Talk:Cut to the chase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure whether the use of the term "jump cut" is correct in this context. The Wikipedia definition of "jump cut" seems to mean something different. (unsigned)

No, it would NOT be correct to call this a jump cut. The essence of a jump cut is a discontinuity during a specific action. El Ingles 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to a jump cut in June.--Londoneye 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from User:195.8.190.54

User:195.8.190.54 left the following unsigned message on my talk page:

My apologies if this is not the correct method of addressing the problem, but I am otherwise unaware of how you may be contacted. On the page "Cut to the Chase", I have updated the article using known, checkable facts, in an attempt at accuracy. Recent criticisms aimed at Wikipedia syggest that it cannot be seen to be accurate anymore if anyone can affect the entries; ergo, I understand the need for 'policing' alterations to entries. However, there has been a noticable trend in certain Monitors apparently unwilling to allow, seemingly peevishly, "Their" pages. or "their" pet subject to be upgraded or updated. The current problem, CUT TO THE CHASE, might appear to be a case in point. In short, the statement that this term is taken from the era of silent movies is quite simply wrong; at best it is a mild joke, at worst it is wildly innacurate; this is meant to be an accurate encyclopedia. My statement that the origin of the word comes from an older source is true, a verifiable historical fact. However, this has been repeatedly dimissed and ignored as it simply doesn't seem to suit somebody who clings childishly to his own interpretation. Now, I have received a threat of 'final warning' for 'vandalism' when I am trying to add a correction to a mistake. This smacks of a 'Fanboy' mentality better suited to TV Show conventions where fans can argue their point of veiw ad infinitum; The difference here is that You are clinging to a misinformation and propogating said mistake by wiping off a factual account to reiterate a statement nothing more grounded than an old wives tale. This is tantamouint to bullying of the worst kind, and a revelation of perhaps a lower standard of information than might be expected. Wikipedia is being degraded by such behaviour, and I for one must reconsidder its accuracy from this point: Student entries proffered for my attention containing Wikipedia citations may need to be rejected from this time forth for this very reason Please consider your misuse of power.

Prof. Richard Cohen, Bsc. Bed.(Hons)

The solution is simple. Prof. Cohen has "updated the article using known, checkable facts" and that what he says is "a verifiable historical fact". All he has to do is provide references showing that his explanation of the origin of the phrase is correct, as other editors of the page have done to confirm their explanation; see WP:V and WP:RS. It would also be helpful to link his university page, which as a professor he no doubt has; I have been unable to locate it. Not only has he provided no references, he has tried to delete those given by others. As a professor, he will be well aware that it is poor practice to dismiss well-referenced claims without giving his own references. How would he mark a student entry that disagreed with something he had said, dismissing it as "wildly innacurate (sic)" and "an old wives tale", and asserted that the student was "using known, checkable facts", but failed to include any references? I stress that this is not my pet subject, merely one that has come to my attention. I also draw the user's attention to WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Finally, I agree with him that at university level, students should not just cite Wikipedia as a source; he should be rejecting such essays already. - Runcorn 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)