Wikiquote talk:Citing sources

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

How to ask for citations?[edit]

The templates under this section don't seem to work.... how can I tag a quote as needing a citation? The templates that work on Wikipedia don't seem to work on Wikiquote. For example, {{fact}} just leads to an empty Template page on Wikiquote instead of the functioning page on Wikipedia. Maybe there is a Wikimedia-specific template page? Help appreciated. Jim Butler 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} should work now. The instruction on this page are in need of polishing though. jni 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't recommend using {{fact}} when you're looking for a source; typical Wikiquote practice for quotes without sources is just to include them as part of an "Unsourced" section on a page, rather than tagging them with any specific template. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What if I have doubts that some quote in "Unsourced" section is in fact a vanity quote by some 13 year old kid? Just remove it or move to talk? I think there should be a template for marking it for verification by others. jni 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
For something that you're fairly certain is a vanity quote or something that a person never said, the best course of action is probably to move the quote from the page to its talk page, explaining why you think that the quote isn't appropriate for the page. That way, it's not lost in the edit history, and if someone comes along and can confirm the quote, it can be restored with ease. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tagging inadequate sources[edit]

A depressingly huge amount of quotes in Wikiquote articles are unsourced or inadequately sourced. Many that are in "Sourced" sections aren't sourced at all by Wikimedia standards. (One very common misunderstanding is the idea that it's enough to identify who, where, and/or when something was said or written, without providing an actual reliable source for this claim.)

Since we're very far behind in doing a comprehensive job tuning our WQ:CITE and WQ:SOURCE articles, and clearly aren't getting the message across, I am thinking we should be much more explicit about the inadequacies of sources, so that readers and editors can see exactly why something is considered "unsourced". (Policy pages, notes on talk pages, and even HTML comments just don't seem to work very well.) I suggest we try something like this (taken from the current David Horowitz, which I just reformatted and separated into Sourced/Unsourced):

  • More than ever before, for humanity to live under capitalism, is to live on borrowed time.
    • Empire and Revolution, 1969, unidentified chapter/page/edition
  • Commodity fetishism is the key to the prosperity and efficiency of the capitalist economy and to the relative peace of capitalist states. It is what makes us work together.
    • Debate with Michael Albert, unidentified 2001 date, unidentified forum, unidentified publication citation
  • Republicans like art, so people who are genuine artists shouldn't worry.
    • Minneapolis Star Tribune, unidentified issue, unidentified article about cutbacks in the NEA, sidebar

Such explicit indications of "unidentified" information give clear justifications for the quotes' location in "Unsourced" as well as the way to get them into "Sourced", without having to look up policy pages on WQ and WP. This would be further enhanced if we had links to specific paragraphs in this policy page that would give detailed explanations of how to cite this information. Examples:

  • "unidentified chapter/page/edition" could be linked to a section that describes minimum requirements for book citations; i.e., chapter or page and edition, preferably with ISBN
  • "unidentified publication citation" would describe how to cite published versions of quotes from speeches or other events
  • "unidentified issue" would ask for a date or issue number
  • "unidentified article" would indicate the need for an article title or specific page numbers

These variations could be templatized to simplify tagging problem sources and collect them in categories that indicate which articles need source work. But the most important aspect of this explicit tagging is that readers will be able to pick up our philosophy by osmosis instead of having to read policy articles (which most of us don't want to do, anyway).

Whatever the details or methodology, it seems clear that we need to make it much more obvious why so many quotes aren't up to Wikiquote sourcing standards, and how to solve the problems. We should do this in a way that helps our large audience of casual readers easily understand how to do a little research and incrementally improve Wikiquote. It could be argued that information like "unidentified this-or-that" may look a little odd or ugly in the source lines, but I would counter-argue that the value of Wikiquote, like Wikipedia, is that we strive for accuracy through reliable sourcing, and this information makes clear when we aren't sure of some quotes, and how anyone could help us gain that surety. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discomfort citing this draft policy[edit]

I am concerned that this current draft policy, being largely a copy of w:WP:CITE, so poorly reflects actual Wikiquote practice that I am no longer comfortable citing it when advising editors how to cite sources, an increasingly important task here. If we can't get this thing rewritten soon for Wikiquote's needs, I'm thinking we might be better off replacing it completely with a simple description of our basic sourcing methods. How does the community feel about this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is totally misleading with respect to Wikiquote's customary citation style.
Stamp out footnotes! ~ Ningauble 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief, specific source lines with detailed footnotes[edit]

I've posted at WQ:SOURCE#Brief, specific source lines with detailed footnotes a mini-essay on a hybrid source-citing method that attempts to provide detailed source information without cluttering up the mandatory source lines with repetitive information. (I posted it there because that draft policy is much closer than this one to reflecting actual Wikiquote practice. This draft policy page is currently hardly changed from the old Wikipedia version that Essjay copied over nearly two years ago.) I invite discussion of this approach there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing video[edit]

Nixon's quote "I am not a crook" has a citation needed, and there's about a dozen videos of it on YouTube. However, it seems that isn't an accepted wiki source, though it's a natural for TV quotes like this one. What would the format be? Can someone clarify? Conflatuman 15:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that a good print source for that quotation can be found because it has been widely discussed in mainstream media. E.g., part of the quote can be found in Carroll Kilpatrick, "Nixon Tells Editors, 'I'm Not a Crook'," Washington Post, 18 November 1973, p. A1. A YooToob video would then be a good supplementary link. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Case citations for court decisions.[edit]

Citations to quotes from legal cases should generally be laid out according to the shorter format in Wikipedia's case citation article. The sourcing of such quotes will probably be of most interest to lawyers, who would benefit from the use of that citation form. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes assigned to someone which have record of being made.[edit]

What is the policy of attributing a quote to a living person which has not been verfied to have been said by that person?

For example, if someone is quoted in a RS as saying, "Barack Obama said 30 years ago, 'We should kill all Dolphins.'.", can you list on Obama's quote page as him having made the quote "We should kill all Dolphins." - Barack Obama 1982?

I would say that if there is no first hand record of the comment, then there is no way you could say that the person made that quote, and certainly not attribute it to the person. 66.44.182.212 00:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The source of attribution should be made clear. If the cited "someone" is anonymous or non-notable then we would be relying on the "RS" for secondary attribution. Whether to include it at all depends on its reliability and quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)