User talk:RogDel/Notability/Kedar Joshi

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

This appears to be a very good example of a person who may not be notable on en.WP but looks clearly notable on en.WQ per simple & logical arguments given in User:RogDel/Notability as a source of quotes & User:RogDel. Quotes of the person that appear objectively notable in themselves are boldfaced. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have hide the article in the history. I presume you made this article for discussion purposes, so this will do. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussions[edit]

Discussion 8[edit]

Kedar Joshi was quoted with remarkable praise by a presumably independent & decent Spanish source; he was quoted a number of times in The Times of India’s Sacred Space column alongside highly noted individuals; an MD cited him in the very beginning of his research paper that was published in a reputable journal; two researchers quoted him alongside Confucius while beginning their paper which too was published in a respectable journal; a prominent newspaper in the Bahamas, The Nassau Guardian, cited his quote in its Quote in Time section; a notable website too included one of his quotations. He seems to have been quoted in a minimum of 6 decently reliable sources. If Wikipedia can write biography of a person who has significant coverage (significant coverage is required so that WP can write a whole article like a biography; thus significant coverage is not vital to the concept of notability) on him in a couple of reliable sources (many a times even just a single source seems to suffice), why on earth can’t Wikiquote include quotations of a person who is quoted in so many reliable sources? A person quoted in as many independent, reputable & reliable sources is not even barely notable on a compendium of quotations (I’m not saying an encyclopedia of biographies, such as Wikipedia) which has no restriction on space, such as Wikiquote (the lack of restriction on space is one of the main reasons why WQ should have the lowest standards of notability among all serious compendiums of quotations)? You got to be kidding me, right? ~ RogDel (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, per Wikiquote:Quotability, The presence of a quote in a published collection of quotations is strong evidence of quotability, both as to the quote and as to the author of the quote. I think this almost implies that Joshi is quotable and notable on Wikiquote, since 6 independent & reliable secondary sources could certainly be presumed to be equivalent to 1 tertiary source (i.e. a published collection of quotations) in the matter of assessing quotability. ~ RogDel (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The key is in a published collection of quotations. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is a tertiary source. ~ RogDel (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In which published collection of quotations does Mr. Joshi appear? The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying 6 independent & reliable secondary sources could certainly be presumed to be equivalent to 1 reliable tertiary source in the matter of assessing quotability. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The way even a couple of independent & reliable secondary sources (e.g. NYT) would be considered equivalent to one reliable tertiary source (e.g. The Encyclopædia Britannica) in the matter of assessing notability on Wikipedia. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In other words, significant coverage in a couple of independent & reliable secondary sources is considered sufficient if there is no coverage in an (independent &) reliable tertiary source in order to write biography of a person on Wikipedia. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Now, look at it this way. Let’s go to the basics. What is notability? What can be considered notable? That which is capable of being noted, that which is noticeable, capable of being seen or noticed. Thus, that which is noted in an independent source which can be relied upon can be considered notable, or can be considered proven to be notable. Remember that notability is not to be confused with fame, though unfortunately it seems it is often confused, not so much on Wikipedia but on Wikiquote. None of Kedar Joshi’s quotes may be notable for The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations purposes, for example. And that is only because The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, being a paper project, has restriction on space and thus perhaps it can include only highly notable quotations. But what on earth should stop Wikiquote from including quotations of someone like Kedar Joshi when it has no restriction on space? Nothing except ignorance, apathy, ego and prejudices of its established editors, perhaps! ~ RogDel (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of quotations of someone like Kedar Joshi does not make Wikiquote substandard. Does inclusion of a biography of a barely notable person make Wikipedia substandard? No, it doesn’t. It rather only makes it more useful & important. It is thus not the inclusion but the exclusion of quotations of someone like Kedar Joshi that harms Wikiquote. ~ RogDel (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The opposite is true. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations doesn't have quotes by Kedor Joshi (and the like) because they (the publishing company) have notability standards. Of course I could say they don't publish me because it's just a "paper project" (a very flexible rationale), but if I were actually notable, I'd be there (I'm not). Finally, your standards are too low (almost non-existent). You keep saying "highly reliable source" over and over again, referring to newspapers. Here in Portugal, a 64 year-old lady has just won the lottery. A bunch of newspapers got to interview her. These are all highly reliable (independent) sources. Maybe we should create a page for her? ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You’re missing my point. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, being an 1100-page book, cannot aim to include each and every notable quotation, and therefore restricts itself to the inclusion of say highly notable quotations. WQ (like WP), having no restriction on space, can include each and every notable quotation. If The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations were a (paper) encyclopedia, it won’t include biographies of barely notable people because of restriction on space; Wikipedia, however, does include such biographies since it has no restriction on space. My notability standards for WQ are logically equivalent to the notability standards that are for WP; the only difference is in the nature of the two different projects; the latter is an encyclopedia while the former is a compendium of quotations. Kedar Joshi may not be notable on en.Wikipedia because maybe he lacks significant coverage in English sources, but he is notable on Wikiquote because he is quoted in independent and reliable published sources. Again, What is notability? What can be considered notable? That which is capable of being noted, that which is noticeable, capable of being seen or noticed. Thus, that which is noted in an independent source which can be relied upon can be considered notable, or can be considered proven to be notable. That’s the essence of the concept of notability. WP adheres to it, and so should WQ. ~ RogDel (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So we should have an article for that lady who won the lottery. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In order to give my opinion on that I think I must see the sources and the coverage first. If she has significant coverage on her in independent & reliable published sources she would be notable on Wikipedia, and therefore notable on Wikiquote too. I’d suggest creating an article on her in your userspace, the way I’ve created one on Kedar Joshi in mine. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


Suppose you want to write an article on the following quotation by Kedar Joshi in Wikipedia.

What would be required? Significant coverage in independent & reliable published sources. Again, why significant coverage? Because you are supposed to write a whole article on that quotation, and not just to mention it there. And why multiple sources? Because you are supposed to write a balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. And since this quotation by Kedar Joshi does not seem to have any significant coverage on it in any reliable published sources, there cannot be any article on it in Wikipedia. But why cannot this quote be included in Wikiquote when it is clearly notable, as it is reliably proved that it is capable of being seen or noticed independently. That's what notability is all about! ~ RogDel (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So what I am saying is the above quotation by Kedar Joshi is notable in itself, notable irrespective of Wikipedia, Wikiquote or The Oxford Dictionary Quotations. The only thing is that Wikipedia cannot write an article on it because there is no significant coverage on it in reliable published sources which is required to write a whole article; The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations might not include it because it can only include highly notable quotations as it has space restriction. But Wikiquote can include that quotation because it is not limited by aforementioned things that limit Wikipedia and The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. ~ RogDel (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So he who really thinks that the above quotation by Kedar Joshi is non-notable is probably confusing notability with fame or high notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)