User talk:Buidhe
The changes I made to the page were to match the established template for a theme page. In such pages, we always sort the quotes alphabetically by author/speaker. I also do not understand the section you created for 'Examples' vs. About quotes. It seems that such subsections are not necessary (and again do not comply with the established template for such pages). I'm not sure that this is such a large topic that any other subsections will be necessary, but if they do, it would be better to have subsections based on an individual work. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @UDScott: For all biography articles, there's a distinction between quotes by the person, and quotes about them. Why not a similar distinction here? I think it improves navigability, avoids conflating genocide deniers with anti-genocide deniers, and there is great possibility for expansion as well. Buidhe (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- How would you structure such a distinction for theme articles? There is no person to assign quotes to. The problem we have seen in the past is that people would try to insert subjective subsections and the placement of quotes within them comes with a POV (and I could see this happening if you try to divide this into the two types of deniers you mentioned). The exceptions are those pages (like World War II) where there is an easily understood historical chronology of events. If something like this could be applied to the Genocide denial page, or others like it, I could see that working. The question is: how did you plan to divide up the page, such that there is no bias related to quote placement? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not require chronological ordering, but there is a pretty obvious and not POV distinction between genocide deniers and people writing about genocide denial from a non-denial perspective. Likewise, I separated incitement to genocide between those statements identified by reliable sources as being inciting genocide, and those who are writing about incitement. Do you think that is a subjective distinction? Buidhe (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- How would you structure such a distinction for theme articles? There is no person to assign quotes to. The problem we have seen in the past is that people would try to insert subjective subsections and the placement of quotes within them comes with a POV (and I could see this happening if you try to divide this into the two types of deniers you mentioned). The exceptions are those pages (like World War II) where there is an easily understood historical chronology of events. If something like this could be applied to the Genocide denial page, or others like it, I could see that working. The question is: how did you plan to divide up the page, such that there is no bias related to quote placement? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I can see Buidhe's point of view, but I tend to agree with UDScott that the same template should be followed as much as possible across all articles. @UDScott:, what about the Coronavirus disease 2019 article? This article has about a dozen sub-sections. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)