Talk:John Reed (novelist): Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Novelreader in topic Unsourced quotes
Content deleted Content added
→Unsourced quotes: Removal of Sourced quotes |
Novelreader (talk | contribs) Comment |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a "sourced" quote. I was under the impression that we're looking for third parties to establish that a quote is notable. Here we have an author going through his own books and deciding which of his own quotes are memorable enough for inclusion in Wikiquote. I have no reason to think his self-quotes inaccurate (though who knows, given his track record of deceitfully manipulating social media,) but I don't think this counts as "sourced."[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a "sourced" quote. I was under the impression that we're looking for third parties to establish that a quote is notable. Here we have an author going through his own books and deciding which of his own quotes are memorable enough for inclusion in Wikiquote. I have no reason to think his self-quotes inaccurate (though who knows, given his track record of deceitfully manipulating social media,) but I don't think this counts as "sourced."[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: The quotes are "sourced." For sufficiently notable works, editors generally exercise considerable latitude in selecting passages they consider [[WQ:Q|quotable]]. You may be right about the quality of the selections, and I have my doubts about the quality of the works, but I am not sure [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=John_Reed_%28novelist%29&diff=1082182&oldid=1081512 wholesale deletion] is justified. ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::: The quotes are "sourced." For sufficiently notable works, editors generally exercise considerable latitude in selecting passages they consider [[WQ:Q|quotable]]. You may be right about the quality of the selections, and I have my doubts about the quality of the works, but I am not sure [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=John_Reed_%28novelist%29&diff=1082182&oldid=1081512 wholesale deletion] is justified. ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
It is alleged that the article was written by Mr Reed, although no proof is offered. Yes, User:Lyltry edited the article and made no other edits, but that proves nothing, nor did he/she start the article. Be that as it may, sourcing quotes to a particular published novel is valid sourcing. I can find no policy that a third party is necessary to establish that a quote is notable. However, in the interests of avoiding disputes I, as a third party with no connection whatsoever with Mr. Reed, have chosen to insert some sourced quotes. I am sure that nobody will want to remove properly sourced quotes.--[[User:Novelreader|Novelreader]] 12:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:56, 18 February 2010
Unsourced quotes
This article is full of unsourced quotes, and was written by one of Reed's many fake identities, User:Lyltry.[1][2] What do we do about this?
Also, is Wikinews considered a reliable source on Wikiquote?[3] I would say it shouldn't be, but wondering about the practices here.Proabivouac 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that it should be deleted as John Reed's personal spam, and unworthy of being included in Wikiquote. Jonas Rand 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Try moving a VfD and see what happens, Madam!--80.168.13.194 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Re your edit:[4]
- There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a "sourced" quote. I was under the impression that we're looking for third parties to establish that a quote is notable. Here we have an author going through his own books and deciding which of his own quotes are memorable enough for inclusion in Wikiquote. I have no reason to think his self-quotes inaccurate (though who knows, given his track record of deceitfully manipulating social media,) but I don't think this counts as "sourced."Proabivouac 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The quotes are "sourced." For sufficiently notable works, editors generally exercise considerable latitude in selecting passages they consider quotable. You may be right about the quality of the selections, and I have my doubts about the quality of the works, but I am not sure wholesale deletion is justified. ~ Ningauble 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Try moving a VfD and see what happens, Madam!--80.168.13.194 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It is alleged that the article was written by Mr Reed, although no proof is offered. Yes, User:Lyltry edited the article and made no other edits, but that proves nothing, nor did he/she start the article. Be that as it may, sourcing quotes to a particular published novel is valid sourcing. I can find no policy that a third party is necessary to establish that a quote is notable. However, in the interests of avoiding disputes I, as a third party with no connection whatsoever with Mr. Reed, have chosen to insert some sourced quotes. I am sure that nobody will want to remove properly sourced quotes.--Novelreader 12:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)