User talk:Makeandtoss
Just so you're sure why that link was removed[edit]
At Flag of Palestine the other day, I mean. It's basically down to the way I read MOS:LINKQUOTE. When dealing with something as detailed, nuanced and written by others as Wikipedia's take on the Israeli occupation, is it likely that it's exactly what the quoted person meant to suggest? I think not, so tend to save linking within quotes to more objectively concrete people, places and things (like Paris Hilton, Paris or the Hilton). Like all things, though, this too is subjective and open to interpretation. Maybe you think that article is close enough to exactly what that Amnesty International spokesperson did intend us to infer. If so, it's cool. Cool enough, anyway.
Per MOS:LQ, though, I must insist we keep the period outside. Hope that's cool by you. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: I assume you are referring to the insertion of "unlawful" into a Wiki link? The word could be simply removed instead of the whole link. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, if we removed a word, it wouldn't be a quote anymore. I think Wikipedia and Amnesty International both recognize the occupation as unlawful/illegal/whatever, but there's an element of original research in associating any snippet of a quote with an article that's only closely what the author said. It's not as bad as "putting words in someone's mouth", but it does add subtext. Maybe paraphrasing the quote and linking whichever parts we want to emphasize would work best. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: Simply solved through this phrasing:... the "unlawful" Israeli occupation.... Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- That still wouldn't be a quote, because it's a single adjective. And when one "quotes" a word like that, it tends to suggest sarcasm and doubt. I'm fine with the plain and simple way I paraphrased it, if you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: Simply solved through this phrasing:... the "unlawful" Israeli occupation.... Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, if we removed a word, it wouldn't be a quote anymore. I think Wikipedia and Amnesty International both recognize the occupation as unlawful/illegal/whatever, but there's an element of original research in associating any snippet of a quote with an article that's only closely what the author said. It's not as bad as "putting words in someone's mouth", but it does add subtext. Maybe paraphrasing the quote and linking whichever parts we want to emphasize would work best. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)