Talk:The War on Britain's Jews?

According to the editing guidelines for films, the next section following the lead should be a plot summary. Now I don't think the heading "Plot" is appropriate for a documentary, but I can't easily think of a satisfactory alternative. "Outline" is about the best I can think of for now. (Maybe I'll mention something on the WP:FILM project page.)

In any case, what the article has at the moment is neither a plot nor an outline, but a selection from Littlejohn's Daily Mail rant. I have therefore put the bulk of this section into a new subsection "Littlejohn's view", which accurately describes what it is.

Ideally, we need to get someone with a copy of the film to write a "plot"/"outline"/whatever section according to the guidelines for film articles. I saw the film when it was first broadcast, but I don't trust my memory enough to write an accurate summary.
--NSH001 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

follow-up note

Since writing the above, I've looked at several other documentary film articles, and it seems that "Synopsis" is the preferred term. --NSH001 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how we can justify using quite this much material lifted word-for-word (in fact, simply copy-pasted, as the presence of typos such as "antiSemitism" and "Milky bars" shows) from the newspaper reviews. The Times extract is about 250 words, and the Telegraph one not far short of 400. The only WP-sourced content is to say "In [paper], [journalist] said" before each one, which seems almost absurdly inadequate. I very nearly deleted both extracts on sight, but felt it would be better if someone with knowledge of the programmes could edit the comments down to something more akin to the Guardian review in the same section. 86.132.138.9 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That was me, not signed in. Loganberry (Talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are about the right length for what the article will be, once a proper "Synopsis" section is written. My natural preference is for brevity and clarity, so I have some sympathy for your point. On the other hand, I didn't want to miss important points made by the reviewers, and I wanted to ensure that the quotes were a fair summary of the reviews. I hope the result is a reasonable compromise between these conflicting objectives. Unfortunately these are direct quotes, so either the typos have to stay in, or (sic)s or [square brackets]s have to be inserted. If you have suggestions for improvement, by all means offer them here.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They also represent only the negative reviews. In the interests of NPOV, positive reviews should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)