Jump to content

Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summaries

[edit]
   "Stolen" is not strictly applicable even for blatant copyright violation, but many would use it with varying degrees of looseness even for uses within the fair use exceptions and for works that are legally original works but nevertheless derive all their factual content from a single copyright-protected work. So that complaint is too vague to require further comment.
   I note that e.g. for ep. 6, TV.com gives a one-sent, 36-word summary, and 5 longer comments, from readers, that also include plot info. It would not be at all surprising for a summary relying entirely on one such page for its facts about a show to be acceptable for WP, bcz copyright does not protect "information" but rather a specific way of expressing information (and -- tho you should not trust my wording -- only to the degree that there are other ways to adequately express it). WP:COPYVIO is an important matter at WP, but a complaint such as that does not help address it.
--Jerzy•t 06:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

Ep 6 - "Conscience"

[edit]

"unanimously describe him as psychotic"

[edit]

   Reason= A birthday-party-full of 13 y.o.s who all say "is psychotic" would be presumed to be repeating the views of an adult who coached them. They probably all described *behavior* that *adults* associate with psychosis, even if some said "psycho".
   If that's really what the script said, provide a ref; if you think the script implied that, you need to explain why you think so, at least on this talk page if not in the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"his despair overrode his senses"

[edit]

   Reason= I just can't believe he claimed to be numb, deaf, and blind during the killing. C'mon, what did he really say?
   Hmm. Could his character have said those words? I suppose a pro scriptwriter could make that phrase work in context, as "I wanted to tear my teeth out" did, but even if that was the case here, it is nonsense ripped out and stuck into the summary.
--Jerzy•t 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"rationalizes his act as just"

[edit]

   Reason= He may have said "furthered the cause of justice" or "happened to coincide with justice", but you're undercutting your own case if you claim you're not responsible for your actions w/o leaving it to your lawyer to make any points about justice.
   Presents a problem very similar to the previous one. It could happen in real life, but having it happen is incompetent theater without an interesting explanation of either

an interesting explanation of what made the judge consent to him preparing and presenting his own case, without a lawyer to advise him, or
how his lawyer allowed him the opportunity to say both of those things in court, without quitting before the case closed.

--Jerzy•t 04:36 & 04:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

   This (from an easily available source that's too credible to reject without a citation that contradicts it) says our version misleads, and offers a hint toward a rewrite:
Elliot Stabler: You manipulated us just like Jake did.
Brett Morton: There's one big difference. Jake would've killed again. I won't.
   It would mean he said it only after acquittal, and suggests his testimony was a lie. Both of those certainly need mention unless the quote is a fraud, or the summary is reduced to about 2 sentences designed to do no more than avoid confusion with other episodes.
--Jerzy•t 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   Well, i have found one contradictory version (no less credible IMO, in light of the likelihood of cut&paste replication from one source, of the first version i found) at a blog that claims at least a fresh viewing:
"Even though you knew it was wrong?" asks Elliot. Morton's answer provides for one one unforgettable ending. "Yes," he says, rightfully. "But one things is certain. Jake O'Hara would have killed again. And I never will."
   I'm removing that tag & what sounds like likely mischaracterization of the ending; i give up on direct quotation.
--Jerzy•t 07:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   This material needed a tag, but i confused myself by obscuring (with tag markup) a period that should otherwise have made it clear to me that someone (at least months before) did not intend to imply he said that in court; the recent IP-user (some of whose edits triggered my tagging edit) has since made that even clearer with new wording.
   I'm restoring but striking thru the tag in question, with an edit summary pointing to this talk section, just to put a clarifying revision into the edit history that will account for its different treatment; i'll immediately fully remove it in a moments-later edit.
--Jerzy•t 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ep 6 - "Conscience" (Other)

[edit]

   Best i recall, my attention was drawn by the many by-name references to characters, mostly or wholly the two successive defendants, added in a recent edit. While the comprehension-impeding prose that resulted heightened the sense of a reader on a crusade to ensure that the child defendant (Jake) was respectfully treated by our article (4 occurrences of variations on "the boy" or "the killer" converted to the previously only-once mentioned full or given name - for a total of 3 full name and 2 given-only mentions of him).
   I hasten to mention that this did slightly alleviate the truly horrible previous revision, which had referred to Jake's child victim only via versions of "[Morton's] son" (twice) and "the boy" (once), before introducing "a 13-year-old, Jake" (O' Hara): the initial impression my first reading left me with -- of all the references to "boy" referring to one child (the shrink's son), whose name went unmentioned until the audience later learns it is "Jake" -- is still hard for me to shake free of!
   The creator of the horrible version put it back (stripping the tags) w/o comment. After a tiny bit of research, i'm correcting the incoherence and filling in or replacing missing info based on "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit - Conscience -- Transcript -- USA -- Aired on Monday, Nov 22, 2010 (11/22/2010) at 03:00 AM", which i will not present as a reliable source nor thus as a reference on the article. It is here as evidence some specific info, that i have added as a step towards readability and hopefully accuracy, is more plausible than other info, amateur opinions, or guesses that i've tagged.
[belated sig, w/ contrib time per ed hist:]--Jerzy•t 08:52, 8 September 2012‎

   I've reverted a contrib, a new-this-week, one-pg, IP-contributor's first one that includes an edit summary. (It's always good to see newcomers starting to learn.)
   It comprised:
  1. Several removals, contrary to policy, of {{fact}} and {{dubious}} tags
  2. A few characters of c/e changes, which became irrelevant in my own later fix of awkward grammatical structures.
--Jerzy•t 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems

[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6). 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) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit warring about the 'Note' section in Episode 119/3

[edit]

@Cretin Fox: (I am assuming that you are the person who has also been editing this article under the 151... IP addresses?) The content you have been consistently adding to this article, and which at least one other person (whom you have improperly accused of vandalism) has been removing, is entirely inappropriate for this article. First of all, PeakD is not a reliable source for any assertion of fact whatsoever. It is a blog site, written pseudonymously by goodness knows whom. Please never, ever, introduce it to any Wikipedia articles as a citation again. Leaving that source aside, the content in that note was WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. We do not write content like that. If there is a scholarly article written by an eminent psychologist about the plotline in that episode, that might be worth commenting on in our article. Articles that are merely about subjects that the episode's plotline revolve around are not about the plotline itself, and so synthesis is required to discuss one in the context of the other - we don't do that. Please do not reinstate that content, or anything like it. Thank you to UtherSRG for removing it before he applied protection. Girth Summit (blether) 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, with all due respect, I don't know how you can assume that, since I already have a user name and I'm not anonymous. Second, if the problem is a specific source (which was accused to be "misogynistic" by one of the problematic users based on practically nothing), then why removing the entire content instead of simply removing that specific source? The allegation of vandalism still stands. Cretin Fox (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation of vandalism is a personal attack, which may result in a block of your account if repeated. The content was inappropriate for the reasons I outlined above, which go beyond that obviously bogus (and obviously misogynistic, FWIW) source. The removal was entirely justified, and the material must not be reinstated. Girth Summit (blether) 21:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_season_6&oldid=1258831667"