Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Saad[edit]

Rupert loup's deletions This quote was deleted by Rupert loup without explanation on the talk page:

  • The Satan is using this opportunity as it has always done to lead us astray from our religious duties in the name of precautions, treatment and protection. Whenever a calamity strikes, Satan makes the victims of calamity commit such acts which destroy their rewards and add to their woes. This is the time to populate the mosques and to invite the ummah towards repentance. As I have already said, this is the time to make our supplications effective. This is not the time to pay heed to false remedial measures….

He claims MEMRI is not reliable, however

  1. Wikiquote has many quotations by MEMRI on many pages such as Osama bin Laden
  2. The quote was actually first published at New Age Islam and then republished by MEMRI.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If the original source is reliable then the original source should be used. Rupert Loup 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done Rupert Loup 22:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for adding it back with updated sources.
Just to note: There are many quotations from MEMRI on wikiquote. I don't see this as a problem as long as they are clearly sourced to MEMRI. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the quote. Wikiquote policy says
  • Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. from Wikiquote:Wikiquote. This is not the case here.
  • The source MEMRI is a propaganda and unreliable source. Accourding to Sourcewatch "Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews."
  • So please provide reliable sources for this quote and demonstrate why it is notable and worth adding as per the policy. You may not restore the content without discussion on the article talk page first. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikiquote is not wikipedia. Quotes can be biased and from biased sources, for example we can quote from the Communist manifesto. MEMRI is not the source, just reporting a quote from Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi . There are just as many people who believe MEMRI to be reliable, but for quotes, the wikipedia concept of reliable has not the same relevance. The quote has been reported across many popular news and other websites, MEMRI is just one of them (and MEMRI has a wikipedia article, showing that it is a notable). The quote is even sourced to New Age Islam not MEMRI. The quote is also not a copyright violation it is just a short extract from a larger text. "Enduring relevance" does not apply for a current event that just started recently. About your misquoting and mis-interpreting a guideline (not "policy") I have already replied elsewhere. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people., If the only source that you have is a shitty propaganda site, then It is a good sign that your quote does not qualify as one that has achieved fame. I would like to see which sources have quoted the said text. Just saying so does not meet the burden. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • regarding MEMRI here is what Media Bias Fact Check says about them. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks."
Do you still need more evidence that MEMRI is a shitty propaganda site and not a reliable source ? If a shitty propaganda site is all this user can find to support a non random comment then that is a good indication of that quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The quote has been quoted across many other internet media. The quote is from New Age Islam not from MEMRI. The full lecture was also originally posted online by Tablighis. Some people have said that MEMRI is unreliable and some said it is reliable, but this is irrelevant. We are reporting quotes, unlike an encyclopedia like wikipedia which only reports facts. Quotes don't have to be from unbiased sources. What a quote says does not have to be "correct". We can quote somebody saying the earth is flat. The Communist manifesto is unreliable and biased, but we can still quote from it. But if it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead being moved to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I have asked evidence in the form of reliable sites (not YouTube or propaganda sites) that have published and discussed this quote. If you are utterly failing to establish the criteria of "has achieved fame ", then you have to self revert your edit or I will do it. I would prefer that you do it yourself. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The quote has been quoted across many other internet media. The quote is from New Age Islam not from MEMRI. The full lecture was also originally posted online by Tablighis. Some people have said that MEMRI is unreliable and some said it is reliable, but this is irrelevant. We are reporting quotes, unlike an encyclopedia like wikipedia which only reports facts. Quotes don't have to be from unbiased sources. What a quote says does not have to be "correct". We can quote somebody saying the earth is flat. The Communist manifesto is unreliable and biased and propaganda, but we can still quote from it. But if it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead being moved to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not impossible, in fact if the quote is really notable, (which is not the case with your quote) you will find hundreds of newspapers publishing it and discussing about the quote. You have failed to justify the inclusion of this quote by establishing why it is notable. you are now repeating yourself. I will wait for a day to give you more time and then remove these quotes from the article.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For articles like Democracy, the fame criteria is of course important. But for a current events article especially on a minor incident, it is much less so. Most of the quotes on wikiquote have not been the subject of discussion. This in only the case for relatively few quotes on wikiquote, such as bible quotes or shakespeare quotes, where each quote has been discussed by somebody. But we are not only quoting the Bible on wikiquote. Again, this is something even a school kid could understand. It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that evenn a school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are failing to justify why your quote should be included, then it is your problem. Onus is on you. I will wait for a day to give you more time to establish fame of this quote and then remove these quotes from the article. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Rupert Loup, Please stop edit warring and restoring this quote. You are supposed to discuss your case here on this page. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm neutral about this quote, I'm not for or against it. Whathever be the consensus on this particular quote, don't make edits that delete the other quotes without consensus. Rupert Loup 15:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rupert Loup: then stop re-adding this quote. This user has failed to justify why this quote deserves to be here, nor has given evidence for the same. Unless there is a consensus to add it into the article, it cannot be added back. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kandhlawi is notable, the Tablighi was very notable in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (due to the Tablighi virus-hotspot issue), and the quote has the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poingnat expression. The main rationale after notability to add quotes in WQ. WQ:Q. Do you have a better a quote about the Tablighi-Coronavirus issue? --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You were asked to provide evidence to show this particular quote being extensively published and discussed, failing which it would be removed. I will wait for one more day, for you to provide evidence, after which I will remove it. It should not be restored without consensus and doing so, is edit warring. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. Kandhlawi is notable
  2. the Tablighi was very notable in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (due to the Tablighi virus-hotspot issue),
  3. the quote has the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poingnat expression. A main rationale after notability to add quotes in WQ. WQ:Q.
  4. the quote is sourced

You have not refuted any of these reasons. It is not mandatory at wikiquote to show that the quote is being extensively published and disscused. (On the contrary, if one adds additional sources to a quote that would prove this, these additional sources are often removed by editors as "unncessary".) (but anyway, I found many additional online sources (offline sources like print magazines I didn't check, these were from sites like MEMRI. you may claim that MEMRI is not reputable, even though many believe it to be reliable, but what matters is that it is notable, which it is, it even has a wikipedia article)

There is also no such onus rule on wikiquote. Pratap keeps forgetting that he is not at wikipedia anymore. Where there is a dispute, and there is no consensus , the status quo ante (the state before the edit war) must be restored. The edit war started with Pratab's removals. That is how a consensus-based process works. "restoring the status quo ante pending discussion" is how it is handled here at wikiquote --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Please do not add entire paragraphs from copyrighted websites. These are not quotes. Also note below.

  • Please read Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not
  • Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. from Wikiquote:Wikiquote. This is not the case here. If you disagree then explain here first. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the massive copyright violation from The Wire yet again. If you restore them again, you may be reported to the administrators. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You need to prove that it is a copyright violation. How much in percentage of the whole text is quoted? --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a template that I have posted on the top of this page. Click the links and read it to understand the requirements. You are not allowed to restore Copyright violations. let another editor judge this and revert me if he finds it appropriate. YOU sir should not engage in the edit warring to restore your own copyright violations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I repeat : You need to prove that it is a copyright violation. How much in percentage of the whole text is quoted? --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The content is currently 730 words. Way beyond what the rules allow. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
And how many words are in the original text at the Wire? --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Update Thankfully administrator GMG has removed the content discussed here as a copyright violation. In the edit summary he had said, " This reprints literally the entire article word-for-word. So yes, this is a copyright violation. Please do not restore. " I am marking this as resolved. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Rupert loup has again restored the copyright in the page. A block seems to be necessary now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The quote from wire (A copyrighted source) is also in clear violation of Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes at 293 words. And it has been removed. Please do not restore --Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes by Neethi P[edit]

  • Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. from Wikiquote:Wikiquote. This is not the case here. If you disagree then explain here first.

The issue about the copyright violations are being discussed in the thread above. In this thread I would request დამოკიდებულება to explain and establish in this thread how the comments by Neethi P qualify as "has achieved fame ". This is sorely lacking here. A self published source (The author's article) does not count as an evidence here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I dont agree, there has to be a reasonable fame before something can be added here. If there are no evidence then this content need to go. Until there are solid evidence that can help establish that the quote "has achieved fame ". Wikiquote is not a repository of what every Tom Dick and Harry said about something. You are missing the whole point of Wikiquote and you should read the policy pages once more. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Since you are the one who is adding this quote so the onus is on you to demonstrate to a reasonable degree with evidence (in the form of actual links) that your quote "has achieved fame ". If you fail to demonstrate that, then the quote will have to be removed from this page. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There are millions of articles on COVID in India, this is no different. If you are utterly failing to establish the criteria of "has achieved fame ", then you have to self revert your edit or I will do it. I would prefer that you do it yourself. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not impossible, in fact if the quote is really notable, (which is not the case with your quote) you will find hundreds of newspapers publishing it and discussing about the quote. You have failed to justify the inclusion of this quote by establishing why it is notable. you are now repeating yourself. I will wait for a day to give you more time and then remove these quotes from the article. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For articles like Democracy, the fame criteria is of course important. But for a current events article especially on a minor incident, it is much less so. Most of the quotes on wikiquote have not been the subject of discussion. This in only the case for relatively few quotes on wikiquote, such as bible quotes or shakespeare quotes, where each quote has been discussed by somebody. But we are not only quoting the Bible on wikiquote. Again, this is something even a school kid could understand. It is impossible for a current event to say if a quote has achieved (enduring) fame. This is so elementary that evenn a school kid could grasp it. Achieved (enduring) fame is also not a mandatory requirement for quotes, it is only one of many other criteria in the guideline. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are failing to justify why your quote should be included, then it is your problem. Onus is on you. I will wait for a day to give you more time to establish fame of this quote and then remove these quotes from the article. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Neethi is a scholar that was cited by several academic secondary sources, that alone is enough to meet WQ:Q. Also read WQ:CIVIL. Rupert Loup 00:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
She is not a notable person. Neither she is an authority on Coronavirus. There is no reason why her quotes are worthy of including here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
How is not notable if she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of her? Rupert Loup 14:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all, stop edit warring to add it back without discussion and consensus. Please provide evidence in the form of website links, where this quote from Neethi has been extensively published and discussed in detail. IF you fail to produce reliable website links to establish that these quotes are notable, then they cannot be added. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The quote has the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poingnat expression. The main rationale after notability to add quotes in WQ. WQ:Q Rupert Loup 14:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I have already read WQ:Q multiple times. The author is neither highly notable nor is this quote poignant. You have not provided any evidence why they meet the criteria. Please revert yourself until you can provide evidence for the same. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to know what kind of proof would satisfy you. The main article about the Covidvirus is Coronavirus disease 2019 and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. So let us know which quotes in that article satisfy your criteria and which quotes do not. Then we compare these criteria to the Neethi quote. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is not for a general discussion on Wikiquote. Please seek help elsewhere if you do not understand the requirements for a quote to be notable. Please provide evidence in the form of website links, where this quote from Neethi has been extensively published and discussed in detail. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
No evidence was provided why these quote pass the notability criteria. I will remove it tomorrow. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
And it will reverted until you gain consensus. Rupert Loup 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Length of quotes by Neethi P[edit]

The Wire is a copyrighted source and the length of the quote as can be seen here at length of 293 words clearly violated Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes, why did you split it into two here. The problem is still the same, adding a new line in between, does not resolve this problem. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes by PM Modi removed[edit]

Quotes

"On March 22, at 5 pm stand on your doors and windows for 5 minutes and clap, ring a bell to salute people who are serving the nation tirelessly"

"All leading experts say 21 days is the minimum we require to break the coronavirus transmission cycle. If we are not able to handle these 21 days, the country and your family will go back 21 years and many families will be destroyed. I am saying this not as the Prime Minister but as your family member."

Discussion

Rupert loup please explain why you have removed the quotes by PM Modi that I had added. If you removed this by mistake then you should add it back ASAP.

Also there is a discussion ongoing about the copyright violations from the wire and you have re-added the content without joining the discussion or explaining why this is not a copyright violation. Your edit summary is inadequate. I suggest you to self revert this edit of yours. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I will wait for a day to give you more time and then restore these quotes into the article.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rupert loup you have again removed these quotes without explaining your concerns about that content. Please stop . --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The problems listed by GMG have been solved and there is no consensus here to delete the content. Rupert Loup 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Rupert Loup, no they are not, and in this thread, you need to explain why you are removing the content by PM Modi. Please stop the edit warring or you may get blocked. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted to the last accepted version, that means the version before your edits. If you wan't to re add that content you can do it but don't delete other content without consensus. Rupert Loup 14:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Rupert Loup, You are removing this quote without explanation. You are responsible for your edits. I am reporting your edtis to administrator now. Please self revert if you do not want to get blocked. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you both need to lay off the edit-warring and let an administrator decide, or you will both be blocked. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I preffer solving the issue by discussion. Rupert Loup 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Rupert Loup, Then stop edit warring. Self revert yourself and answer the questions. This is the only way to save yourself from getting blocked now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

Edit warring[edit]

I've become lost in your discussions above regarding this edit war. I have restored what appear to be acceptable (sourced) quotes - now both sets of quotes are on the page. If the edit warring continues, I am inclined to block you both. Please discuss before making any further deletions. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with that as I said. Rupert Loup 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, Thank you for restoring Modi's quote. This user was removing them without discussing. No the current version still has copyright violations from a copyrighted source, The Wire, that @GreenMeansGo: removed a day back. @Rupert Loup: basically reverted GMG by dropping some lines. I have explained the objections in the section above and Rupert has failed to provide any evidence or rational justification for keeping the content here, and yet he continues to edit war. It seems there are some competency issues in his understanding of Copyright rules and Quotability criteria. Please advice how to proceed. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I actually do not see any copyright issues on the current page. To which quote are you referring, and what specifically is the issue? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, I am referring to the indiscriminate copying from copyrighted site The Wire. (Neethi P., How the Coronavirus Outbreak Is Also a Socio-Economic Inequality Issue, 23 March 2020, The Wire). I have created separate threads above to discuss their notability (unremarkable) as well as copyright status, as they are separate issues. This is an unremarkable author who published an article in a news site. No one else discussed their quotes nor republished it. There is no reason for it to be here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, And now this user is edit warring [3], [4] to remove the copyright check tag from this page. This is getting ridiculous now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are who is reverting my edits,[5] and is hounding me[6], accussing me of bad faith, and asking in WQ:AN for blocking me. You are not being WQ:CIVIL. Stop harassing, stop warring and stop of being disruptive. Rupert Loup 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I ask again for the needless edit warring to cease. As to the quote in question, I do not see that it causes any copyright problems nor that it fails any test of notability. Any time a user quotes from a news article or similar source, it is taking a portion of what was written elsewhere and putting it here - I do not see this as copying from a copyrighted source, as you put it. Only if this is excessive and takes too much from a site is this an issue - which I do not believe occurred here. In my mind, this is a valid quote to have on the page and I do not believe it represents a copyright issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott: This user doesn't care for Copyrights [7] (openDemocracy use a Commons policy). The user is just accusing people randomly and see what sticks, they don't know if the place were the content is published is copyrighted or not. Rupert Loup 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That is not a policy and there is no consensus here for that removal. Rupert Loup 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes says, "Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote, absent a consensus that exceptional circumstances exist." On this talk page, there is no consensus that this is an exceptional circumstance. On the contrary, no one is able to justify why this quote is notable. So there is no reason for it to be added here. Kindly self revert yourself and remove this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Exeption for what? That is not a policy and you shouldn't refer to it as such. And claiming that the quote is not notable is not consensus for its removal when people here already explained to you how it meet quotability. Rupert Loup 07:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Exeption for what? Please click Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes and read it yourself. The quote was added recently without consensus. It was objected to and removed from the article, till a consensus could be achieved to restore the quote back. The quote violates length "guidelines" no evidence was provided why it is quotable. But instead you are edit warring and repeatedly re-adding it back into the article without achieving consensus first. The ONUS to achieve consensus to add a content is on the editor or the person adding it. You are not doing it and blatantly edit warring here. It is unfortunate that the admins are not calling this out. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not a "guideline" and I already gave the evidence that first the author is notable and second has the artfulness factor to meet WQ:Q. The accepted consensus was the last version made by UDScott after said "I have restored what appear to be acceptable (sourced) quotes - now both sets of quotes are on the page. If the edit warring continues, I am inclined to block you both." You said that you had "no intentions to continue the edit warring" but the first thing that you do after your block was lifted is delete the quote that was added by me again because you think that said quote is "Garbage". So your problem with the quotes never was Copyright, you just don't like the quotes. Rupert Loup 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with this quotes and they have all been explained well in separate threads. You know that the quote of yours violated Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes, why did you split it into two here. The problem is still the same, adding a new line in between, does not resolve this problem. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I separeted it in two because I think that they are more quotable in this way. I don't know what "problem" you are talking about since that link is not a policy. You specifically said to Ningauble that this quote was garbage after I told you that there was no consensus to remove it. Rupert Loup 10:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
And where is the consensus to add it ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, Please note that this User:Rupert loup is not participating in the discussion. It has been explained in detail above all the problems with the quote and I intend to remove the problematic quote. I am adding a note so as to avoid the possibility of this user reverting me and starting another edit war over this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing major part of the quote[edit]

Hi @Rupert loup: Please explain why you removed the line below from Thakur's quote. That is the most important part of the entire quote. "However, the latest available data on trade and domestic output indicators do not suggest any adverse impact on the economy."--Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not part of the quote in the article, it's a paraphrasing made by the paper. Rupert Loup 00:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the article quoting him there neither. You can add it as a note if you want, but that's not a direct quote it's an attribution. Rupert Loup 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of quotes[edit]

The Article must be in chronological order as it is an event, that is still ongoing. You have reverted me here without explaining why you are following Alphabetical order --Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that we can add sections specifying the timeline. Rupert Loup 23:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The quotes must be in chronological order--Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree but I don't think that is something contentious. Rupert Loup 10:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Quotes should be ordered by Alphabetical. This should be changed. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Please point me to that policy. It makes no sense to put alphabetical order on an event article. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Just check any events article like COVID-19 pandemic or COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I am discussing on this page. Either provide a policy or a reasonable justification. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Setting aside for a moment what is best for such a page, I believe the push for sorting the quotes alphabetically is to match the established template for theme pages (see Wikiquote:Templates/Themes). However, I can also see the value in having a chronological sorting in a case such as this, where it is about an ongoing event. I would suggest opening a discussion regarding this and inviting others to provide input rather than going back and forth here. Better would be to make a proposal (with your associated rationale) and ask others to comment and indicate their preference. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Quotes ordered by alphabet[edit]

Proposal: Quotes ordered by chronology[edit]

  • Support. The Article must be in chronological order as it is an event, where the chronology really matters. Chronological quotes will help the reader understand how the statements of the notable people evolved overtime as the situation and the circumstances changed. Most of the leaders were underestimating the pandemic but this changed over time. Alphabetical order will lead to a jumbled mixture of the quotes that will be very hard to comprehend. If someone wants to read quotes by a particular person, they can read it on that person's page. so repeating the same alphabetical order here hardly makes any sense to me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda[edit]

This propaganda by a non-notable publication is not memorable material nor it has enough quality to be here. Rupert Loup 21:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)