Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Archives

2005 2006 2007: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2008: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2009: Jan–May • June–Dec 2010: Jan–Feb • Mar–June • July–Dec 2011: Jan–May • June–Dec 2012: Jan–May • June–Dec 2013: Jan–May • June–Dec 2014: Jan–May • June–Dec 2015: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2016: Jan–May • June–Dec 2017 2018: Jan–May • June–Dec 2019 2020: Jan–May • June–Nov 2021 2022 2023: Jan–May • June–Nov 2024 2025: Jan–Feb • Mar–present

This is a messageboard for all administrators. Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

• Wikiquote:Protected titles
• Wikiquote:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
• MediaWiki:Bad image list
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice id when you update MediaWiki:Sitenotice, id num needs also to be incrementally grown
• MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist For global blacklisting, go to m:Talk:Spam blacklist instead.
• MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (upper compatible w/ MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist)

See also:

• Blocking policy
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log
• Wikiquote:Protection policy (draft)
• Protection log

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots

• Wikiquote:Bots
• Bot status log

Promotion

• Wikiquote:Requests for adminship
• User rights log

Tools:

• Linksearch
• crosswiki contrib search
• SUL account status

Discussions

More abuse of QOTD by Kalki

• Kalki yet again using QOTD to comment on the news by shoe-horning in a new 'suggestion' at the last second. There wasn't even a possibility for another editor to object here, because Kalki created Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 27, 2026 before he created Alex Pretti. He is abusing his psyop privileges. January 27. Ficaia (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to impose an editing restriction on User:Kalki prohibiting him from editing the Quote of the Day (on Wikiquote's Main Page) going forward

Today Kalki added to the Wikiquote Main Page the following Quote of the Day, together with a photograph of Donald Trump:

• Words like virtue, nobility, honor, honesty, generosity, have become almost impossible to use.
  • Simone Weil (died 1943 [i.e., before Trump was born])

In my view, pairing this particular quote with that image is clearly intended to push a political point about a current public figure.

This is not the first time this kind of pairing has occurred. Previous similar incidents include:

• 2020 – quote attributed to Jesus about hypocrites, paired with an image of Donald Trump (see here)
• 2017 – quote by Donald Trump with a suggestive wikilink (later removed; see discussion)
• Additional community discussions on Kalki's POV-pushing use of the QOTD:
  • 2016 – Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_49#Dante Alighieri admiring 16 religions all at once
  • 2024 – Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_62#User:Kalki_using_Wikiquote's_QOTD_for_political_propaganda

Given that this pattern has repeated over several years, I am requesting that Kalki be restricted from editing the Quote of the Day (and ideally the Main Page as a whole) going forward.

For now, I am only requesting a main-page / QOTD editing restriction. This would still allow Kalki to contribute elsewhere on the project, while helping ensure the Wikiquote main page is not used for contemporary political POV-pushing/commentary. (If others believe a desysop discussion would also be appropriate, that can be started separately.) Thank you for considering this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I would support this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Non-voting comment and question: Kalki has never edited the Main Page. Also, have they been warned before regarding this (in addition to the posted links regarding this concern)? Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'll see what I can find. There's this from 2015: Wikiquote:Village pump archive 45#h-Vote on prohibition of User:Kalki-2015-08-26T04:25:00.000Z. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A quote (of myself) from this 2015 thread links to other threads: "The reasons for such a prohibition have been expressed here: [1] Also, complaints have been brought against the image use of Kalki before, see here [2] and here [3]." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are archived links for the two that need them:

1. Wikiquote:Village pump archive 45#h-Symbols on the main page QOTD-2015-07-23T08:59:00.000Z

2. Talk:Main Page/Archives/004#h-Swastikas-2011-06-11T07:42:00.000Z IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I'm not aware of Kalki having been formally warned about their behaviour with regards to these matters. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have noted the discussion occuring on this page, and am currently studying the complaints, and preparing to respond, at least partially, within coming hours. I don’t believe I had noticed the original comment of a few days ago, but I was probably rushed at the time. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 23:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, he needs to be compelled to stop adding new 'suggestions' at the last second. Ficaia (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I support the restriction. Kalki routinely ignoring and overriding other users' QOTD suggestions makes the Quote Of The Day feel more like a personal blog than a community-selected quote. Most "quotes" Kalki selects for his parochial political narrative pushing would never appear in any published dictionary of quotations. It is effectively Kalki's Quote Of The Day, not Wikiquote's.

However, even if Kalki used others' suggestions, his repeated pattern of non-neutral editorializing – especially using images to make contemporary political points –, documented above and in many community discussions over the years, would likely continue on the project's most visible page. So I believe imposing a full restriction from editing the Quote Of The Day is unfortunately necessary. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

On February 5 and February 6 Kalki yet again added new content at the last second. So I agree, a full restriction is obviously necessary. Ficaia (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This has come up before many times, including by me. I will say that Kalki does almost all of the work on the Quote of the Day and has for many years, so if he's restricted from working on it, we need to ensure that someone will take over this work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree there is a real operational challenge. But Wikiquote cannot depend indefinitely on any one editor... especially for such high-visibility tasks as maintaining the QOTD on the main page. Kalki (like all of us), sorry to say, will not be here forever. For the long term, I would suggest we move toward automation (e.g., randomly selecting from a pool of pre-approved high-quality quotes). We can learn from how Wikipedia does this. For now, though, I think our best option is to create a manual, community-supported backlog for stability. To antecipate additional challenges: a growing difficulty is finding suitable, high-quality quotes that are relevant to the day and haven't already been featured. And while community suggestions are already in place, their quality and relevance aren't guaranteed. To be pragmatic, I think relevance to the day is desirable but not necessary. (Pictures are not necessary either.) I propose we start creating QOTD pages at least one month in advance – as far ahead as feasible – using existing suggestions when they fit, but otherwise prioritizing widely recognized, high-quality quotes not previously used. Overrides would still be possible for significant events (e.g., the death of a noteworthy person). Eventually, advance preparation could become a recurring monthly task, shared among volunteers. I'm willing to help prepare QOTD pages for the next few months based on current suggestions (while checking that the quotes are widely quoted, appear in established collections, haven't been used for QOTD before, and meet basic quality standards). See Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 1, 2026 for an example. That said, I'm not prepared to be the one who guarantees there will always be a QOTD – but I believe I can make good progress on a backlog if I can focus mainly on quality rather than day-specific relevance. Ultimately, this needs to become a shared community responsibility. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. We haven't gotten a response from Kalki in eleven days, and for each of those days he has continued to make changes to the QOTD at the eleventh hour. Ficaia (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Kalki’s doing a largely thankless job—when things go well it rarely gets acknowledged, but when people disagree, he receives a disproportionate amount of criticism. Over time, many users have also said they found his work helpful, which shouldn’t be ignored. Recent examples: [4] [5] Rather than banning a user and shutting down a process that is currently working, it would make more sense to introduce clearer rules. For example, a rule against using quotes that are less than 5 years old would already address most of the complaints and remove much of the friction. Alternatively, there could be a rule that quotes should be prepared at least one week in advance. It’s also worth noting that this page is viewed by almost nobody on a daily basis except other wikiquote users, this is not a highly popular website like Wikipedia which needs other processes. If there is limited voting and feedback it is not something that can reasonably be blamed on him. When there isn’t much input from others, it’s not all his fault. --ᘙ (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

1. "Kalki’s doing a largely thankless job." -- So what?

2. "Over time, many users have also said they found his work helpful, which shouldn’t be ignored." -- What does that have to do with the bias concerns raised above?

3. "It’s also worth noting that this page is viewed by almost nobody on a daily basis except other wikiquote users, this is not a highly popular website like Wikipedia which needs other processes." -- So it doesn't matter if QOTD is biased, because no one reads it?

4. "When there isn’t much input from others, it’s not all his fault." -- Patently absurd. Ficaia (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Veto?

• Been trying to figure out some kind of solution that keeps this from cropping up every few months. The best thing I've been able to come up with is a community veto. I think most everyone appreciates that Kalki is tireless in updating QOTD, and a lot of us don't always have the personal freedom to be so regularly dependable. It's also important to note that the overwhelming majority of the time QOTD goes off without a hitch. All this deserves a big thank you.
  At the same time, collaboration is essiential to the community and mission of the project, and if we've made a system that doesn't foster collaboration then we've messed up. Readers and contributors both will be worse off for it.
  In that spirit, I propose a community veto for QOTD. If a QOTD is put together by only one user, then two other users can veto it, and it will be replaced with an alternative. That doesn't mean the detractors get to hand pick the replacement. As a veto, it's just that, only a veto
  We could layer this on with all kinds of minutae designed to prevent gaming, but instead we should just note that this rule shouldn't be used to game the system. The community at large isn't stupid, and gaming the system will just mean you aren't allowed to take part anymore in the veto process. GMG^talk 14:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  That might work if, as DanielTom suggests, we start to create QOTD pages some time in advance. That way anyone interested would have time to object.

  But if it continues to be done at the eleventh hour, a veto would be pointless. Most of the day is likely to go by before two interested editors separately come online and object. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have many editors online at all times. Ficaia (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  We could also make a collection of high quality quotes that can be reused if there is no unique QOTD proposed or agreed to on a particular day. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

March 8 (Wikiquote:Quote of the day/March 9, 2026)

Another quote added to the list of suggestions at the last second. Yet more 'commentary' on current events. Ficaia (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While some of the past behavior is certainly still under discussion, I'm not sure this fits any pattern. The man who was quoted happened to die yesterday and thus it seems quite appropriate to have them appear as the QOTD. And the quote selected represents some of his most famous lyrics (which were extensively quoted by news sites after his death). I personally do not have an issue with this QOTD selection. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Conduct of user ᘙ

There was a lengthy discussion about the conduct of user ᘙ, initiated by @EarthDude here: User talk:Illegitimate Barrister#Use of quotes for attack pages

I'm copying over two of the most recent comments from that discussion and pasting them here:

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) [Original comment made @ 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) [Original comment made @ 15:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)]

Input from other admins sought. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude, the discussion you cite doesn't seem to support your allegation of "the user has changed their accounts multiple times due to sockpuppetry and account abuse bans."

I've only skimmed the discussions (there are multiple in a row actually), but it seems ᘙ edited with different accounts but always only using one at a time. Unless I missed something? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

My reading from it was that ᘙ allegedly used many accounts, but not at the same time, as in, they switched to a new account, when their old account faced blocks and bans for edit warring, harassment, and the like, such as the creation of Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk · contributions) when Jedi3 (talk · contributions) was given an interaction ban. I wouldn't have made much of this had it not been for the fact that all of these did end up with indef blocks for abusing multiple accounts. Although, I should have worded it better. EarthDude (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Koavf, who blocked a number of these accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I can't recall the specifics of this and I am not a CheckUser here (nor do we have any, nor has there been a formal request for CheckUser), so I can't provide much new analysis. Adding poor por-Hindutva sources is definitely concerning and I could be persuaded that a topic ban is a good idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry that they did bother you again about this issue but it was not really my fault because in the past few months I was mainly just adding dry quotes from academic books. During the whole past month of February where I edited a lot I have not added a single quote by a Hindutva human. You have also at a previous time said some nice things about my contributions, and you are saying this in reply to the attacks of an user who 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. Additionally many quotes were deliberately falsely misrepresented as originating from a hindutva source even though it was clear that it was not the case. For further comments see Talk:Illegetimate Barrister and Talk:Godhra train burning. --ᘙ (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS @Koavf The editor has engaged in similar activities (Edit warring; adding mass poor quality Hindutva quotes from fringe figures such as Koenraad Elst and fringe sources such as OpIndia which has been blacklisted in the English Wikipedia; alongside repeatedly accusing other editors of bad-faith behavior, vandalism, and censorship) across multiple other pages and across a time span of several years. Some of these pages include Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya firing incident, Ayodhya dispute, among others. Given the seriousness of this behavior, I would recommend a broad block regardless of the sockpuppetry concerns. However, if we don't end up going through a broad block, I would also support a topic ban from the subject of Indian politics. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any legitimage sockpuppetry concerns. As far as I'm aware this user had multiple accounts but never used them at the same time or to participate in the same discussions.

As for the other concerns, if you could provide specific exemplary problematic edits/actions that would help. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the severe NPOV violations at the Godhra train burning article, as noted above, the editor has displayed similar conduct across numerous articles over several years. In this edit[6] of theirs at Ayodhya dispute, made during an edit war in which they accused another editor of vandalism and censorship, ᘙ restored nearly 60 quotes sourced to Koenraad Elst. They also demanded that the opposing editor "explain rationale [for removal] for each quote on talk", but did not participate when the discussion was subsequently opened. In this edit[7] to the page on Vande Mataram, the editor added a long quote sourced to an OpIndia article titled "As India commemorates 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, read how Congress and Nehru truncated India’s national song to please Islamists". Keep in mind, OpIndia has been blacklisted on the English Wikipedia for its spreading of Hindutva disinformation and its attempts to dox Wikipedia editors. These are just some of many examples. Again, while I would support a topic ban, the scale and severity of the user's edits warrant consideration of a broader block.. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: "did not participate when the discussion was subsequently opened", which discussion is this referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

But the numerous Koenraad Elst quotes are a good example. As is the OpIndia example, which, though it quotes a highly notable person, adds denigrating biased commentary throughout. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there are ways to quote people who are beyond the mainstream - but the quotes should be interesting, or pithy, or quotable, or something, and the ones in question are not, which makes them come off as even more non neutral. the overall pattern seems to be POV pushing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course, and we certainly don't censor any opinions no matter how disagreeable. However, we should follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy's objective of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Giving undue prominence to any point of view, but especially those which are discriminatory/pseudoscientific/bigoted/racist/etc, is not okay. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it depends on what topic and the context and that is why my issue is with them shoving Elst quotes into so many places. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I had a very bizarre interaction with them on Savitri Devi (white supremacist Hindu esotericist writer) where they objected to the removal of some quotes. My biggest gripe was that they were not actually interesting quotes and often weren't really about Devi at all, and were two far-righters (including Elst) basically complaining about a more well regarded scholar (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke). They then added one of them back even though it is still basically about a different scholar's book. While I do not think we should ban quotes from questionable people, especially on other fascists, they should have to be good/interesting quotes, and relevant to the article subject! the quotes weren't even interesting and to me felt like they just served to try to reinforce Elst's POV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA I have made some comments about your comments at the other talkpages.--ᘙ (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't simply the addition of quotes of questionable morality. If this wasn't allowed, Wikiquote could hardly exist in its current form. The issue is the fact that it seems pretty clear ᘙ is contributing in a way that is neither neutral nor civil, especially when it comes to anything related to India, Hindu nationalism, Islam, or the like; it's their mass-adding of quotes regardless of how non-notable or unrelated they may be or repeated edit warring and frequent accusations of vandalism or censorship against other editors. As noted, this conduct has occurred across numerous articles over several years. Not to mention, the post below by ᘙ themselves where they display quite a striking level of battleground behavior. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the problem is the behavior pattern, I just wanted to emphasize the problem isn't quotes I morally disagree with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

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. 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. 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.

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.

You mentioned that some quotes are Islamophobic. Could you please identify which specific quotes you believe fall into that category so they can be discussed individually?

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.

Most of my replies are on the other talkpages, but they are not replying to them, here are some points:

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

In another talkpage I said I disagreed with his admin actions as an involved admin:

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. [8]

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)

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). --ᘙ (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The main point about involved admins doing admin actions was not answered by the admin

Nor was anything else answered.

I have noted many cases were they were misrepresenting the case, no answer again

Policy is also misrepresented . These is all discussed in the other talkpages. No answers.

I could make accusations of NPOV, edit-warring, mass deletions which is observed also at wikipedia (for EarthDude)

I have answered all issues that were brought up last week at the other talkpages yet they continue to make the same misleading misrepresentations without replying

If there is something that I forgot to answer please remind me.

I, @Kalki: @Peter1c: have all supported you in your RFA and all of us have by now been criticized by you. Which is ok, but at least I would expect some constructive replies to your RFA supporters, and not just this.

• There was not a single reply to any issues I brought up at the talkpages, the first reaction was just further attacks and calls for banning.

In a normal environment, we could have worked on improving the article Godhra train burning. It is a notable topic and it should be possible to include quotes from all of the six views outlined in this page.

But from the beginning it was a battleground behavior that made collaborative work impossible.

The improvement of the article was not even attempted (there were just calls to delete the entire article).

Also there is no clause in the WQ blocking policy that justifies blocking for adding quotes that others disagree with.

There was no attempt to actually improve the disputed article. Because of the dispute I could not, but I have now made a beginning. I expect that the other users spend some time in improving the article , not just in seeking reasons to delete. It is a notable topic and it should be possible to include quotes from all of the six views outlined in this page.

I also wish that the users reply to my comments on Talk:Illegetimate Barrister and Talk:Godhra train burning. --ᘙ (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any specific and concise concern or question you would like me to reply to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Honestly there were many comments I made at Talk:illegetimate barrist and talk: godhra train burning and I am very busy now now. There are several concerns.

First I think you have the position of EarthDude without questioning him as much as me even though your concerns about NPOV could also be applied to this user. This is your right as an editor, but as an admin I expected more impartiality. For example there were many misrepresentations that I commented on.

One of my concerns is that no attempt was made to improve the article.

Quotability is very subjective and anyone can always claim that it is not met. It seems this is held to a higher standard (all quotes are not notable) because the topic is controversial. However, the topic is notable, there were many quotes that if trimmed could meet a reasonable Quotability criteria.

Furthermore IMHO this is obviously a controversial subject, but the view that this was a pre-planned attack is not fringe, it is the view of the courts and reports. To attack one point of view or quotes that appear to support this pov as anti-Muslim and therefore forbidden as EarthDude is doing (just like he is attacking politicians as fascists on wikipedia) is neither factual, fair nor constructive.

It is not my goal to keep all the quotes in the article, but on the other hand, some of them if trimmed a bit are quotable for any reasonable standard. It is hard to believe that for a notable topic there should be no article possible.

Some questions

1. Is it acceptable to include quotations that express controversial interpretations—for example, statements supporting the view that the event was a pre-planned attack, especially if that interpretation is widely discussed or arguably a mainstream view ?
2. Can you comment on the section Attempting to improve the article
3. Do you agree with these comments?

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

I may continue later when I am less busy hopefully end of the week. --ᘙ (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Involved admins doing admin actions

The main issue is that the admin has been doing admin actions while being clearly involved (not neutral, taking a position in the dispute). As is made clear here and on the other talkpages, the admin is clearly involved. Admin actions are actions which only admins can perform, such as making reverts in fully protected pages [9] [10] that only admins can do.

This concerns the dispute at Godhra train burning:

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]

There are different views on this burning:

1. View that the victims were innocent and burned in a terror attack

2. View that the victims, which included women and children, were not innocent

because they allegedly harassed Muslims, or, in another version, because they set the fire themselves in an accident

At least one quote that supported this view was in the article.

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.

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Gandhinagar analyzed debris, residues, and burn patterns from coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express following the fire on 27 February 2002. Chemical examination of samples from seats, floors, and walls detected petroleum hydrocarbon residues consistent with petrol, indicating that an inflammable liquid had been introduced to intensify the blaze.[3][26] These empirical indicators—residue profiles, directional burn severity, and lack of accidental ignition artifacts—collectively pointed to deliberate arson involving premeditated liquid application inside the compartment.[2][26]

The fire in coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express resulted in the deaths of 59 passengers, primarily Hindu pilgrims and kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya, who were charred alive.[28][29] Among the victims were numerous women, children—including infants and minors under 12—and elderly individuals, many from families traveling together.[30] Survivor testimonies described frantic escape attempts thwarted by blocked or held vestibule doors and windows, with the mob outside pelting stones and preventing passengers from breaking out, limiting effective rescue amid the violence of approximately 2,000 assailants.[1] Local responders and passengers from adjacent coaches managed to pull some individuals to safety through emergency exits or broken windows, but the intensity of the fire and ongoing attacks restricted broader intervention.[31] The severely burned remains were transported by rail and road to Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad for postmortem examination and identification.[32] Due to the extent of charring, many bodies were unrecognizable, necessitating DNA profiling for at least nine victims, with challenges compounded by the communal tensions delaying forensic processes.[33]

Key evidence included the advance purchase of approximately 140 liters of petrol from multiple sources in Godhra the previous night, which was stored and transported to the site in containers; preparation of weapons such as swords, daggers, and acid bottles; and the rapid assembly of a mob of about 2,000 individuals who surrounded the stationary train, pelted stones, broke windows, and poured inflammable liquid through entry points before igniting it.[1 Supporting the conspiracy finding, the commission analyzed telephone call records showing coordinated efforts to summon participants to Signal Falia near Godhra station, where the attack unfolded, and noted confessions from several accused under police custody detailing the planning and execution roles.[1] These elements pointed to a broader plot beyond spontaneous reaction, with indications of organized funding and logistical support potentially extending to external actors, though the report prioritized local instigation by figures like Maulvi Husain Umarji in mobilizing the crowd against the perceived threat of kar sevaks.[40] The final report, submitted in November 2014, reaffirmed these conclusions on the Godhra incident while addressing wider riots.[42] The Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Gandhinagar conducted detailed chemical and physical analyses of samples collected from the burned S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express following the incident on 27 February 2002. Examination of over 40 samples, including passengers' clothes, ash, seat covers, and charred human remains, revealed residues of medium petroleum distillates consistent with petrol as the accelerant. These traces were found distributed on fabrics and combustible materials within the coach, indicating the liquid had been sprinkled or poured prior to ignition, rather than resulting from external splashing or accidental spillage.[50][3] Quantitative assessment by the FSL estimated that approximately 60 liters of inflammable liquid, matching petrol characteristics, was used to fuel the fire, as evidenced by the burn patterns and residue saturation levels exceeding what could occur from onboard sources alone. Heat intensity and charring distribution supported rapid acceleration from an external hydrocarbon accelerant, with the fire originating from multiple points inside the coach, consistent with deliberate spreading of a poured liquid. This model aligned with physical evidence of liquid flow along floors and walls before ignition, rather than a localized internal combustion.[51][2] The FSL explicitly rejected theories of an accidental stove explosion or cooking-related ignition, citing absence of kerosene or LPG residues typical of such incidents, mismatched burn patterns lacking a single point-source explosion signature, and incompatible heat damage to surrounding structures. No evidence supported self-ignition from internal coach materials or passenger activities; instead, the uniform distribution of petrol hydrocarbons pointed to premeditated introduction and application of the accelerant. Independent corroboration from residue spectroscopy confirmed the poured-liquid ignition sequence over alternative accidental models.[2]

On October 9, 2017, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Justices A.J. Desai and A.C. Rao, upheld the special court's 2011 convictions of 31 individuals for their roles in the conspiracy to burn Coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express, resulting in 59 deaths.[65][66] The bench commuted the death sentences imposed on 11 key conspirators—identified as leaders in planning the attack—to rigorous life imprisonment, citing the absence of "rarest of rare" aggravating factors despite the premeditated nature of the crime, while affirming life terms for the other 20 convicts involved in executing the plot.[67][66] The court simultaneously upheld the acquittals of 63 other accused, determining insufficient evidence to connect them directly to the conspiracy or acts of violence.[65] The High Court explicitly endorsed the Nanavati-Mehta Commission's findings that the fire was a deliberate act of arson, rejecting defense claims of an accidental blaze as fabricated and unsupported by empirical evidence.[67] It dismissed alternative theories, including the Banerjee Committee's accident hypothesis, as inconsistent with forensic analyses of ignition patterns, flame spread, and burn temperatures, which indicated external inflammable liquid poured from outside the coach.[66][67] Eyewitness testimonies and investigative records corroborated the conspiracy's orchestration, including a pre-dawn meeting at Aman Guest House where attackers planned to target the train carrying Hindu pilgrims.[65]

Central to the court's reasoning was the causal chain establishing premeditation and intent: approximately 140 liters of petrol purchased in advance from Signal Petrol Pump and transported to the site in jerry cans, combined with the rapid assembly of a 1,000-2,000-strong mob armed with stones and incendiary materials, demonstrated coordinated intent to isolate and incinerate the coach rather than a spontaneous reaction.[67] This evidence, upheld against challenges, refuted notions of mob frenzy alone, as the targeted pouring of fuel through broken windows and doors—witnessed by survivors—directly caused the rapid engulfment and fatalities, with overcrowding in the coach exacerbating the outcome but escape by over 100 passengers underscoring selective aggression.[67][66] The judgment, spanning over 1,000 pages, solidified the conspiracy verdict while critiquing lapses in railway and local policing that enabled the attack's execution.[65]

Central to the conspiracy evidence is the procurement and deployment of accelerants: convicted individuals purchased 140 liters of petrol from a Godhra pump the evening prior, stored in jerry cans, which were transported to the site and poured through vestibule gaps and broken windows into the coach. Forensic Science Laboratory reports from Gujarat confirmed petrol as the primary inflammable, with residue patterns and charring depths inconsistent with internal sources but aligned with external dousing and ignition from below the floor level. The 2011 special court verdict convicted 31 accused on charges of murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302, 120B, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, explicitly rejecting accident theories in favor of premeditated arson; this was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in 2017, which sustained life and death sentences for key perpetrators based on corroborated confessions, purchase receipts, and burn forensics.[4][3][74]

4. View that it was not a terror attack but an accident

because somebody was cooking food in the train and the accident happened

The report's methodology drew criticism for insufficient forensic examination, reliance on non-expert assessments over established laboratory analyses, and omission of contradictory evidence such as burn patterns inconsistent with internal ignition.[45] It notably sidelined data from the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory indicating accelerants had been poured externally, prioritizing a narrative of spontaneous combustion despite eyewitness accounts and physical inconsistencies that pointed to deliberate fueling.[46]

Opposing claims of an accidental fire, advanced chiefly in the 2005 Banerjee Committee report commissioned by the Union government, alleged the blaze stemmed from an internal short circuit or unattended stove, with no external fuel involvement. This narrative lacked supporting residue analysis and contradicted eyewitness reports of mob violence and liquid pouring; moreover, the committee's formation was ruled unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court in 2006 for usurping statutory judicial probes under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Courts dismissed such internal-origin hypotheses as speculative, noting the improbability of a self-sustaining fire rapidly consuming a metal coach without accelerants, especially given the selective targeting of one coach amid a train of 18. Physical artifacts like recovered petrol containers and vendor testimonies to bulk sales outweigh conjectural mechanics, tilting empirical assessment toward validated conspiracy findings over politically influenced accident attributions.[47][48]

The Justice U.C. Banerjee Committee, appointed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in September 2004 under Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, has faced accusations of political motivation aimed at minority appeasement following the UPA's victory in the 2004 general elections.[43] Critics, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders such as Rajnath Singh, argued that the committee's conclusion of an accidental fire disregarded eyewitness testimonies and forensic findings, serving instead to undermine the state government's narrative of a premeditated attack.[43] This federal intervention was perceived as an attempt to whitewash the incident's gravity, prioritizing electoral consolidation among Muslim voters over empirical evidence, especially amid ongoing legal proceedings from the Gujarat government's Nanavati-Mehta Commission.[75]

In contrast, the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, established by the Gujarat state government in March 2002 shortly after the February 27 incident, relied extensively on witness statements from over 1,000 examined individuals, leading to findings of a conspiracy that aligned with subsequent court verdicts.[1] BJP spokespersons, including Prakash Javadekar, highlighted the commission's evidence-based approach against the Banerjee panel's "absurd and illogical" dismissal of similar testimonies, portraying the latter as a partisan federal override lacking judicial oversight.[76] The Gujarat High Court in 2006 invalidated the Banerjee inquiry for exceeding legal mandate and procedural flaws, reinforcing claims of bias in its hasty formation without state consultation.[7]

Mainstream media outlets amplified the accident theory propagated by the Banerjee report, often framing the Godhra incident as equivalent to the ensuing riots to diminish its role as a targeted provocation.[77] This selective emphasis, evident in coverage equating the train burning's 59 deaths with riot casualties without scrutinizing premeditation evidence, reflected incentives to critique the BJP-led state government's response while downplaying communal incentives behind the initial attack.[78] Such narratives persisted despite judicial affirmations of conspiracy, underscoring systemic pressures in media institutions to align reporting with opposition political agendas over forensic and testimonial substantiation.[79]

The High Court explicitly endorsed the Nanavati-Mehta Commission's findings that the fire was a deliberate act of arson, rejecting defense claims of an accidental blaze as fabricated and unsupported by empirical evidence.[67] It dismissed alternative theories, including the Banerjee Committee's accident hypothesis, as inconsistent with forensic analyses of ignition patterns, flame spread, and burn temperatures, which indicated external inflammable liquid poured from outside the coach.[66][67] Eyewitness testimonies and investigative records corroborated the conspiracy's orchestration, including a pre-dawn meeting at Aman Guest House where attackers planned to target the train carrying Hindu pilgrims.[65]

5. View that remembering the victims is Islamophobic

6. View that " the narrative has lacked balance and objectivity" for political reasons

In March 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during a podcast interview with Lex Fridman, characterized the Godhra train burning as a "tragedy of unimaginable magnitude," noting that victims were burned alive inside the train coach.[89] He reflected on the incident's role in sparking subsequent unrest, rejecting constructed "fake narratives" that misrepresented the premeditated violence against Hindu pilgrims and kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya.[92][93] These remarks humanized the 59 fatalities, primarily women and children, and underscored the empirical evidence of arson over accident theories propagated in some earlier investigations.[93]

A gradual shift in public discourse has emerged through empirical validations from judicial proceedings, which have incrementally eroded denialist claims and reinforced recognition of the incident's deliberate character, prompting a reevaluation toward policy realism that prioritizes verifiable causation over narrative symmetry.[106] This evolution challenges entrenched asymmetries by highlighting how initial aggressions dictate response dynamics, influencing contemporary debates on counter-terrorism and communal harmony to favor data-driven accountability rather than ideological minimization.[108] As of 2025, assertions from political leaders underscore that persistent false equivalences are yielding to factual precedents, reshaping narratives toward acknowledgment of asymmetric threats.[106]

In the dispute, they are claiming that all the views except 2. View that the victims, which included women and children, were not innocent and 4. View that it was not a terror attack but an accident are attacks on Muslims, are right-wing, Hindu nationalist, and Islamophobic, quotes to attack Muslims, and anti-Muslim quotes.

These two views are also not the mainstream views as they contradict the in-depth investigations of the High courts, the forensic analyis, the Nanavati Commission, the Justice Tewatia Committee, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Supreme Court.

It seems that adding quotes that appear to support views other than views 2 and 4 means that one culpable of attacking Muslims.

Or are they accusing me of adding quotes that are allegedly show sympathy to the victims of the train burning?

Could one not as well say that it is anti-Hindu racism?

Were not the Hindus burned and killed?

Would one not be justified in making this claim, or is it only justified if the claims are of Islamophobia?

There a lot of accusations and personal attacks and defamation of living people , claiming Islamophobia, but there is also anti-hindu racism. The victims were Hindus, innocent women and children. Or is the article and quotes not notable and should be deleted because the victims were Hindus? One could with even better reason make allegations of anti-Hindu racism.

Banning an user because he added quotes that allegedly support views 1, 3, 5 and 6?

It is of course difficult or even impossible to take a neutral stance in any political religious conflict, but the court judgements were reached after years of review and carefully reviewing all sides. Banning because quotes allegedly support the view of the High courts, the forensic analyis, the Nanavati Commission, the Justice Tewatia Committee, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Supreme Court?

IOHANNVSVERVS has from the start taken the position of EarthDude, agreeing with everything he said without questioning him.

That is not the problem, every editor, admins included, can have any opinion on any matter as they like.

But at the same time the admin has been performing admin actions. Admin actions are actions which only admins can perform, and normal editors cannot perform. The admin edited the protected article which only admins can edit and proceeded to revert the page to EarthDude's preferred version. Even after I disagreed on a talkpage, he did not self-revert the admin actions.

There is the other issue that his actions have not been conductive to the collaborative improvement of the article, and that in the role of an admin.

An admin is supposed to be impartial, but from the start and throughout, he was partial to earth dude, even asking him to write a dossier against me (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)), asking EarthDude about everything I could have done wrong, restoring all of EarthDudes edits, threatening and trying to scare me off the site.

Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with all others at all times. And not take sides with one of the parties.

For example he asked EarthDude if ᘙ was removing quotes EarthDude added or only restoring quotes EarthDude removed? He did not ask me the same question if EarthDude was removing quotes I added.

He is not taking a neutral position he is taking one of the partisan stances in the conflict while claiming they are neutral. With a neutral admin I could have worked to improve the article. I was not given the chance to do better and work together to improve the article.

The admin is also never questioning EarthDude in the same manner as he questions me, even though EarthDude clearly has some NPOV issues:

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.

These were some of the deleted quotes:

"It is very strange and saddening to see that when such acts are perpetrated against the minorities, all political leaders rush to issue statements of condemnation. But when persons belonging to the majority are subjected to similar perpetration of heinous crimes, not a single political leader has so far issued a statement condemning this barbaric crime. Such acts of senseless violence should be condemned no matter who is responsible for them and no matter who the victims are. It is not as though a crime is a crime only if it is committed against the minorities and not so if it is committed against the majority community. This should be viewed as a crime committed against humanity...remind all the political leaders in India that it is not only the minorities who enjoy rights under the Constitution. The majority have rights too."

If "someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I’m a chief minister or not, I’m a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad."

As a dispassionate observer, and after a year of detailed research, it is clear to me at least that, from the beginning, the narrative of 2002 has lacked balance and objectivity. Facts were the first victim.

The aim of the militants was not only to spill Hindu blood but Muslim blood as well. Godhra was merely ‘a sprat to catch a mackerel’, a goading of the Hindus to set off an entirely predictable and much wider conflagration. Thus the operation against the Sabarmati Express was launched in cynical disregard for the well-being of the state’s Muslims.

They were claiming that basically all quotes are attacks on Muslims. While some of the quotes even mention the cynical disregard for the well-being of the state’s Muslims. --ᘙ (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This might be the most blatant display of battleground behavior I have seen in all my time in Wikimedia projects. Also, there is absolutely no way you are STILL using Grokipedia of all things to state your point of view, after already being told against it at User talk:Illegitimate Barrister#Use of quotes for attack pages. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This user needs to at least be topic banned from Indian politics, if not site banned at this point. @Codename Noreste, @Koavf, could I ask your thoughts here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban is reasonable. I support it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to ᘙ? I see at least two comments in favor of a topic ban, but one is for a site ban. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I was. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to ᘙ. I would like to hear your thoughts (or any other admins') on their conduct and on my proposed topic ban. See also the above section "Conduct of user ᘙ". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I did support a siteban, but I had already noted I would also accept a topic ban if that reflected the consensus among other editors. If others believe a more limited block is the appropriate response, then I support a topic ban as well. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin but I think some kind of ban is necessary. The POV pushing is too much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I could obviously also make accusations of battleground behavior don't you think?

• The main point highlighted at the beginning was not answered by the admin
• Nor was anything else answered.
• I have noted many cases were they were misrepresenting the case, no answer again
• Policy is also misrepresented . These is all discussed in the other talkpages. No answers.
• I could make accusations of NPOV, edit-warring, mass deletions which is observed also at wikipedia (for EarthDude)
• I have answered all issues that were brought up last week at the other talkpages yet they continue to make the same misleading misrepresentations without replying
• I, @Kalki: @Peter1c: have all supported you in your RFA and all of us have by now been criticized by you. Which is ok, but at least I would expect some constructive replies to your RFA supporters, and not just this.
• There was not a single reply to any issues I brought up at the talkpages, the first reaction was just further attacks and calls for banning.

In a normal environment, we could have worked on improving the article Godhra train burning. It is a notable topic and it should be possible to include quotes from all of the six views outlined in this page.

But from the beginning it was a battleground behavior that made such work impossible.

The improvement of the article was not even attempted (there were just calls to delete the entire article).

Also there is no clause in the WQ blocking policy that justifies blocking for adding quotes that others disagree with.

Finally see these comments on prior disputes:

• 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)

• 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) --ᘙ (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly discourage escalation of editorial disagreements into threats to ban one of the parties of the disagreement. Per Wikiquote:Blocking policy an editor can be banned only if their account is used solely for disruptive activities, and this is clearly not the case for ᘙ. The intent of the blocking policy is to deter bad actors who intend to be disruptive, not to threaten experienced and productive editors. When editorial disputes are escalated into threats of banning, this essentially weaponizes the threat of a ban into a tool to be used in editorial disagreements. Editorial disagreements between editors where both are clearly committed to improving the project can be handled on the talk page of respective articles. Wikiquote:Civility specifically cites calling for bans as an example of uncivil escalation. I sincerely hope EarthDude will review the documents I have linked and reconsider whether trying to get a user blocked is an appropriate response to an editorial disagreement.

The POV pushing accusation references Wikipedia policy that Wikiquote has repeatedly decided is not applicable to Wikiquote. On Wikiquote, POV of articles can be made more neutral and nuanced by adding quotes representing alternative positions. There is no requirement that each editor must find quotations representing all viewpoints. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't just an editorial disagreement though, it is about their conduct. WQ:NPOV and WQ:QUOTE are official PNG in Wikiquote. Not to mention the edit warring, the accusations against other editors, and especially the battleground behavior seen here. Also, what documents are you referring to? — EarthDude (Talk) 04:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. What is bizarre is that they made no attempt in improving the article, only attempts to delete it. There is editorial disagreements about a controversial topic,but the bizarre thing is that no attempt was made to actually improve the article (only calls to delete the article). It is a notable topic, it is also a controversial topic, but their claims that quotes that support the mainstream position (of the High courts, the forensic analyis, the Nanavati Commission, the Justice Tewatia Committee, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Supreme Court) are allegedely islamophobic and should be censored are not constructive and also not aligned with policy. From the beginning they have shown battleground behaviour, from personal attacks and accusations and countless misrepresentations as was already shown on Talk : Illegtimate barrister and Talk:godhra train burning, and edit-warring/vandalism/censorship/mass deletions/pov whitewashing. It also goes against WQ policiy which state that Since Wikiquote is a collection of quotations, NPOV writing is less frequently required. This does not mean that NPOV is any less an official policy, or that it does not apply on Wikiquote. Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual; however, all non-quote text on Wikiquote (excluding userpages and with limitations in the Wikiquote namespace) should conform to NPOV. This includes intro text on quote pages, templates intended for the main namespace (they should not express preference for or against any view, etc.), and where relevant, the contents of the Wikiquote namespace. and that

Thank you for reminding us that

The POV pushing accusation references Wikipedia policy that Wikiquote has repeatedly decided is not applicable to Wikiquote. On Wikiquote, POV of articles can be made more neutral and nuanced by adding quotes representing alternative positions. There is no requirement that each editor must find quotations representing all viewpoints.

I already mentioned this, and also pointed out their misrepresentations, but they do not reply to my comments at User talk:Illegitimate Barrister and at Talk:Godhra train burning, and they do not attempt to improve the article by adding quotes representing alternative positions (they want the deletion of the article on a notable topic). --ᘙ (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)