User talk:Illegitimate Barrister

Archives

Archive 1 (June 25, 2012 – May 25, 2017) Archive 2 (May 25, 2017 – present)

Renaming possible?

Cf.: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Regis_Debray.Régis Debray is his actual name. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Paul Bechly

Can you please delete Paul Bechly and then ping me, so I can handle their Commons category and Wikidata item? With their en.wiki article deleted (lack of notability), this is the last thing left. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Done. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on X-Dynasty

I hope this meets you well Illegitimate Barrister there is a malicious vandalism on the article on X-Dynasty here on Wikiquote by an anonymous user. Bhetyic3 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed and blocked. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Illegitimate Barrister Bhetyic3 (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Use of quotes for attack pages

Hello! I would like to bring the conduct of ᘙ (talk · contributions) to your attention. They have recently engaged in aggressive edit warring at Godhra train burning over the inclusion of predominantly right-wing, Hindu nationalist, and Islamophobic quotes. For some context, the w:Godhra train burning was an incident in 2002 in India, where a train of primarily Hindus was burned. The causes of the burning are disputed, however, the Hindu nationalist government at the time blamed it primarily on Muslims, leading to the w:2002 Gujarat violence where Hindu mobs committed widespread violence against Muslim minority communities. I stumbled upon the Wikiquote page for the train burning, only to find out that basically every quote was by Hindu nationalist figures attacking Muslims as well as liberals, secularists, and leftists for not adequately dealing with Muslims. Most were highly unreliably sourced, some even sourced by far-right platforms, such as w:OpIndia which has been blacklisted as a source on the English Wikipedia. I cleaned up much of the partisan quoting of the article to include a broader list of quotes from multiple perspectives. However, ᘙ (talk · contributions) has since aggressively edit warred against this, despite a warning on the talk page, and despite an ongoing discussion on the issue. Following me reverting them, they then created a w:WP:POVFORK page on Debi Singh Tewatia for what appears to be the sole purpose of keeping these articles as attack pages. EarthDude (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

For context, this is the introduction to the Godhra train burning article over at [1]

The Godhra train burning refers to the arson attack on 27 February 2002, in which a mob of around 1,000–2,000 local Muslims surrounded and set fire to coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train near Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India, killing 59 Hindu pilgrims and activists (kar sevaks) who were returning from Ayodhya after participating in a religious ceremony related to the Ram Temple movement.[1] Forensic analysis by the Ahmedabad Forensic Science Laboratory established that approximately 60 liters of petrol was procured in advance, poured from outside through windows and doors after the coach was uncoupled and isolated, igniting the blaze that rapidly engulfed the compartment.[2][3] A special court convicted 31 individuals of conspiracy and murder in 2011, sentencing 11 to death (later commuted to life imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court in 2017), with the High Court upholding the findings of deliberate external arson based on witness testimonies, material evidence, and the absence of internal ignition sources.[4][5]

You are welcome to add broader list of quotes from multiple perspectives, but so far all you have done are mass deletions (vandalism or censorship or pov whitewashing). --ᘙ (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no way you are citing w:Grokipedia, the infamous AI-generated encyclopedia which is known to promote far-right conspiracy theories, to actually justify using quotes to attack Muslims. The opening paragraph of the article on the w:Godhra train burning in the English Wikipedia says the following:

The Godhra train burning occurred on the morning of 27 February 2002, when 59 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya were killed in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India. The cause of the fire remains disputed. The Gujarat riots, during which Muslims were the targets of widespread and severe violence, took place shortly afterward.

EarthDude (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging active admins @Codename Noreste @IOHANNVSVERVS. I believe the edit warring, creating at attack page at Debi Singh Tewatia, and now actively justifying the mass anti-Muslim quotes, deserves an admin response. EarthDude (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into this later today. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already protected the page while uninvolved. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

CC to @EarthDude to my response above. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm finding this dispute complicated and hard to understand/follow.

One thing I can say is I don't believe Debi Singh Tewatia is a candidate for speedy deletion, and is not an attack page as defined as "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron")." Please list it at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion instead, @EarthDude. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I can provide a small summary of what is going on, if you are having trouble following. Basically, in 2002, a Hindu nationalist state government in India allied with paramilitary and vigilante organisations to conduct statewide violence against the Muslim minority (See w:2002 Gujarat violence). The justification they gave was that a day prior, Hindus (many of whom were members of the aforementioned organisations) were attacked in an express train (See w:Godhra train burning). The cause, perpetrators, and the like, remains disputed and there is no scholarly consensus in regards to them. However, the government widely blamed Muslims for it all, thus leading to the violence against them. The crux of the issue here is that basically every quote in the Wikiquote article on the Godhra train burning is primarily attacking Muslims; either that or they are attacking liberals and secularists. When I tried cleaning up the article, and adding quotes which represented the incident more broadly, User ᘙ edit warred against me and claimed that I was engaging in "censorship", even though many quotes in their version of the article are unreliably sourced (One even used w:OpIndia as a source, a far-right platform that has been blacklisted in the English Wikipedia). With their grokipedia quote, the user is seemingly justifying their use of anti-Muslim quotes.

As for Debi Singh Tewatia, my understanding of attack pages is from the English Wikipedia, where I have seen many cases wherein articles can be considered attack pages if the subject receiving the attacks is a community instead of an individual. If that is not the interpretation followed in Wikiquote, I'll open a VfD for the page. EarthDude (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, open a VFD please.

Also, was ᘙ removing quotes you added or only restoring quotes you removed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Which quote(s) were cited to OpIndia? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I shall open a VfD. As for ᘙ, they were restoring quotes I had removed. The following quote they restored in this edit of theirs uses OpIndia as its source:

Till July 2002 neither Jan Sangharsh Manch nor Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee nor anyone else had suggested that the Godhra incident had not happened in the manner reported by the media and as stated by the State Government and others including the concerned railway personnel and the passengers but it had happened in a different manner,” the Nanavati Mehta Commission stated.... Regarding the ‘scuffle’, Nanavati-Mehta Commission had concluded, “From the evidence of all these witnesses and other material on record it becomes clear that except overcrowding in the train and occasional raising of slogans inside the train and on platforms of the intervening stations, the Ramsevaks had not done anything and no incident had happened earlier which could have led to the incident which later on happened at Godhra. In absence of any evidence whatsoever indicating any incident on the way, the Commission has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the suggestion made by JamiateUlma-E-Hind that a quarrel had taken place between Ramsevaks and vendors at Ujjain railway station is without any basis. Its journey from Ayodhya to Godhra was trouble-free.

The specific linked OpIndia article attacks the perpetrators as a "bloodthirsty Muslim mob" and claims that the establishment "meticulously tried to invalidate accounts of eyewitnesses and victims so they could save the Muslim mob". EarthDude (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Citing Grokipedia is not appropriate and a bad look, @ᘙ. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the entries at Godhra train burning do seem to lack quotability/notability. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude, could you provide 1-3 of the strongest examples of what you allege are "the mass anti-Muslim quotes" (which I believe you're also implying are undue/unnotable)? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I will provide a quote which best represent this:

But then, four years into the BJP regime, the prayers of the secularists were answered at last. A Muslim mob threateningly gathered around a train carrying Hindu pilgrims returning home from Ayodhya, and then, in the secularist version, a wagon suddenly caught fire from the inside. Was this a modern case of jauhar, self-immolation by women (26 of the victims) determined to escape rape by Muslim brutes? If you are a secularist, then yes, that is what you must believe, for the Muslim mob itself cannot have done anything unseemly. It was the Hindus who, in their communalist paranoia, overreacted to an imagined threat from a crowd of fellow Indians.... After this expression of American brain-dead parroting of Indian secularist propaganda, it was no surprise that the USA subsequently refused an entry visa to Narendra Modi when he was scheduled to visit the country. The stated reason was his violation of the International Religious Freedom Act. Indo-American Communists and American Christian fanatics jointly hailed this ban as a great success for their own lobbying.

Here, Muslims are termed as brutes and baselessly accused of intending to rape Hindus. The sourced book neither has a link nor a page number for verification. Keep in mind that the perpetrators, causes, and the like, continue to be disputed. Again, anti-Muslim quotes by themselves are not the issue. The issue is when an entire article only deals with one POV, that of attacking Muslims for the incident. The issue is when an editor repeatedly editwarres to keep all these quotes in place and then attempts to justify the anti-Muslim quotes. EarthDude (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the page Godhra train burning should even exist on Wikiquote. Seems like most/all of the entries are statements but not really "quotes" per Wikiquote:Quotability. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

on this edit with edit summary “Restored neutral caption to image.” I disagree with the revert, I think the edit may not align with standard practice. The standard practice across almost all pages is to use a real quote in the images, and in this case the quote is as neutral as it can be for such pages (from a highly notable individual, short, pithy, and quotable). I’m not sure why this would be considered a neutrality problem, since the quote is simply the Prime Minister expressing regret over the deaths of innocent Hindus. You misunderstood EarthDude. He is obviously right that the page on Debi Singh Tewatia is an "attack page", because it includes quotes where the subject regrets the burning of the 59 Hindus — "Inside the coach, 58 charred bodies were found. These included 26 women and 12 children " — which can be taken as one of the strongest examples of what are labeled by him “partisan, Hindu nationalist, and Islamophobic quotes”. There are different opinions about Grokipedia, but this particular page has a clearer narrative of events. If you haven’t seen that Grokipedia page yet, it might be worth looking at. Like other Wikiquote articles, there could be improvements made, including perhaps some trimming, which I have already started and can continue later. Also see these older related comments:
Most every group of quotes on a subject of controversy (and any religion is bound to be a subject of controversy) will have something objectionable for everyone, so here it is. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
‎I see absolutely no conflict here. Naturally the quotes of this intellectual professor reflect his opinions. The notable people quoted on wikiquotes all have POVs and express their POVs in their words. That's the way it goes. It's ok, nothing to worry about. 20:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The justification of POV-pushing, even as shorthand, doesn't really make sense in light of the WQ:NPOV policy, which recognizes that individual quotes more often than not do push a POV, which is remedied by adding additional countervailing quotes rather than by deletions. Peter1c (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no rule against quotes that express a point of view. If nobody actually had anything to say, there wouldn't be anything worth quoting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC) --ᘙ (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: "The standard practice across almost all pages is to use a real quote in the images", that's fine, you can use an actual quote in the caption, however with regards to "in this case the quote is as neutral as it can be for such pages (from a highly notable individual, short, pithy, and quotable). I’m not sure why this would be considered a neutrality problem, since the quote is simply the Prime Minister expressing regret over the deaths of innocent Hindus." Modi is deeply involved in the sectarian contentious dispute here so quoting him certainly isn't "as neutral as it can be", nor is his statement "short, pithy, and quotable".

As for Grokipedia, it's simply not a reliable source. It may provide "a clearer narrative" but that doesn't mean it is a more accurate one. Grokipedia says "Muslims surrounded and set fire to [the train]", while Wikipedia says "The cause of the fire remains disputed" and "Scholars remain skeptical about the claims of arson" with three inline citations supporting that last point. The five citations Grokipedia cites in its lede are quite poor.

I'm not sure about the NPOV dispute/allegations. You're right that having POV quotes isn't a problem, but they need to be presented in a balanced way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not simply the POV quotes. The issue is that basically every quote in the article is anti-Muslim; many which have unreliable sources, many of which aren't even quotes and more so statements, and many which deal with people that are still alive. Not to mention the fact that the user attempted to then justify the anti-Muslim quotes. EarthDude (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I do find that ᘙ has violated NPOV pretty seriously in their editing at the page Godhra train burning.

For example, one quote they added is cited to no author and only to an article from https://www.hvk.org/index.html, which describes itself as "A resource center for the promotion of Hindutva".

Another example is including a quote from Koenraad Elst, described by Wikipedia as "known primarily for his adherence to the Hindutva ideology and support of the Out of India theory, which is regarded as pseudo-historical by mainstream scholarship. Scholars accuse him of harboring Islamophobia." The quote from Elst is not notable or quotable, and is frankly quite trashy, using phrases such as "Muslim brutes" and speaking of "brain-dead parroting of Indian secularist propaganda".

I'm not sure the remedy but this is the problem in my assessment. Unless ᘙ can acknowledge this and agree to do better, I would consider topic banning ᘙ from Indian politics or Hindu-Muslim sectarian politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of a broad block? I just found out that the user has changed their accounts multiple times due to sockpuppetry and account abuse bans. See this discussion at AN: Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036#Using multiple accounts to edit same articles. Though the filing editor himself is somewhat problematic, the issue of Hindu nationalist and Islamophobic quotes, using quotes from figures like Koenraad Elst, and the like. ᘙ's userpage says they are an alt-account of User დამოკიდებულება, who seems to be the alleged sockmaster. Though I don't know how checkusers and sockpuppet investigations work on Wikiquote, it seems like admins did end up indef banning the other alleged sock accounts. Articles linked in the AN discussion, such as 2020 Palghar mob lynching, have also been edited by multiple of these accounts, including, more recently, by ᘙ. EarthDude (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion for this at the Admin noticeboard. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd support deleting the article as well. EarthDude (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

IOHANNVSVERVS I disagree with the mass removal of content from the article in your edits or reverts. This is not how such changes are normally handled; content changes should be addressed step by step with clear reasoning so that other editors can review and discuss them. If there was no prior discussion, could the reasons for the removal be explained here for each quote? As an example, what is your reasoning for the deletion of all quotes from the Nanavati Commission report or from the Justice Tewatia Committee? --ᘙ (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Quotes do not have to be neutral. Many quotes are actually quotes that portray related to train burning, what the victims went through, or what led to it and how people reacted.

What EarthDude does not say and omits in his text is that Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual.

He also falsely claims that npov applies to quotes by living people, if this would be the case we could not be quoting living people if even one person believes what the person said is not neutral

They falsely claim that the quotes are islamophobic or Hindu nationalist. All quotes were sourced. The topic is notable and much discussed so notable also for quotes

They said : "basically every quote was by Hindu nationalist figures attacking Muslims as well as liberals, secularists, and leftists for not adequately dealing with Muslims." This is not true, the majority of authors are not hindu nationalists, many were wrongly misrepresented by them as such, and those that are like Advani or Modi were not attacking Muslims as a whole, what EarthDude claims is a defamation of living people.

IOHANNVSVERVS said, But until there is consensus for inclusion the quotes should not be included, not the other way around. But this is not based on any wikiquote policy or practice. The policy does not claim this, otherwise in all disputes like at Donald Trump and all the other pages we would be moving quotes to the talkpage. But instead this is being solved Talk:Donald Trump by moving quotes to other pages, by removing non-neutral commentary describing the quote itself. normally one reverts to the page before the dispute especially when there was vandalism /censorship/edit-warring/mass deletions/pov whitewashing.

Wikiquote includes many quotes from controversial people like Donald Trump or Julius Evola, even though both are considered by some to be fascists. The quotes on this page are hardly as controversial as these.

If one is worried about imbalance, then one can add more positive and flattering quotes to balance it back out. Removing quotes because they may be seen as unflattering to a subject by some is considered to be POV whitewashing and goes against the impartial spirit of Wikiquote. Remember, the inclusion of a quote does not necessarily mean the endorsement of its content by Wikiquote.

If there are concerns about imbalance, the appropriate solution is to add additional quotes—especially those that present more positive or flattering perspectives—to balance the selection. Removing sourced quotes simply because some may view them as unflattering risks becoming POV whitewashing and goes against the impartial spirit of Wikiquote.

The neutrality template should not be interpreted as a call to censor or remove viewpoints. Rather, it signals that additional quotes representing different perspectives should be added so that the page reflects a fuller range of views. Balance is achieved through inclusion and context, not by suppressing sourced material.--ᘙ (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

First, the presence of viewpoints in quotes is not itself a neutrality problem. Quotes almost always express someone’s perspective—that is precisely why they are quotable. As has been noted in prior discussions across Wikiquote, neutrality is achieved at the *page level* by presenting a range of sourced viewpoints, not by censoring quotes simply because they reflect opinions that some editors may consider partisan or disagreeable.

Second, the key criteria for inclusion here are whether the quotes are sourced and relevant to the topic. If those conditions are met, their inclusion is generally appropriate. As several editors have pointed out in past policy discussions, Wikiquote does not determine whether a quoted opinion is “right,” “wrong,” flattering, or controversial—our role is to document what notable people have said.

If you believe the page currently overrepresents certain perspectives, the constructive solution is to **add additional quotes from other viewpoints**—for example, statements focusing more on the victims, the events surrounding the train burning, reactions from other political or social figures, etc. Expanding the range of sourced material helps achieve balance far better than removing existing sourced quotes.

Third, labeling sources as “fringe” or politically aligned is not, by itself, a valid reason for removal if the quote is properly sourced. Many notable figures—across the political spectrum—express strong or controversial views. Wikiquote routinely includes such statements, even when they are critical, unpopular, or sharply partisan. Excluding them solely because they portray one side of a debate would risk moving toward editorial filtering rather than documentation.

Finally, the neutrality template should be understood as a **signal to improve coverage**, not as a mandate to delete material. It indicates that the page would benefit from broader representation of perspectives, which is best addressed through **addition and context**, not subtraction.

So if you have sources with quotes that better highlight other aspects of the event—such as survivor experiences, investigations, or reactions from different political or social groups—I would strongly encourage adding them. That approach strengthens the page and helps achieve the balance you’re looking for without removing verifiable material.--ᘙ (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

First, if you challenge a quote it should be moved to the talkpage for discussion and not simply deleted from both the article and the talkpage (which you have also blanked).

See Template:Remove

Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. 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. Thanks. --ᘙ (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

On living people: Quotes from living people have to be sourced, if there is a misrepresentation then let us know.

On NPOV and politics, the rule is to add balance by adding quotes with different point of views, not by censoring quotes.

You have not moved the deleted quotes to the talkpage. Mass deleting and blanking pages without moving quotes to talk is vandalism. The usual practice in such cases is to move the specific quotes you believe are problematic one by one to the talk page, together with the full reasoning for each removal so that editors can review and discuss them. That allows the concerns to be evaluated individually and helps build consensus rather than removing large sections at once.

It is also natural that quotes about a recent historical event will often come from living people—politicians, commentators, journalists, and public figures who reacted to it. There is nothing inherently improper about that as long as the quotes are sourced and accurately attributed.

From my reading of the page, many of the quotes actually do deal with the event itself—such as descriptions of the train burning, commentary on what the victims went through, discussion of what led up to the incident, or reactions to it from public figures.

In short, I would encourage moving any disputed quotes to the talk page with detailed explanations so we can discuss them individually. That approach tends to produce clearer consensus and a better page in the end

EarthDude also claims page numbers are mandatory, page numbers are not mandatory, epub books have no page numbers, but of course if you ask I can try to add more detail

IOHANNVSVERVS said I'm not sure about the NPOV dispute/allegations. You're right that having POV quotes isn't a problem, but they need to be presented in a balanced way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC) which means adding more quotes with different povs. The quotes I added were from a wide range of sources, not just from one type, but I am not claiming it was very good, it still needs work.

Also see these comments:

WikiQuote can quote a source directly. There is no need for WikiQuote to quote a quote of a source, although it can be useful in some cases. Content that is interesting, important, useful and correct is fine. There is little need for referring to fact checks or context for any of claims made in the quotes here so far, as there are very few concrete claims made, apart from a claim that mainstream media and Wikipedia are wrong and are being controlled and used by some non-identified persons, which is too broad and vague for fact checking. A reader will understand from the quotes themselves that some caution may be useful. The quotes mostly express the views of the writers. Joreberg (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Quotability is an unavoidably subjective guideline Jeff Q (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule against quotes that express a point of view. If nobody actually had anything to say, there wouldn't be anything worth quoting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is no rule against quotes that express a point of view. If nobody actually had anything to say, there wouldn't be anything worth quoting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think presenting a quote by itself is a one-sided POV. I don't think there's really any POV whatsoever in merely presenting what someone said, so long as there's consensus they actually said it. Where POV comes into that is where there is disagreement over whether someone said something, or perhaps what portion / context in which to present it. Is this really the place to INTERPRET quotes at length, or merely to archive them? WakandaQT (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: if we deleted every article with potential NPOV issues, there would be no political articles at all. I'm going with notability on this one. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• ‎I see absolutely no conflict here. Naturally the quotes of this intellectual professor reflect his opinions. The notable people quoted on wikiquotes all have POVs and express their POVs in their words. That's the way it goes. It's ok, nothing to worry about. 20:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• The point is that one does not have to be right or likable to be noteworthy. Many noteworthy people are just notorious. Anyone who has an opinion that is controversial and is read and discussed by a lot of people is noteworthy irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of his views. those who criticize Islam do not become automatically insignificant just because Muslims don’t like what they say. An encyclopedia is to provide a balanced expose of people who are noteworthy. 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)

• The justification of POV-pushing, even as shorthand, doesn't really make sense in light of the WQ:NPOV policy, which recognizes that individual quotes more often than not do push a POV, which is remedied by adding additional countervailing quotes rather than by deletions. Peter1c (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• When WQ doesn't have a site-defined POV or a set of prohibited POVs, what does POV-pushing mean? Can I just label anything I disagree with as POV-pushing? Peter1c (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• I am very certain, for example, that we include quotes criticizing religion that would be illegal to host in certain theocratic countries. BD2412 T 22:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer to act on this nomination, and to vote strong keep to establish the precedent. It seems to me to be a reasonable collection of quotes. Most every group of quotes on a subject of controversy (and any religion is bound to be a subject of controversy) will have something objectionable for everyone, so here it is. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikiquote does not care whether something is "right" or "wrong": all sourced quotes of notable persons are welcome - like even those of Hitler and Goebbels. And this author seems to be notable 'cause you hate him so much.--Risto hot sir (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I do not advocate the removal of properly sourced quotes from a page (if it is relevant to the topic of the page) simply because one does not like or agree with them. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Views from both sides of conflicts should be included, not censored. Om777om 3 July 2019

• Using the deletion process as retribution for bad behavior to remove legitimate pages just because of who created the page does not seem like something we should promote. I would rather see other avenues used to address the behavior that do not affect whether or not valid content is kept. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern. Generally, if a subject is notable and has made notable quotes relevant to a particular page, we have no limitation to the number of quotes by that subject that can be included in this compendium. BD2412 T 16:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The quote has the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poignant expression. The main rationale after notability to add quotes in WQ. Rupert Loup 14:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am also confused. What does quotability have to do with notability? Notability determines whether a page on a topic should be created in the first place, and quotability determines which quotes can be included in an existing page. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The user EarthDude claims that the quotes are right-wing, nationalist, and that he is acting only because of NPOV but on wikipedia he seems to be criticized for his non-neutral actions of trying to prove to push the "far-right" and "fascist label on the ruling party of India and/or the current prime minister:

Absolutely not. The OP (EarthDude) has been pushing the "far-right" label on this page for a while, without regard to what the sources say. I have just deleted a couple of these. The fact that some sources label it as such in passing doesn't mean that the balance of sources have done so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What is covered in certain RS does not mean it isn't a WP:Contentious label. For someone who has dubiously admitted to "pushing" labels on BLPs and elsewhere (itself disruptive/RGW) and more often than not incorrectly applied and cited enwiki P&G without knowing their precedential workings (including here itself) should not really be WP:WIKILAWYERING others on how they operate. Gotitbro (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindutva/Archive_4

There has been no edit warring here, and your comment as such is beyond the pale. The Arbcom decision has nothing to do with this or CT/SA conduct. And considering that your problematic editorial conduct was itself worthy of mention by different admins in that very case you should be further wary of bringing it up. This is not the first time you have failed to adhere to basic wiki etiquette. Better discuss the disputes at hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EarthDude&diff=prev&oldid=1321745286

I wanted to talk to you about the article on 1984 anti Sikh riots. You have defended the adding of bjp and rss but the source given itself says they were majorly silent. This counters the argument that they were perpetrator along with Congress. It should not be infobox but in other sections that they were majorly silent and some individuals were supporting. Adding them into infobox as perpetrator is too far fetched. It seems more as a bias of the editor. Warrior23456 (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EarthDude&diff=prev&oldid=1317289574

You have been sanctioned because you returned to edit warring The Bengal Files immediately after the end of a full protection period. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EarthDude&diff=prev&oldid=1310813502

There is no conflation here, you have been edit warring at two related pages to enforce edits which no single editor agrees with.

The issue has been laid out clearly by a myriad of different editors here and at related discussions, the association or rather equating Hindu nationalism/Hindutva with fascism has no wide backing in academic literature and has been strongly opposed by the best scholars in the field. "Various", "wide" and attempts to play on that WP:Academic consensus terminology will have no place here nor will the attempt to keep 'the authorities' on the topic out of here. We can recall WP:STABLE to and negate the entire section before the edit warring if a repeat of that EW continues, so let us leave this here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sangh_Parivar

The user is not really the definition of NPOV at wikipedia, where one of his main occupations seems to be to prove that the ruling political party in India is fascist. In the other thread, Kalki is criticized because he allegedly says such things about Trump, but in the case of EarthDude it is ok? Is this not a double standard? Republicans are the "Hindutva" equivalent in the US - there are 450 articles in the Republican Party politicians category , are all of the quotes unworthy? Should all quotes by Republicans be banned? Additionally as discussed many quotes were falsely misrepresented as originating from a hindutva source even though it was clear that it was not the case.

On the image with a Modi quote,

I said: I see your point, but I think the edit may not align with standard practice. The standard practice across almost all pages is to use a real quote in the images, and in this case the quote is as neutral as it can be for such pages (from a highly notable individual, short, pithy, and quotable). I’m not sure why this would be considered a neutrality problem, since the quote is simply the Prime Minister expressing regret over the deaths of innocent Hindus. [2]

you said, " Modi is deeply involved in the sectarian contentious dispute here so quoting him certainly isn't "as neutral as it can be", nor is his statement "short, pithy, and quotable". When i said as neutral as can be obviously did not mean that the prime minister is neutral, although there is nothing objectionable that was said in the quote, unless you believe the victims should not be mentioned. But that the selection is as neutral as can be. For example in an article on 9/11 a quote image of Bush would be a good choice not because he is neutral or factual, but because he is highly notable and quotable for the page. In this page a quote image is neutral not because Modi is neutral, but because he is highly relevant to this image and quoting him prominently is neutral in this sense only. The quote "It was a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude. People were burned alive." was not even added by me, it was added by EarthDude to the page, I only added his quote to the image caption. Your claim that it is not quotable is your opinion, but me and EarthDude did find it quotable enough.

Then you said, : For example, one quote they added is cited to no author and only to an article from https://www.hvk.org/index.html, which describes itself as "A resource center for the promotion of Hindutva".

I just want to point out something in a friendly way. It seems like your view of the situation might be based mainly on what one user who attacked me said. Before making accusations about someone, it’s usually a good idea to look carefully at both sides and check all the sources more thoroughly (including, but not limited to, Grokipedia).

For example, the case you mentioned is actually a misrepresentation. The source used there isn’t from a partisan organization as you suggested—it’s from the UNI news agency, which is generally considered a neutral news service. So that example doesn’t really support the claim being made.

And this was made clear in the article, omitting this detail is misrepresenting the case.

The United News of India (UNI) is:

• UNI (United News of India) is a major Indian news agency based in New Delhi.

• It was founded in 1959 and began commercial news operations in 1961.

• It supplies news reports to newspapers, radio, TV, and government offices across India.

• It is considered the second-largest news agency in India, after Press Trust of India (PTI)

• Databases often republish wire stories from agencies like UNI, PTI, Reuters, or Associated Press.

• In short: UNI is not a journal or magazine—it’s a news wire service, similar to Reuters or AP.

I don't think there is rule against quotes from whether we should be quoting biased or involved individuals like Donald Trump or Narendra Modi is one discussion, but in this case the source was actually stated as "UNI" and only reprinted at another database. Almost all quotes about a political topic like this one will be partisan in some way,

I’m not saying you have to agree with me, but I’d appreciate it if you could review the sources and context more carefully before drawing conclusions. I think that would make the discussion a lot more fair and productive.

What AI says about the quote:

The quote meets the criteria mainly because of its **concise yet evocative wording** and its **poignant tone**:

This quote meets the criteria because it is **pithy and poignant**, conveying a complex emotional and political situation in just a few sentences. The opening line—“*That the survivors of the February 27 Sabarmati Express blaze at Godhra are a bitter lot will be an understatement*”—uses a familiar rhetorical device, **understatement**, to emphasize the depth of the survivors’ grievances. By saying it would be “an understatement,” the author implicitly suggests that the bitterness is profound and justified, giving the line a subtle rhetorical punch.

The quote is also **eloquent in its economy of language**. In a very small space, it sketches a broader social critique: the claim that those directly affected feel neglected or ignored by political leaders, activists, and the media. The simple phrasing—“*Few politicians, human rights activists or media persons have had a kind word for them*”—is striking precisely because of its restraint. Rather than elaborate, the sentence leaves the weight of the accusation to speak for itself.

Finally, the passage is **poignant** because it centers the emotional state of survivors and frames them as marginalized in public discourse. The contrast between their suffering and the alleged absence of sympathy from influential groups creates a sense of moral tension that lingers with the reader.

Together, the **understated phrasing, brevity, and emotional resonance** make the quote memorable and rhetorically effective, which fits the criteria of being pithy and poignant.

I do not oppose the removal of this quote, primarily because the author is missing, even though coming from UNI means that it was reproduced in newspapers across India.

Then EarthDude made another misrepresentation, claiming a quote which actually is from the Nanavati-Mehta Commission and also clearly marked as from the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, was from an allegedly biased source. But the quote was clearly sourced to as from the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, and merely reprinted or quoted at the allegedly biased source. Omitting this little detail is again a clear misrepresentation. (the quote was not even present in the latest version)

They made another misrepresentation, claiming that because Elst allegedly is a Hindu nationalist he cannot be quoted. But wikiquote does not censor quotes just because of the pov of the person. It is also a defamation of a living person, since the subject is known to have said: "I am neither a Hindu nor a nationalist.", and "But what I have written does not follow some party-line. In particular, I am anything but a “nationalist”... Indeed, I already expressed my scepticism of all nationalisms as far back as 1991.", and "This is in line with my oft-stated criticism of Hindu nationalism or “Hindutva”. " IOHANNVSVERVS also referred to wikipedia, but the subject himself says that the article has been hijacked by one of the contending parties and contains serious defamation's and misrepresentations against a living person [3] For a different persepctive see [4] : Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian orientalist, indologist, and author specializing in the history and philosophy of Hinduism, Indian politics, and comparative religion.[1][2] Graduating from the Catholic University of Leuven with degrees in philosophy, Sinology, and Indo-Iranian studies, Elst earned his PhD there in 1998 with a dissertation on the ideological development of Hindu revivalism, examining thinkers from Dayananda Saraswati to Savarkar.[1][3] His scholarship challenges prevailing academic narratives, including critiques of Nehruvian secularism's impact on Hindu society, the historical record of Islamic iconoclasm in India, and the empirical weaknesses of the Aryan Invasion Theory in favor of indigenous continuity models.[4][5] Elst's major works include Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (2001), which analyzes the persistence of colonial-era mental frameworks in postcolonial Indian historiography and discourse, and Ayodhya and After (2002), a chronicle of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement documenting archaeological, literary, and eyewitness evidence supporting the site's pre-existing Hindu temple origins prior to the 16th-century Babri Masjid construction.[6][7] Other key publications, such as Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam (1992) and Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate (1999), marshal primary sources to argue against systemic downplaying of conquest-era temple destructions and to question migration-based models of Indo-European linguistic dispersal on linguistic and genetic grounds.[8][9] While praised by proponents of evidence-based reassessment of Indian history for rigorous engagement with Sanskrit texts, archaeological data, and traveler accounts, Elst's positions have drawn opposition from Marxist historians and secular institutions, who often frame his analyses as ideologically driven despite their foundation in documented historical patterns rather than contemporary politics.[10][11] He maintains independence as a freelance scholar unaffiliated with political organizations, emphasizing first-hand study during extended stays in India.[12] The quote cited as the strongest example of all the allegedly anti-Muslim quotes in the entire article by EarthDude, is a satirical and ironical take. He does not actually say that it was a jauhar or that the Hindus self-immolated themselves to escape the Muslims. According to AI, the quote uses rhetorical style and argumentative techniques, witty and rhetorically striking because it uses irony, sarcasm, and pointed rhetorical questions to critique a perceived double standard. The quote meets the criteria (witty, pithy, eloquent, or poignant) by focusing on its **rhetorical style and argumentative techniques**, rather than endorsing its political position. This quote meets the criteria of being **witty and rhetorically striking** because it uses **irony, sarcasm, and pointed rhetorical questions** to critique a perceived double standard. The author frames the narrative in a deliberately exaggerated way—suggesting that “if you are a secularist, then yes, that is what you must believe”—to satirize what he portrays as ideological bias. This technique gives the passage a **sharp, polemical wit**, since the sarcasm forces the reader to confront the implied contradiction between the author’s interpretation of events and what he claims is the opposing viewpoint. The quote is also **eloquent in its construction**. The sentences build toward a climax: first presenting the alleged narrative (“a wagon suddenly caught fire from the inside”), then escalating into a provocative rhetorical question about “a modern case of jauhar,” and finally concluding with a broader criticism of international reactions. This progression creates a **dramatic argumentative arc**, making the passage memorable and forceful. Additionally, the use of **vivid imagery and emotionally charged language** (“threateningly gathered,” “communalist paranoia,” “brain-dead parroting”) gives the passage a **poignant and provocative tone**. Even readers who disagree with the author can recognize the stylistic impact: the language is crafted to provoke reaction and underline the author’s sense of indignation. Overall, the quote fits the criteria because it demonstrates **sharp rhetorical flair, memorable phrasing, and deliberate use of irony and satire**, all of which make it a striking and rhetorically powerful piece of commentary. I have not yet made my opinion on the quote. Some writers are very good with words which at wikiquote means they say more things that are quotable. This is confirmed by Prof. Ramesh N. Rao: "Elst, as his substantial "underground" following knows, is a linguist, historian, political scientist, prolific writer, brilliant mind and a wonderful raconteur. or by Neelakandan: He has razor sharp academic rigour and an objectivity rarely seen today among the academics dealing with this particular issue." An Admin at wikiquote has said about quotes by Elst: "Thanks for your concern. Generally, if a subject is notable and has made notable quotes relevant to a particular page, we have no limitation to the number of quotes by that subject that can be included in this compendium." This does not mean that some quotes cannot be trimmed as long as it's not censorship.

On the comments about Savitri Devi. I told him to please move removed quotes to the talkpage because this is standard practice. I agree with him on the removal of one quote, and of the second quote, a trimmed modified version was agreed upon on the talkpage. Bouchet is probably right-wing but he is an expert on Savitri Devi, Elst is one of the few scholars on Savitri Devi from a Hindu point of view (even though he is not a Hindu), and he does explicitly not self identify as far right or even right-wing, so calling him far right defames living people. The issue was discussed on the talkpage, the content was partly removed partly modified, and there were no further comments from the user. Further the same is claiming about NPOV issues at Debi Singh Tewatia when that article is just reporting quotes from him (not about him). The user seems to have found problematic that Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke was being criticized by according to him lesser scholars. But quotes like " It is evident and very clear that Savitri Devi Mukherji has 'arranged' her biography in order to construct herself a persona apt to shine in the tiny circle of neo-Nazism." can be argued to have quotability. PARAKANYAA you have compared the chief justice and Advocate General Debi Singh Tewatia to the morality of Adolf Hitler. With such biased comparisons, you should not be lecturing others about NPOV.

Wikiquote includes many quotes from controversial people like Donald Trump or Julius Evola, even though both are considered by some to be fascists. The quotes on this page are hardly as controversial as these. I am not claiming that these should not quoted, but just for comparison Evola is quoted at articles like Challenge, Comfort, Misery, Fathers, Family, Trump is quoted at articles like Strength, Francis Parker Yockey is quoted at Baudelaire, etc. These are all considered by many to allegedly be fascists, not even just right-wing. Again I am not claiming that these should not quoted, but there are far more controversial sources quoted.

EarthDude also claims I did not engage in discussion but the other side has also not started discussing individual quotes but was then mass deleting quotes. I had plenty of productive good faith discussions with this user where we arrived at improving quotes and articles, but obviously because at one time there were mass deletions in that situation not every quote could be discussed.

EarthDude has several times, for several quotes, falsely claimed that quotes are from Opindia, when the actual source is Nehru or the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, and were only quoted or reprinted there. Noting where I found the quote is just fair play, the site is popular (I am not claiming that it is unbiased, but so are many other popular sources used). The citation could be improved and more details added, but it is not against policy to state where one found the reprint or quote of the quote. EarthDude has many times deliberately misrepresented the case. Also how a source is described at wikipedia is relevant for wikipedia only, if a source be it Donald Trump or Julius Evola or Opindia is described unfavourably at wikipedia it is relevant there, but if Trump said something quotable it can still be a quote. There is also a sort of dispute between Opindia and wikipedia, both have published negative opinions on each other, a different perspective can be read here: OpIndia is an Indian digital news and current affairs platform launched in December 2014, publishing curated reports, original investigations, opinion pieces, and analyses in English, Hindi, and Gujarati.[1] Operated by Gavishti Media Private Limited since 2025, with prior management under Aadhyaasi Media and Kovai Media, the outlet is led by CEO Rahul Roushan and Editor-in-Chief Nupur J. Sharma (distinct from the BJP politician Nupur Sharma).[1][2] It focuses on topics including political developments, religious tensions, social issues, and critiques of mainstream media, positioning itself as an alternative to what it describes as skewed coverage that neglects majority perspectives in India.[1][3] OpIndia has achieved notable influence in online discourse, particularly among nationalist audiences, through exposés on underreported incidents and challenges to dominant narratives, though it has encountered controversies over alleged promotion of communal divisions and factual lapses, with such criticisms predominantly emanating from left-leaning journalistic and academic circles prone to institutional biases against non-secular viewpoints.[1][4][5]

IOHANNVSVERVS has added a comment : though it quotes a highly notable person, adds denigrating biased commentary throughout. I included the quote because it was statements from Nehru, I admit that it can be cleaned up and if I had had more time I would have done so at the time of adding it. It is not perfect but it is not a bannable offence to add quotes that need a little bit of more work. I do apologize and will note to clean it up this month. Further IOHANNVSVERVS said we should follow wikipedias policy but in fact theses are separate websites we should be following the WQ policy. He again claims the quotes that do not support 2. View that the victims, which included women and children, were not innocent or 4. View that it was not a terror attack but an accident are discriminatory/pseudoscientific/bigoted/racist/etc when in fact the mainstream view is the 3. View that it was a pre-planned act of terrorism .This is the view, after a long in-depth investigation, of the High courts, the forensic analyis, the Nanavati Commission, the Justice Tewatia Committee, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Supreme Court.

A previous discussion said:

There are many more examples on many articles, where additional citations ("as quoted in", "also quoted in", "attributed by", ...) are deleted.

According to Wikiquote:Manual_of_style#Citation_style, additional citations (one or two) can be useful as long as they don't clutter too much. They can be useful for

online verification (if it is an online source) to help the reader find additional context and discussion about a quote or simply to acknowledge as a matter of fairness the source where the quote was actually found

and should not have been deleted in my opinion.

Also, it seems to be a form of censorship, where references are removed with this excuse because the source of the reference is disliked for some pov reason. If there are too many additional citations that can clutter too much then they should only be moved to hidden text IMHO using

Is there a consensus on wikiquote about this issue? Are such removals acceptable?

In general, I believe you are correct in that additional sources for a quote, while not necessary, can be beneficial provided there are not so many that they produce clutter. In this case, the user removed them and cited the use of POV spam. I do not see evidence that having this additional source introduces POV nor that the links represent spam, so I would disagree with the removal for these grounds. In short, I believe you are justified to question the removals - and in fact are in the right to replace them, should you choose. ~ UDScott (talk)

There is no WQ policy which prohibits sources because of their point of view, as long as the sources is given. There are many quotes from controversial people like Donald Trump or Julius Evola. Wikiquote includes many quotes from controversial people like Donald Trump or Julius Evola, even though both are considered by some to be fascists. The quotes on this page are hardly as controversial as these. I am not claiming that these should not quoted, but just for comparison Evola is quoted at articles like Challenge, Comfort, Misery, Fathers, Family, Trump is quoted at articles like Strength, Francis Parker Yockey is quoted at Baudelaire, etc. These are all considered by many to allegedly be fascists, not even just right-wing. Again I am not claiming that these should not quoted, but there are far more controversial sources quoted. There are plenty of examples of bias across mediawiki sites that they don't care about such as on wikiquote articles like Legitimacy (I also do not care much of it just noting a double standard). Grokipedia is a popular platform, because Grokipedia articles are AI-generated, they are theoretically less susceptible to the risk of personal editorial agendas. In addition, the Grokipedia article itself relies on references from mainstream sources (they said the introduction uses bad sources but when one looks they were just mainstream media sources). Most importantly the article demonstrates a clear structure and logical flow, the information is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Furthermore, there are no obvious major factual errors in the article, which suggests that the information has been reasonably synthesized from its cited sources. Finally, it is worth noting that the corresponding Wikipedia article on the same topic has been criticized by other sources for bias. Asking AI: "Several commentators and publications have criticized the Wikipedia article on the Godhra train burning as biased and not neutral, primarily for downplaying court convictions and emphasizing disputed narratives over official findings. Some commentators have explicitly accused the page of ideological bias, There are explicit indepth accusations of bias in the Godhra Wikipedia article. The commentators say that despite multiple convictions upheld by the Gujarat High Court, Wikipedia's "Godhra train burning" page continued to state that the cause of the fire "remains disputed". Critics pointed out that 31 Islamists were convicted for arson, yet court verdicts, forensic reports, and police findings were consistently downplayed at wikipedia. Editorial choices on sources: the commentators accuses editors (named Vanamonde93) of repeatedly restoring or defending references that emphasize accident/skeptic views (e.g., Martha Nussbaum, Concerned Citizens Tribunal) and of treating expert commentary and certain media sources as more authoritative than court records. Talk‑page dynamics: the commentators describes the talk‑page exchanges as dismissive, bullying, and protective of particular sources, implying a systemic editorial bias rather than isolated disagreements." If you have an issue with the Grokipedia article can you point out any glaring errors in the article? Or can you point to a source that says that its AI-generated articles on India topics have Hindu bias? --ᘙ (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be an eligible candidate for the U4C election

Greetings,

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years.

This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.

The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will week between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.

In partnership with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)