of more importance to talk about in the article, his speeches or his works as a director and screenwriter. We can talk about both but we need to apply appropriate WEIGHT and DUE. TarnishedPath talk 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
most explosive subject at present(my emphasis). Basing an editorial decision on that strays into news reporting. I understand that you will probably feel that we cannot know how deep the repercussions of this speech will be. Sometimes speeches do go down in history and become world changing. But Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. We don't guess what will be notable one day, we wait for the notability to be established, and then cover the matter.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. [1]: 69
References
There seems to be consensus on not referring to this week's worldwide criticism of the subject of the article so I'm going to leave it now. I see reference above to WP:Coatracking, which I think is in error. The article is about Glazer and reference to worldwide comment on his own comments, which were clearly designed to elicit worldwide comment, is manifestly not coatracking. That may be relevant if any editors look again in future. In the meantime, interesting chat and all the best, Emmentalist ( talk) 07:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we at least list that he won Best International Feature in green for the Academy Awards? Emma Oakley ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)