Wikiquote talk:Wikiquote

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikiquote:Wikiquote page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

---

statement

Yes, I know, melodramatic and overdone. I didn't write it, it just seemed to write itself late last night in bed after the lights went out, coming into my mind as-is, nearly fully-formed. So delete it if you like (maybe we don't want mushy stuff like that in Wikiquote, and I wouldn't particularly get upset about it), but before you do, think about what we would say to ourselves to justify the effort of compiling the world's largest compendium of quotes. Perhaps it just needs editing a bit (OK, a lot of editing). Nanobug 12:24 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

grate page

Is page sherd win a reword for being very good. I liked reding this page good job to who rote it. —This unsigned comment is by 69.115.115.236 (talk • contribs) June 18, 2005.

Re purposing

Although I find Nanobug's introduction satisfyingly poetic, I'm think that we might want to use this article as a means to outline specific what Wikiquote is, as a companion piece to Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not. We could use a straightforward collection of content expectations, as opposed to the many introductory and explanatory pages we have (and are working on), from which readers must themselves infer and synthesize the complete set of expectations. WQ:NOT isn't sufficiently illuminating, and it's better to have a positive statement than expect people to deduce the opposite of a set of negatives (although we certainly should keep WQ:NOT). Opinions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Following is a draft of what I would put there. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote aims to be an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations.

• Accurate: Wikiquote aims for accuracy. Where possible, we try to site sources: preferably those in which the quotation first appears, otherwise notable attribution of the quotations. We try to find those quotes which are misattributed, clearly label them and research how the misattribution came about.
• Comprehensive: Wikiquote aims to have quotes from many different people, literary works, films, memorials, epitaphs and so on.
• Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work.
• Quotations: Wikiquote is a collection of quotations. While, for completeness, articles should have a short introduction of the topic or source, the primary goal is to include quotations.

I want to keep the current content there is on the page, and add the paragraph above beneath it. I will do so within two weeks, barring any objections (so now is the time to raise them!) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I see no need to wait two weeks to add it. I think anytime in the next week would be fine. ~ Kalki 10:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I accidentally saved a new version of the page, but reverted it. I will change it once a week has passed. In the mean time, people should object if they don't think it's good :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what you've written looks good and is a concise summary of the aims of this site. Good job. ~ UDScott 13:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, like so many other things, this seems to fallen through the cracks, but fortunately MosheZadka made it easy to finish. We now have a page that provides newcomers with a concise summary of what Wikiquote is, rather than just what it isn't. I urge all community members to point new editors to this page whenever they find them working outside the stated goals. We should also ensure that our other policy pages and aids (e.g., Help:Contents, WQ:NOT, Template:Welcome) include this link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Context-dependent meaning of "notable"?

Should we not allow some latitude for including quotes from people who, while not generally considered notable themselves, played notable roles in the lives of the person who is the subject of an article?

Let's say we have a minor English poet of the 18th century whose wife came up with some choice quotes about him. Would such quotes be used in a "quotes by others about X poet" section? She is not notable herself, but certainly a notable person in our poet's life.

Enough with hypotheticals. The specific example I want to draw attention to is Adi Da, a minor and controversial American guru. Adi Da is fundamentally famous for having influenced new-age author Ken Wilber and for having been the subject of negative media coverage in 1985 when allegations of all sorts of naughtiness (sexual, financial abuse, etc) hit the airwaves (see Wikipedia article on Adi Da. I believe that it is appropriate to include a quote from one of the central figures in that controversy. The person's name is Mark Miller and his quote is on this version of the Adi Da Wikiquote page (third quote under "quotes of others"). Feedback appreciated. Is it good to qualify the "notable" policy this way, or are such things better worked into the main Wikipedia entry on the subject? Carry18 07:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes about a notable person by someone not quite as notable are sometimes cited. I would suggest that the most important element is adding such a quote is to include a reliable source that allows editors to verify the quote is valid. (Please read the "reliable source" link, as "reliable" means much more than just finding a Google hit for the quote.) This is not a guarantee, but in general, the more solid the source, the less likely someone will delete the quote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

About sections are for people who watch a lot of credits and read a lot of references. It's really only certain intangible themes where notability is a big issue; you could even use a consumer product manufacturer for a common consumer product. A lot of scientists don't have Wikipedia pages yet, unlike soccer players; but their work is usually so revolutionary that you know it is going to be quoted in future science textbooks at least. There's a lot of Ken Burns quotes where he doesn't provide the persons name, presumably because they weren't themselves memorable but had a good insight into a particular event, typically disasters or crime. Hope that helps. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues

We are getting more and more folks who don't know or care about adding so much material to our articles that they become copyright violations. I think it advisable that we revise this highly visible page to not only avoid the idea that more is always better (i.e., an unqualified "comprehensive"), but to specfically point out that we collect pithy excerpts, not entire works. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I prefer to keep this document itself as concise as possible.

Also I wonder if we are better to add "free-licensed" a/o "in NPOV". We don't include WQ:NPOV in our welcome message, but when we are growing, it would be problematic (even on Wikipedia, I still prefer to greet a mere welcome though). However we have not to talk here what is NPOV - just put a sentence "NPOV" and give a link. As same, we can indicate why the whole copy isn't within our scope to the document led here, for example, WQ:COPY. --Aphaia 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

...

I don't know what this means. There is a link to a blogger page which doesn't help. Can this be removed, or moved, or rephrased or something? --FeralOink (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. Whatever that was, it isn't relevant anymore ('was probably just spam). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to update this page?

Since this page was developed in 2003 and expanded in 2005, there have been some fundamental changes in Wikiquote practices that are not reflected here. It is still a very fine statement of what Wikiquote is about, if taken in the right spirit, but it is subject to interpretations (not to say wikilawyering) that do not accord with more recent developments. In particular:

1. "Where possible, we try to cite sources...."
   It has been argued that this means we don't have to. In the early days of the project we did not try very hard, and it was customary for articles to include entire sections of un-sourced attributions. More recently, as reflected in updates to WQ:SAU and WQ:SOURCE, we have been requiring citations and working to remove un-sourced attributions.
2. "A quotation can be notable ... because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work."
   It has been argued that this means anything from a notable person or work is inherently quotable because of the source. This does not appear to be what was meant originally, and subsequent efforts have been made to clarify this at WQ:Q. It is a subjective quality that is difficult to nail down in a few words.

If there is support for updating this page then I will draft some new language for the community to consider, and I would be interested in other suggestions. Item 1 is easy enough to update, but it will be challenging to make item 2 concise without being unduly narrow or unmeaningfully broad. ~ Ningauble 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating the page. Please see the diff between my final edit and the most recent prior version.

My changes were incremental, and mostly corrected grammar and style. I broke out the page, changed format slightly for purposes of consistency and clarity. There is a difference in meaning between quote and quotation, so I corrected that. I also wanted to reinforce the fact that Wikiquote is intended to be globally inclusive, in time and place, and whether the source/ creator wrote or spoke the original words.

I was BOLD, although I don't see that invocation any longer, to be BOLD. If I was too BOLD, please revert or turn my volume down a few notches ;o) I will not take offense! --FeralOink (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Very fine edits, I daresay.

Only one note from me: the old version, "quotations are the essence of wisdom refined in a handful of well-chosen words", sounds better to my ears, compared to your change, "quotations are the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words." The rest of your changes are all very good, methinks. Excellent job. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

grammar

"whether they be serious or whimsical; whether their creators are famous or notorious..." Inconsistent, no? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think parallel construction is strictly necessary, since the subjects of the two clauses are different. I might phrase it differently myself, but the subjective mood is often not conjugated in contemporary English (a situation that may be perplexing to native speakers of languages that routinely do so) and, except in the case of imperatives, is best used sparingly. I think it is really a matter of style and taste rather than grammatical correctness. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this page an essay, guideline, policy, or something else?

Asking for a friend. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is not marked as an essay, guideline, policy then it is not one of those. It is just a wikiquote page like any other, giving some information about the project. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Add "quality" to answer to "What is Wikiquote"?

The current answer is:

• "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations."

I propose changing that to:

• "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of quality notable quotations."

And to change:

• Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work.

To:

• Quality Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it (1) has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, (2) is attributed to a notable individual, or (3) appears in a notable work. In the latter two cases the quote must also demonstrate a level of quantity (wit, pith, wisdom, eloquence, or poignancy).

This change would bring this Wikiquote:Wikiquote generic page more in line with the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline page. See Wikiquote:Quotability#Quality. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Make that proposed change be "... must also demonstrate a level of quality (wit ..." Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

• Oppose - too subjective. The "Quality" excuse has been used to remove notable quotes that one personally doesn't like (e.g. for religious reasons). "Quality Notable" is not even English. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. "Quality Notable" can be fixed. Regarding the substance of your opposition: Do you believe my proposed change misstates Wikiquote:Quotability guideline? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As you say, that's just a guideline, not policy. And anyway, Wikiquote:Wikiquote already defines quotations as "the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words". ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe the problem is with the "Quotations" bullet point in the "What is Wikiquote?" section on this page. What do you think of moving the content of the "What are quotations?" section into that bullet point? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikiquote:Wikiquote is fine the way it is. There is nothing wrong with defining "quotations" at the outset. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's try this: You say that quality has been used as an excuse to remove notable quotes. I say that the failure to mention quality (or even refer back to the "What are quotations?" section) in the "What is Wikiquote?" section) has been used to support low-quality (that is, not notable) quotes from notable people. Why shouldn't we try to fix that problem as well? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Low-quality quotes of TV-series and computer games

The main problem: the low-quality quotes of TV-series and computer games. There should be only two quotations per episode, but it's obvious that nobody cares of this rule.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion regarding the proposed change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Just a Regular New Yorker tried to clean the Top Gear, but only this one site seems to need endless work.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative propoal

I suggest we change "Wikiquote is a collection of quotations." to "Wikiquote is a collection of quotations (as defined above)." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary, in my opinion. The page already states that Wikiquote is a "collection of notable quotations". To address your concern: when the notability of a particular quotation is challenged, perhaps a secondary source (that quotes it) could be required. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am intrigued by your "secondary source" suggestion. Is that something that should be discussed here or at Wikiquote:Quotability? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not "necessary" (few things are), but informative and helpful. After stating a "collection of notable quotations" the page then defines "notable" but not "quotations." My proposal helps the reader find the definition (which is above a "collection of notable quotations." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Time to unprotect this page?

Discussed here: Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_to_unprotect_Wikiquote:Wikiquote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Should WQ:Quotability be policy?

See discussion at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Elevate_Wikiquote:Quotability_to_a_policy?. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No one has objected so far. If you object now is the time to speak out. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: No this is not a policy. No consensus was reached by the community to make it a policy.

Just because no one posted an objecion at the time does not make it into a policy. IMIO you should not have posted a tag claiming this page is an official policy. I would have reverted your change if I was endowed with revert-abilities.

Sorry for having to be so blunt. I know you have good intentions. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess you told me! Only one problem, "this" page is Wikiquote:Wikiquote, not Wikiquote:Quotability. As it turns out, someone did revert the "policy" template off of Quotability shortly after I added it there. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree in principle. We certainly need some kind of standard, because a great deal of unquotable material is being included. Ficaia (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I see that in 2019 you have also single-handedly added Wikiquote:Fictional characters to the list of policies? At least this is what it looks like to a newbie like me? Can you please shed some hstorical-light on this. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In the link you provide I'm adding the Template:Policylist to Wikiquote:Fictional characters, not the other way around. That said, I did add Fictional characters to Policylist, but as guideline, not a policy. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortcut WQ:WQ redirects elsewhere

WQ:Wikiquote and WQ:Shortcuts both say that WQ:WQ is a shortcut for WQ:Wikiquote -- which seems logical enough. However, WQ:WQ actually seems to redirect to WQ:Shortcuts instead. Can someone sort this out, and correct the inconsistency among these pages? Thanks. — 173.56.111.206 10:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikiquote IS a free online compendium of sourced quotations

Is this acceptable? Suggested that we Quote our own Masthead on our own Main page, as the first sentence of this policy. This will better reflect the mission statement of the project.

"Wikiquote IS a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language, translations of non-English quotes, and links to Wikipedia for further information."

I have WQ:Boldly modifed this policy page to reflect this, in order to give a proof-of-concept. If the consensus is to paraphrase or modify it, that would be acceptable. However it is important to predicate the basic definition of what the project is, before defining quotations, which are its the constituent parts. Therefore I urge you to consider this before reverting.

Thank you for the consideration.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability

"We limit ourselves to quotations that are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work."

I think having the quote repeated in secondary sources should be mandatory. If not repeated, how can one verify notability? What does that mean that a quote has "enduring relevance to many people"? I think that quotes should not be notable just because they were appeared in a notable work, since that would allow anyone to add any "quote" from any notable work, regardless of the relevance it has. I also do not believe a quote is notable just because it was said by a notable person. Perhaps these should all be merged, but I think the best choice would be to replace them all with "We limit ourselves to quotations that are notable. Notability is shown through repetition in secondary reliable sources. Notable works and individuals often produce more notable quotes than others, but a quote should not considered notable solely because it was said by notable person or written in a notable work"
Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of requiring secondary sources that actually reproduce the quotation. As I recall (my German is not good), this is a requirement on de.wq and I am in favor of us adopting the same here. Another option is that we can have both the arbitrary "I like this quotation"-style quotes we have now alongside "this is actually quoted by someone"-style quotes that are implicit in this proposal but we privilege quotations with secondary quotations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The same wiki seems to have other very stringent rules, mandating quotes may only be considered in the second year following the year of their publication - such a stringent rules has never been considered here. for example the quote of the day here is often just a few hours old. if we do not copy their stringent rule abut publication year, then why copy their other rules. And even with all their rigidity, they don't say three separate secondary sources. --ᘙ (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand the line of reasoning that goes "Why do thing X unless we also do Y and Z?". I'm just saying that there is another functional edition of Wikiquote that has a similar rule. That could help guide this community as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

it might not be as functional as it could be, perhaps because of the stringent rules. it has considerably less pages, less edits and less active users than it.wq, despite that there are more native speakers of German than of Italian. --ᘙ (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Or we may be too sloppy and allowing of pet projects, cruft, spam, and nonsense than we should be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bare minimum should be 3 reliable sources (books, news websites etc) repeating the quote. But I think a good starting point for the proposal should be to require at least one source coverage. It is possible to perhaps require quotes to come with footnotes that list the (at least) bare minimum amount of secondary sources that repeat the quote. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that multiple sources is certainly best and even one is better than nothing, which is what we have now and results in some very lo-quality entries. In an actual quotation reference volume like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, the authority and reliability comes from the editorial process: a publisher's reputation would be on the line if it churned out slop or published an ostensible general-interest book of quotations that was politically-biased or whatever. Here, the great thing is that there is no overhead for publication, but without some internal standards for what should be allowed as a quotation, we end up with some painfully bad entries (too long quotations, too long pages, general poor judgement about what to include, etc.). While we do have some policies here, they are also routinely ignored. I'm not a betting man, but I'd put good money on the majority of quotations flagrantly violating the length requirement at WQ:QUOTABILITY, for instance. I would love it if this site operated more like a reputable quotation reference and if we could move toward semantically-meaningful structure. Setting aside that second issue as a bit of a derail, yes, please, let's require secondary sources to show quotability or at the very least codify a clear preference for secondary sourcing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This subject has been brought up before and my opinion is that not every type of quote will necessarily stand up to such a stringent requirement. I think it works much better applied to quotes from living people, but less so for works (literary works, films, or TV shows) or for quotes from those long dead. There is much less likelihood that these are quoted elsewhere and I don't believe holding such a strict limit is fair for quotes from times before there was widespread media or the Internet in use. As an example, the film Casablanca is undoubtedly a notable work, and several of it most famous quotes have of course been quoted elsewhere. But some of its less famous, but certainly pithy quotes are also worth having on its page, even they were never quoted elsewhere. Certainly many of the quotes on the page for Moby-Dick are not likely to be quoted elsewhere, and yet they are worthy of keeping. And just because not all of the quotes from historical figures like Aristotle or George Washington are quoted in other works does not mean they should be removed. IMHO if we instituted such a policy a large portion of the quotes from pages such as these would be stripped away and we would lose much of the value of this site.

All of this being said, I do not disagree that we do have a lot that could (and maybe should) be trimmed. Sorry, I don't have a solution, but I do not believe this is the answer. In fact, it's not likely that any rule is the answer, as there will always be cases of exceptions to consider. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

No reason to apologize: your thoughtful response is welcomed always. If you could elaborate, by what measure are some of these quotes worth keeping if not showing that they have been quoted? What makes something a good quotation if we don't have a standard of appealing to the fact that it's been used as a quote? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That is really part of the problem - determining if a quote is worth keeping is at its heart a subjective action. Even if it is quoted elsewhere, that just means that someone else made that same kind of subjective decision and reprinted it. That's why it's so hard to make a rule for something that is not black and white, but rather gray. UDScott (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it is gray. A reliable source repeating a quote is more than just a Wikipedian (or a random internet user). I find it a form of original research that can lead to abuse. See, for example, the Jimmy Carter example. If I recall correctly, most of the quotes not being repeated were positive quotes about Jimmy. NorthernWinds (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

As for examples, from Casablanca, the quote "In a concentration camp, one is apt to lose a little weight." is something that I believe is worth keeping, but I've never seen it quoted in other sources. In Moby-Dick, the quote "It is not down in any map; true places never are." is again a memorable one that I feel should remain, but I've never seen it quoted elsewhere. These are just a few that I've pulled at random. I just feel that this type of policy is too limiting. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Both appear to be widely repeated. First quote, Second quote. The first's results to appear to be mostly user-generated or full scripts, which do leads me to believe the quote is not notable. But the second quote is most definitely notable NorthernWinds (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

this was a frustrating comment to see, especially from an administrator. as someone who has been trying to add pages for notable women and quotes from notable women to content pages, the bartlett book and all english or spanish language quotation books that don't have the word "women" in the title have been close to useless, because 90+% of the quotes included in them are from the minority of people in the world who were/are white, cisgender male, european roots, native english or spanish speaker, similar to most pages on here currently. in your view, is that extreme level of identity politics in selecting quotes because of cisgender white males actually being more "quotable" than everyone else, or something else? - A23423413 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is well-taken: at a bare minimum, it's a huge gap in our knowledge that there is based on implicit biases against women, the Global South, etc. In reality, there is also explicit bigotry against a number of populations to explicitly suppress them, including women in the body of what is considered a canon or good sources, not necessarily on the part of editors here: I'm not alleging bigotry on the part of our editors. Taking positive steps like Wikiquote:SheSaid is something to be lauded and so are your efforts to include quotes by/about women are appreciated. So to answer your question, it is certainly not the case that there's something special about the minority of a minority of a minority of intersectional identities that have been privileged in history. But to ask you a question to push back, you stated that you're trying to add pages for "notable" women. How do we establish notability? How do we establish which quotations by them or about them constitute quotations that should be included? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

when i search for writers who were/are female from a certain country or subculture who have a wikipedia page and/or available published books the number is usually between 2-5, and the number of them that already have a page on wikiquote that isn't a stub is usually 0-1. like until trying to help prevent this political vandalism started taking more of my time than i had hoped/expected, i'd been working on a page for Lorna Goodison, which i think will be the first or one of the first pages for a woman from jamaica that we have on here, and many content pages will be better with some quotes from writers from jamaica instead of 0 like there are on most of our content pages now.

the (all but one jewish, in this case) women whose quotes i added to the israel, palestine, and zionism pages that northernwinds has been calling un-notable and trying to erase without suggesting a replacement quote are from Bella Abzug, Bettina Aptheker, Selma James, Naomi Klein, Irena Klepfisz, Aurora Levins Morales, Adrienne Rich, Naomi Shihab Nye, Ellen Willis - A23423413 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're working on something important and sensitive which requires its own discussion, but I just want to make sure that we don't derail by getting sucked into that here. Your point about being deliberate about including marginalized peoples is a good one and I am honestly not sure how to square that circle considering how deeply ingrained bigotries like misogyny have been in the course of primary and secondary sources for centuries. The nice thing is that there is a lot more material about (e.g.) women's history and perspectives in the past several decades, but there's a lot of correcting the record that needs to be done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by separate discussions, can you explain what seems separate to you?

or if that comment was a signal that you want to end the discussion here, what i'd do is add some about how your writing in this thread, as an administrator signing your messages with a name commonly used by men, comes across to one person who thinks this website should reflect the world's diversity instead of having such an extreme overrepresentation of the white western male minority group like it does now. i'll also repost the questions i asked you directly on your talk page in the admin noticeboard thread about the politically targeted vandalism attempts by northernwinds, with an example using a page you have a link to on your profile - A23423413 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why you insist on dragging your AN post here. I am noting that the policy I have proposed can actually prevent politically-driven changes, since it does not allow people to add whatever they want and call it a quote. I also urge you to stop suggesting that people who do not agree with you are against inclusion, hinting that they are misogist/ethnocentric, saying that they are vandalists/are politically driven etc etc. NorthernWinds (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It was completly unnecesary to mention me here, am not at fault for your quotes not being repeated in secondary sources. Unless I am misinterpreting this, you are hinting between the lines that I delibirately try to erase quotes of women. As a woman myself, I find it very important to add more notable quotes from women. However, I do not believe your quotes were notable due to a lack of secondary sources. Quotes from women should be notable, just like all other quotes. Stop following me around and suggesting/hinting/explicitly saying wrong things about me or my edits. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I mostly agree with NorthernWinds. I don't think we should require secondary sources for quotes to be added, but if a quotation's notability is challenged then it should have to be supported by secondary sources or be subject to removal. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This is mostly how I operate but I would strongly, strongly oppose secondary sources being universally mandatory for all quotes (except as mentioned when someone thinks a quote is deficient or non-notable for other reasons, it being quoted can be a defense, or if there are too many) as there is little policy based reason for it. It is one reason to decide to quote something but the individual profoundness or evocativeness of a quote notability of individual quotes are also reasons. If there are an abundance of quotes from someone (e.g. a high profile religious figure, a president) it is a useful metric to decide which to keep and what to remove, but it should not be more than that. Further, we would have to remove almost everything we have, because citing secondary sources for quotes that are verified to a primary source is not very common. I don't see an advantage of this except on very high profile figures, in which case we can and should choose to do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the policy based on the discussion here. it is noting that while not strictly required for inclusion, upon the challenging of notability it should be demonstrated that it is quoted elsewhere (which is what IOH suggested). One should not remove quotes just because they think they are not repeated, but rather check it themselves in google books/web search. I have made an example of a proposal I intended to make, see Gilbert Highet. I think there are two main advantage for requiring secondary sourcing: 1. as you have mentioned, reduction of amounts of quotes in case of too many quotes. See, for example, the Jimmy Carter page, which I have meticulously trimmed to (mostly) widely-repeated quotations. The old version was restored now (with effort by a different person to trim, but not nearly as much), you can sure see the differences in readability. (mostly widely-repeated vs current). 2. removal of potential point of view violations. If you can quote anything from a notable book written by a notable individual, then what is stopping a person from copying many sentences from, say, Mein Kampf into pages like Jews or Judaism? The book sure has a lot about them. Any notable biased/racist book can be quoted, and there is (as far as I know) no policy against this. NPOV says "Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual". The requirement of secondary sourcing is a good safeguard against biased inclusion of such "quotes" that are not repeated anywhere. It is much simpler to push a point of view by reading a book and adding parts of it that supports your view than search for actually widely-repeated quotes.

Other than all that's said here, I think that when people visit wikiquote, they expect the quotes to be famous. What better way is there to ensure a quote is famous than repetition in secondary sources? If not for that feature, what sets Wikiquote apart from other user-generated quote platforms? NorthernWinds (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I oppose this as written and don't think it reflects the consensus here, so have changed it partially to reflect more what the consensus seems to be. It strikes me as an oversimplification, and places an overemphasis on secondary sources, which when it comes to verifying the origins of quotes are often suboptimal and lesser than the primary sources.

A quote from Mein Kampf would generally be appropriate on the Mein Kampf page, unless exceptionally mundane, or over quoting and you have to trim, but even if a single passage of that was extremely widely quoted, I think on most topics putting a Mein Kampf quote would still be inappropriate, on the grounds of tastefulness and neutrality. Also, Hitler is plenty quoted in reliable secondary sources about topics such as Jews, to show his antisemitism. So, by that logic, can we insert Hitler quotes everywhere? By your suggestion, we could, since his quotes on Jews are widely reproduced... Rather than solving the issue this would seem to greenlight it more. I think this shows a problem with this thinking. I think there is a substantial difference in concern with general topic quotes, and quotes for a person or item which is the source of quotes, here.

We are not Wikipedia. How often something is quoted is a big factor that can be used to eliminate quotes, but not the only one. Plenty of mundane, factual quotes are repeated by secondary sources, but they are not notable as a quotation because they are not interesting. Things said by notable people are often 'notable' in that sense. It depends! I prefer to limit myself to preexisting quotations, but this is ultimately ebritrary, and quotes should be first based on primary sources. The best way to verify a quote is by referring to the primary source - this in fact separates us from many user generated quote websites, which are merely circling around verifying nothing to the primary sources and basing it purely on hearsay. People quoting them is one way to determine a quote's notability, but other factors should not be ignored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

We can perhaps limit the requirements to articles that are more likely to attract POV pushing. Another example I did not mention in my last comment is the Zionism article. That article is the reason I began editing this project in the first place. I came looking for quotes of Zionist leaders and thinkers, but instead I found a lot of rubbish that was very uninteresting and unquotable (See these revisions which are mostly my work, removals of quotes not widely-repeated nor in reference book and addition of quotes widely-repeated or in reference book). In my opinion, we can insert widely repeated Hitler quotes anywhere. Such a rule limiting to only widely-repeated quotes would not open the door to more bad quotes, since without it you can quote both the widely-repeated Hitler quotes and the ones that are not widely-repeated anyways. I only meant to limit further what quotes we can include, not remove other factors that determine notability/quotability (if I did, it was by mistake). I do think that only original and not generic quotes should be included.

You said that what sets us apart from other platforms is verifiability. While that is true, I think we should also stick to the most notable quotes, and try to make them as short as possible. I think the example I gave earlier kind of missed the point I was trying to convey. Say, an Israel advocate comes to edit Wikiquote. They can read a notable book such as The Case for Israel and start "quoting" passages they like. This will be an obvious neutral point of view violation, but there is no policy against that. The same thing has actually happened with Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in mainspace here (the addition of passages not quoted anywhere). A good mechanism against this would be requiring secondary sources. If it is repeated elsewhere, then the addition is notable and is good for the project. If not, it would be caught and removed. I think we should at least require secondary sources for theme pages to solve this issue. NorthernWinds (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have no objection to being more careful in cases of POV pushing or people putting a bunch of quotes from an obscure book everywhere. Theme pages especially. Really any case where we have an extra reason to be selective, that standard is fine. What I mostly edit, and what I am mostly concerned about, are the people articles and the book articles on their own pages about themself. This is where I oppose a more absolute standard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. I propose this change based on the discussion:

In contentious articles or with quotes criticizing/accusing people/organizations: mandatory.

In other articles/quotations not criticizing/accusing: not mandatory, but helpful in determining notability.

All other previous guidelines/policies apply for all quotes.

I think the req should be at least 3 repetitions.

I think this change represents the consensus on this page. Do you agree? If so, I will add it to the policy.
Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think criticism and controversial may be overbroad; for example, many of the quote articles I have made are on people who are rather controversial (e.g. David Koresh), but I would oppose very strongly limiting it to quotes with 3 repetitions, and I think the one piece of criticism there of him, while I did not add it, is an interesting enough quote despite its lack of repetition. Maybe when it is a living person. I'm just worried about the edge cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think criticism/accusations should be treated with more care, no matter the subject. we could limit it to at least living, but in my opinion this can be abused. Thinking about it now, I reached conclusion that same standard should also apply to quotes praising subjects. There was no discussion about this though so if you think this should apply only to living people, we can go with that NorthernWinds (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

With living people there are enough reason to be cautious, so perhaps. But we may want to revisit this in the future if we run into any hiccups.

To think more broadly, outside of this specific question over whether to add words, I agree with more care, but I don't think three repetitions is a great way of determining that? Wow, someone's stupid criticism of another celebrity made it into 3 outlets, as does regularly happen - now it's quotable (not). Like Wiktionary, a quote compendium is by its nature a primary/secondary source resource; we are not Wikipedia, which is tertiary, because we are not an encyclopedia! Requiring citations defeats the point! Personally, a lot of my struggle with this is I feel like absolute rules aren't very useful here, they would end up greenlighting bad quotes and hampering good ones. Imo most of the bad criticism quotes (of which there are many), should be removed on the grounds of simply being bad/uninteresting/not poignant as quotes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the example you have raised can be solved by factoring in the other criteria for quotability. I do think we should cite the main material where possible, not secondary sources. While this is a secondary source by nature, I agree with Justin as he said here: In an actual quotation reference volume like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, the authority and reliability comes from the editorial process: a publisher's reputation would be on the line if it churned out slop or published an ostensible general-interest book of quotations that was politically-biased or whatever. Here, the great thing is that there is no overhead for publication, but without some internal standards for what should be allowed as a quotation, we end up with some painfully bad entries. The addition I suggested simply adds more factor for determining notability. It does not open the door to anything, but only limit. NorthernWinds (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, quotability is not actually policy, and there has never been consensus on making it policy, though I find it very useful. I too, agree with Justin's comment there, I am just not sure if this is the right solution for it; there are plenty of politically-biased quotes on general topics that are widely quoted. I think everyone here approves of trimming politically-biased quotes in inappropriate contexts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

While this solution will indeed not solve the problem entirely, it will provide a way to solve it partly. In my opinion, if many publications find a quote to be worth repeating, then perhaps it is beyond us to determine it is not notable or quotable. Wikiquote is the place for all quotes, including the politically-biased quotes since as you said, this is not Wikipedia.

The solution is imperfect, but currently neither of us know a better one.

Regarding the guideline, perhaps the time has come to make it a policy. I agree with much of what is said there, and in some cases I even believe it is not strict enough (for example, with the length). NorthernWinds (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Even with very heavily quoted things, we still make subjective assessments. A dry statement of fact, even if heavily quoted, would never be included here. And yes, it may solve some issues - at the cost of heavily limiting our coverage, which I do not think is worth it. Politically biased quotes have their place, but it being quoted in one context does not make it quotable for all contexts - there are reasons we do not put Hitler, widely quoted, everywhere.

It's been tried for a while and there was never consensus every time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Your response is well-written, I do see your point in filtering post secondary-sources verification. I have changed the policy to a state I think will be acceptable by most.

Before making this request, I was told in that Wikiquoters usually prefer an inclusive approach (This was said in the context of requiring secondary sources). But here we are, with editors agreeing that there are times when the requirement should apply. Perhaps the same will turn out with the quotability guideline. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You said this limits coverage, but we have minimized the applicability of the proposed secondary sources requirement. The requirement applies to a rather small amount of quotes, so most of the project will be unaffected NorthernWinds (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, I do not think it is a good idea to be altering an official policy as you consider ideas. Instead, I would suggest that you iron out whatever disagreements there are in Talk pages and propose a new version (that people can vote on to establish consensus). As it stands, your changes appear to already be accepted by the community because the page is tagged as official policy. But that is not the case. All discussions regarding changes to official policies should complete before the updates are made. And then you should try to build consensus before releasing. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy for consensus states consensus is not a vote result, so a week after the discussion began I tried to change the policy to try to fit in all opinions, and I believe I did so in a manner that is generally accepted. I will revert the changes, though I do believe that they represented the different opinions expressed here. Talking about the changes and representation of consensus, do you find the latest suggestions more acceptable, and do you think they should be placed (be it, with some modification/clarification)? NorthernWinds (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe it is much closer to being acceptable, but sorry I still do not support at least one aspect that has been suggested - the insistence on having "repetition in at least 3 secondary sources", even if limited to contentious pages or those critical of living people. I believe that is too high a bar. But I think you are certainly getting closer. But, more importantly, my objection above was only that proposed changes to something already accepted by the community as official policy should be treated carefully so that it does not merely reflect the views of a single person before being enacted. Your changes may very well have captured many of the discussion points, but it did not allow for any kind of review by the community to agree or disagree with that before being released as "official." IMHO anything that will receive official policy status needs more review than just summing up discussion from a side talk page - it should be presented in a wider forum (e.g. the Vilage pump) and allow for comments before finalizing. My objection was more a process issue than a content issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. I will wait a while and propose a change and put it up for a vote. NorthernWinds (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Policy proposal based on discussion:
Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations that are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work. Quotes whose content is contentious and/or quotes criticizing living people require, on top of the other factors, repetition in at least three secondary sources. While not a requirement for non-contentious quotes, repetition may also serve a role in determining notability of general quotes. Inclusion in a reference book for quotations may by itself demonstrate notability, even if the quotation does not conform to all criteria.
Editors who have taken place in the discussion: UDScott, PARAKANYAA, IOHANNVSVERVS, A23423413, Justin (koavf) Please vote and/or suggest improvements. NorthernWinds (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

As stated, I still do not support. While closer, as I've stated multiple times, I still believe the requirement for 3 secondary sources is too many. To me, if it is reputable secondary source, even one additional is enough. And again, this should be posted in (or linked from) a place where a wider audience will see it (like the Village pump). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on visibility. This should be on the village pump and the site banner should mention it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding! Although I do not know how to place it on the site banner as @Koavf suggested, I will post about this where appropriate NorthernWinds (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Only admins and interface administrators can do that. I can do that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur with UDScott, pretty much. I feel this is too definitive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you have another suggestions for a middle ground? I thought about adding something like “overwhelming consensus for inclusion of a particular quote can override the secondary sources requirement” but was not sure what is the right balance NorthernWinds (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I approve. Thanks for boiling this down to a policy statement. I hope that we adopt this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I dislike hard-fast rules like three sources. It's better to enact the principle behind it, and let people discuss edge cases.

Also we need a different word for notability when discussing quotes. Imagine being a new contributor and having to parse notability of sources, people, and quotes. GMG^talk 15:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with both aspects of this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

these rules have always been discussed at Quotability since the beginning. This discussion is taking place on the wrong page. The proper location for such proposals is the Quotability page, where these rules have traditionally resided since the beginning of this project. Quotability has always been discussed at the Quotability page. Therefore this whole discussion should be moved there instead of Re purposing this page. Secondly all users who have participated at discussions at Quotability should be informed on their talkpages if there is again a discussion. It seems some of these points have been discussed already at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote_talk:Quotability --ᘙ (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified. This is a proposal to change policy, not guidelines. This is why it is done here and not there. This is the only policy where notability is mentioned. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Was this rationale communicated to everyone involved? If not, it really should have been made explicit from the outset. Transparency about the reasoning behind these decisions is essential.

Rather than inserting content pertaining to the Quotability page into this policy page simply because this one holds the status of a formal policy while the other is a guideline, the appropriate approach would have been to first propose elevating the Quotability page itself to policy status. That way, any rules or standards specific to Quotability would be housed in their proper context.

The generally accepted guidelines at Quotability have persisted as such for years, in contrast, your new rules have not undergone any real-world testing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to first formalize the existing, time-tested guidelines by proposing their adoption as official policy?

Your new rules should first be added to the Quotability page, and then the Quotability evlevated to policy. This sequence respects both the structure and the spirit of how policies are typically developed.--ᘙ (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with UDScott that the rigid and stringent rules disproportionately favors recent authors—particularly those active in the Internet age—while unfairly penalizing authors and works from the pre-Internet era. His comment, "This subject has been brought up before and my opinion is that not every type of quote will necessarily stand up to such a stringent requirement. I think it works much better applied to quotes from living people, but less so for works (literary works, films, or TV shows) or for quotes from those long dead. There is much less likelihood that these are quoted elsewhere and I don't believe holding such a strict limit is fair for quotes from times before there was widespread media or the Internet in use. As an example, the film Casablanca is undoubtedly a notable work, and several of it most famous quotes have of course been quoted elsewhere. But some of its less famous, but certainly pithy quotes are also worth having on its page, even they were never quoted elsewhere. Certainly many of the quotes on the page for Moby-Dick are not likely to be quoted elsewhere, and yet they are worthy of keeping. And just because not all of the quotes from historical figures like Aristotle or George Washington are quoted in other works does not mean they should be removed. IMHO if we instituted such a policy a large portion of the quotes from pages such as these would be stripped away and we would lose much of the value of this site." it favors the digital era while unfairly disadvantaging historical material. Authors, thinkers, and works from the pre-digital age often did not have their words endlessly recycled in online articles, blogs, or social media posts. Yet their contributions can be just as, if not more, culturally and intellectually significant. By imposing such a rigid sourcing threshold, we risk erasing a vast swath of valuable quotations simply because they do not meet a standard that is inherently skewed toward the present day.

The rule should apply equally to all quotes, without creating separate and vague categories like "contentious quotes," which are inherently subjective and impossible to define consistently. Any quote can be arbitrarily labeled contentious by any editor, leading to arbitrary enforcement. Any user could say all quotes are contentious just because they are pro- or contra-something. This is totally arbitrary. The proposal’s creation of special categories like “contentious quotes” is very problematic. contentiousness is inherently subjective. What one editor sees as a neutral observation, another might deem inflammatory or critical. This opens the door to arbitrary enforcement, where the fate of a quote could hinge less on its intrinsic merit and more on the personal sensibilities of whoever happens to be claiming it. Any editor could label a quote contentious simply because it expresses a viewpoint—whether supportive or critical—which makes the designation unreliable and prone to bias. A policy that relies on such a nebulous classification is bound to produce inconsistency and conflict, and it risks privileging the loudest or most persistent voices in a debate rather than the most reasoned. while the intent to avoid frivolous or defamatory content is commendable, this proposal’s method is too blunt an instrument. It would disproportionately harm historical and literary content and invite subjective enforcement. Furthermore, should new rules be applied retroactively to quotes already added under older guidelines? There have previously been users who removed additional citations as unnecessary or spam, but now their actions would suddenly be contradicted by suddenly demanding such citations. If we were to adopt these rules, would they be applied to the thousands of quotes already on the site? Many of those were added under earlier, more flexible guidelines, and in many cases, there were editors who have been removing all citations to secondary sources in the past. There are many examples on many articles, where additional citations ("as quoted in", "also quoted in", "attributed by", ...) were deleted by these editors. And admins like UDScott [1] have said that additional sources for a quote, while not necessary, can be beneficial provided there are not so many that they produce clutter. Since they were never necessary, should a new rule be applied retroactively, or just to quotes which are newly added. To suddenly reverse course and demand multiple secondary sources for those same quotes would not only create inconsistency but also undermine the work of previous contributors who acted in good faith under the rules of their time. One possible exception might be handling pages about (not by) living people with more care, but otherwise, uniform standards should be used equally for all. Biographies of Living people can be easily defined without controversy, bias or arbitrariness, but contentious cannot be defined consistently, without carrying the risk of partiality or bias, and it can make sense to handle living people with separate rules. But any new rule should apply to all articles about living people, not just the ones that someone arbirtrily claims are contentious living people. There could be a more stringent rule for pages about living people, at least applied to newly added quotes. --ᘙ (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Regarding bias: I believe this is a net positive toward eliminating it. The entire point of this is allowing the hasty purge of biased articles. Editors can add many quotes supporting their point of view, creating a POV problem. This rule can help clean the page of bias in such situations, and help prevent them in the first place. Currently, this project does not have any protection against bias.
2. Regarding internet era bias: noted. The vague “sources” should be replaced with “books”.
3. Regarding “undermining the work of previous contributors who acted in good faith under the rules of their time” The wiki changes all the time. Things are added, things are removed, no one guarantees that your additions stay. This project’s goal is to be good, not necessarily to include everything that users decide is insightful or important. Wikipedia has a policy saying “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” While requiring consensus for a small project like this would be impractical, being quoted in a book is a good place to start. We should limit this somehow, otherwise...

To reinforce my position, I would like to show you a real-world example of how this rule could dramatically reduce POV pushing.

See Gaza war. The vast majority (I would guess as much as 95% of quotes) were added by a single person. See some of their edits: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

All quotes, without exception, paint Israel in a bad light. Without exception. The result of a page that looks more like a "Israel is bad" page than a page about the Gaza war, and in my opinion hosts a lot of uninteresting quotes. Say what you will about the quotes. About whether they are right or wrong. Whatever you say, one thing is clear: there was a point of view push. Do the quotes fulfill the current policy requirements? maybe, I don’t know. Either way, the fact remains: this page is now extremely biased. Without this policy, the only way neutralize the page would be to have a lengthy discussion about all of the quotes, which is basically impossible, given that the user has added over ~200 “quotes”. The only way to prevent these POV pushes is to require secondary sourcing for contentious quotes. NorthernWinds (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not an active editor at this time, although I was perhaps 15 years ago; I was brought here by a notification on my talk page. In general, I would ask that people not try to generalize from I/P which is sui generis; "hard cases make bad law", as the lawyers say. I have always been very strongly on the side of allowing legitimate quotations (i.e., verifiable, accurate, and a small fraction of the original work) that an editor believes to be subjectively worth quoting -- that someone else might want to search for and reference in the future, particularly those that may be difficult to find original sources for (e.g., a book that is out of print, a newspaper whose archives are behind a paywall, a broadcaster that takes down their program recordings after six months). I think a different policy ought reasonably apply to "topic" pages as distinguished from pages for a person or a work; I've largely stayed out of editing topic pages because they can be such a mess and they invite disputes about bias and inclusion. One reasonable approach (although I do not advocate it) might be to disallow topic pages entirely on exactly this ground, while leaving the work- and author-specific pages. 121a0012 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

regarding the Gaza war article, for many, maybe even most, of those quotes, a secondary source was indeed added, and for many of them, or at least for many with similar bias, three additional sources could be easily found. indeed just the first link shows a secondary sources from sources like aljazeera and ft.com. simply adding secondary sources does not fundamentally solve the neutrality or bias problem in the Gaza war article—or any similarly contentious topic, for that matter. Quotes that portray Israel in a negative light and are backed by multiple sources could be easily found, therefore the rule would not fix the neutrality problem. one user even pointed out that Hitler’s antisemitic statements are widely quoted in secondary sources on topics regarding Jews, but obviously that does not mean it would be appropriate or balanced to insert quotes from Hitler everywhere they might appear. By the same logic, if we require multiple secondary sources for quotes without considering their context, we could end up with a flood of problematic quotes just because they have additional sources.

Defining what is “contentious” is inherently subjective and vague. What you or I might consider a contentious topic may not be viewed the same way by someone else, and vice versa. This makes any special rules targeting “contentious quotes” problematic , inconsistent and arbitrary. Basically, any topic will be contentious to somebody, which means this proposed rule would effectively require blanking out nearly the entire site since almost no quotes currently meet that threshold. This would not fix the neutrality problem in the Gaza war article because plenty of contested quotes could still be found with multiple secondary sources, and the site would lose valuable content across all topics. the very concept of “contentious” quotes is deeply subjective. Any editor can label a quote contentious based on personal bias or perspective, which invites arbitrary enforcement and risks privileging the loudest voices over reasoned neutrality. in any wiki environment, especially on highly controversial topics like the Gaza war, it’s expected that the article will contain some or many quotes that different readers may find offensive or biased—some seeing the article as anti-Israel, others seeing it as pro-Israel. the best way to address neutrality concerns is not by deleting quotes or demanding excessive sourcing, but by ensuring the article reflects multiple viewpoints with appropriately varied quotes. that is what admins have said. Adding quotes that represent different perspectives is much more constructive than simply removing those that seem to push one perspective. While there are alternative approaches, such as limiting quotations from the same author or imposing a time limit—say only including quotes published at least two years ago—they may also not be ideal solutions. They can arbitrarily exclude valuable context or historical material.

Currently, probably less than 0.0001 percent of all quotes have three secondary sources. If the proposed rule were applied retroactively, also for quotes added in the past, that would mean almost the entire site would have to be scrubbed immediately. Because every quote is contentious to somebody, and almost no quotes have 3 additional sources. it was done before on French wq, the entire site was nuked and they started anew, but not because of neutrality, it was because of copyright law problems. But this would then be done on meta.wikimedia, not here. Keep in mind, until now, additional sources were actively removed by some editors, and admins felt they were unnecessary and too many could clutter pages. Indeed, an admin explicitly stated that too many additional sources could produce clutter. Now imagine what would happen if every quote had to come with three or more sources—there would be overwhelming clutter across the site. Regarding “ The wiki changes all the time. Things are added, things are removed, no one guarantees that your additions stay.” but until now, additional sources were actively removed from articles by some editors, and admins have said that they are not necessary and too many could also clutter pages. The rigid and stringent sourcing rules disproportionately favor recent authors and sources active in the internet era while unfairly penalizing historical works and figures. For example, many quotes from classical literature, films like Casablanca, or historical figures like Aristotle or George Washington are rarely, if ever, referenced in multiple secondary sources—yet they are culturally and intellectually important and should be preserved. Applying such strict sourcing requirements would erase a huge portion of valuable content from this site. many books are not online. digital era and social media would be favored compared to books, many of which are not searchable online.

more strict standards could be applied specifically to quotes about living people, which can be clearly defined, and could be a larger problem. All of these issues and the bigger picture about quotability and neutrality should be discussed in one place on the dedicated quotability and neutrality pages, rather than here. --ᘙ (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

Vast majority, if not all of the quotes that the user I have pointed out added do not have secondary sources that are books, as agreed above.

"For example, many quotes from classical literature, films like Casablanca, or historical figures like Aristotle or George Washington are rarely, if ever, referenced in multiple secondary sources—yet they are culturally and intellectually important and should be preserved" The proposal does not effect those.

"Adding quotes that represent different perspectives is much more constructive than simply removing those that seem to push one perspective" This would require to push a point of view to balance a push of point of view. In doing so, you yourself push a point of view, which should not be allowed.

I believe I discussed the other things you said above. NorthernWinds (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)