Last modified on 26 February 2015, at 21:59

Talk:Main Page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Main Page page.

If you're reading Wikiquote after 00:00 UTC, and notice the quote of the day on the Main Page has not been updated, you can make the update happen by clicking here to purge the main page cache.

This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. For general discussions or questions about Wikiquote, please go to the Village pump.

NOTE: Old discussions can be found in Talk:Main Page/Archives.

Wikiquote languagesEdit

Why there isn't Bahasa Indonesia if there is Basa Sunda ? Thx... Kenrick95 09:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Updated list of active Wikiquotes on Main Page and Other language Wikiquotes. ~ Ningauble 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why there isn't bangla if there is bangla, where it is ? —This unsigned comment is by Ibrahimmuddasser (talkcontribs) . 16:01, March 26, 2014

Missing spacesEdit

Can somebody add a space after Themes and Miscellaneous in the Selected pages section? Thanks. -Cwenger 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. ~ Ningauble 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does the quote of the day not have a source?Edit

Levelroom 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a link to a Wikiquote article that should have information about the source. Although I think it would be good to include a citation on the main page, previous discussion of the idea did not lead to implementing it. ~ Ningauble 15:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Please see Wikiquote_talk:Quote_of_the_day#Update. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite get it, and have commented on the above linked talk page. Perhaps I am just easily confused. ~ Ningauble 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You said the same thing at Wikiquote_talk:Quote_of_the_day#Update. Please, let us have discussion at one unified location, and not have threaded back-and-forth responses across multiple pages. The above subsection was merely meant as a notice, to direct discussion to Wikiquote_talk:Quote_of_the_day#Update. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki glEdit

Could you ad interwiki gl:? A lot of thanks--HombreDHojalata 20:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. ~ Ningauble 13:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


How can I get an account?

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
This has been responded to, with the "anon" template:
Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Please also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.

Click here to create an account. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily quotesEdit

It seems we've had a very "zen" streak in the front page quotes. Is there some astrological event going on that I'm not aware of? :) ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mu. Always and everywhere. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


Um... any particular reason there are swastikas plastered all over today's quote of the day? - dcljr 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

YES. — I do not mean to insult you or alarm you — but it is to point out MANY of the forms of stupidity of human beings, which prompt them to embrace many forms of overt or subtle forms of facism, represented by the Nazi and Neo-nazi uses of the swastika — and to blindly and ignorantly constrain, destroy and disrespect MANY forms of fairness and freedom — such as the ancient pagan, Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, and Falun Gong uses of the swastika represent.

Nat Turner captured.jpg   Swastik4.svg Swastika nazi.svg 77px ACWswastika.svg Falun Gong Logo.svg

It is hopelessness even more than pain that crushes the soul. So the decision-making of daily life involves not, as in normal affairs, shifting from one annoying situation to another less annoying — or from discomfort to relative comfort, or from boredom to activity — but moving from pain to pain. One does not abandon, even briefly, one's bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes.

卐 卍 ~ William Styron ~ 卐 卍
Swastika1.svg   Raelian symbol.svgHinduSwastika.svg ReceBogaSwargi.svgIndian Swastika.svg

  Bundesarchiv Bild 175-04413, KZ Auschwitz, Einfahrt.jpg
RGS 13.jpg

The excellent statement of Styron is related to his state of general personal depression, but also relates to a more generalized depression and hopeless state of confusion that exists among many people, due to their willingness to judge themselves or others and condemn MANY as absolutely unworthy of life, or any form of generous consideration or respect, because of the tragic narrowness and smallness of their existing levels of vision, awareness and mindfulness.

In the early part of the twentieth century a group of obnoxious and overt fascists seized upon the device of the swastika as a way to promote their profoundly mentally and spiritually ill agenda — and what had been from ancient times a symbol of dynamically auspicious balance and righteous activity became primarily identified in the minds of millions with the genocidal and totalitarian aims of some of the foulest and most perverse minds that have existed in the history of the world. I am opposed to it or ANY other symbol remaining primarily a symbol of evil in the minds of much of humanity. There is a need for symbols — but there is a NEED to see BEYOND any particular uses of them as well — IF people are to attain TRUE maturity and stability which doesn't impel them to retreat in fear and cowardice from shows of force or fierceness — and to fight fairly as possible against even those LEAST inclined to be fair towards them.

Those most foolishly simple minded will OFTEN think that there is ONLY one proper way to interpret things — THEIR way — and thus many more subtle and obvious forms of fascism abide and flourish — even among those who will insist that they are intensely antifascist — and those which are most dangerous are often those which are most subtle and most disguised. They will seize upon any difference they can point out that certain people "Do NOT Belong among us" — they are different and people must form "commonsensical" groups which can be defined most easily as "US vs THEM". And thus tyrants and toadies rise to power amidst the distressing hatreds and fears they feed upon and vomit forth again for others to feed upon.

Amidst all the tyrants and toadies with varying forms of power, amidst many levels of social organization or disorganization, there also abide minds innocent of such narrow overly presumptive assumptions, truly devoted to Justice, Unity, Liberty, and the Ultimate Spirit of ALL Awareness, Life, and Love — in ALL people — even the WORST of them. And in their fear of the true virtue and actual power of those who often arm themselves with little more than truth to reveal the deficiencies, flaws and farces of their apparent virtue and power, the tyrants and toadies of all stripes will unite in their hostilities to such people in EVERY way they can… making them drink hemlock, crucifying them, burning them at the the stake, misjudging them in many shallow ways, constraining them with straightjackets and walls and rules "for their own good" — calling them ridiculous and overly sensitive and poetic — or overly harsh and dramatic in their various advocacies of freedom and fairness — and the NECESSITY for reliance upon the ultimate power of TRUTH — and REJECTION of the needless use of force and punishments to damage or constrain the lives of others.

Fairness often speaks unpleasant truths as well as pleasant — and thus becomes ignored or undermined by those more facile at forms of flattery — and thus Fascism often flairs and becomes quite popular — until the DOOMS it impels become evident and people once again become aware of proper prudence of NOT using needless force — and respecting the NEED for Justice, Unity, Liberty, and EVER greater respect for Awareness, Life, and Love. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 09:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In summary — MUCH of what I am trying it INDICATE is : AMBIGUITIES ABOUND — those who seek to OVERLY DEFINE the world and others in VERY constrained and limited ways and to eliminate or deny ambiguities NOT to their comfort or liking — OFTEN bring about many of the foulest forms of injustice — which they are often not troubled by at all — so long as they can hide, deny, or ignore it — or find ways which allow others to keep them largely oblivious to it. I prefer to confront MANY forms of interpretation and misinterpretation of motivations and aims and actions and wills, HONESTLY rather than deceiving anyone that there SHOULD be or CAN be only ONE interpretation of ANYTHING. I often deal with complexities far beyond the easy kenning of most — but I don't always attempt to express many of these in words. Circumstances are making me more inclined to do so lately. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Y-y-yeah… I'm sure you think all of that is very profound, but none of it actually justifies the use of the symbols with this particular quote, or indeed why we need 14 of them. Now, if the quote actually referenced the swastika or any philosophies, religions, or political movements that have used it, that would be different. Instead, this strikes me as soapboxing on the Main Page, albeit in a completely opaque and ineffective way. (I find your use of the phrase "it is to point out" especially troubling in this regard. Perhaps in the future you shouldn't try so hard to "point out" things in clever ways using the QotD feature.) As for this particular QotD, I would encourage you (or some other interested party) to remove all the swastika-related images and just keep the ones that clearly are relevant to Styron and/or his quote (i.e., Nat Turner, Auschwitz, and I guess—even though it seems a bit on-the-nose to me—the bed of nails pic). - dcljr 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I choose images both subtle and obvious in their relations to Styron and his statement and his works. A writer with as profound a discernment and aims as Styron knows that many things relate to other things in ways which are not immediately or obviously apparent — and knows that the limits of language and one's ability to communicate profound ideas can be very depressing — and often quite anguishing — but in pursuit of freedom of will and conscience against those most inclined to constrain and deny the worth of conscience — "One does not abandon, even briefly, one's bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes" — and continues to attempt to increase communication and discernment among many diverse factions of humanity — in trying to prompt awareness of some vitally important forms of universal unity that transcend all shallow definitions and attempts at them — including one's own. Styron and other artists know the importance of defying the sense of futility and despair that can often arise in battles against oppressions of various deliberate or incidental kinds . ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think your use of symbols actually reduces the ambiguity of the quotes by pushing people into interpreting them in the way you deem right? 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We're getting email complaints on this as well. For instance, OTRS ticket 2011061110011006. The swastikas are distracting to say the least and offensive to many. They force a narrow interpretation and also are tacky in terms of design. I suggest they be removed immediately and editorial integrity be asserted. Adrignola 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, replaced with quote page from same day from last year. Per OTRS complaints about this issue, eg OTRS ticket 2011061110011006. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Though I responded far more extensively to concerns expressed here, long ago in my comments below, I would like to make clear at this point that the comments on the swastikas "force a narrow interpretation" is simply false — they might prompt PUZZLEMENT to many, and incite existing narrow interpretations about things to become more evident, but they FORCE nothing. ALSO, I would like to point out that in the publicly displayed records still existing at this point this act of censorship replaced the ACTUAL quote of the day as well as the layout created for it with an IMPROPER record of what the actual Quote of the day was, and with the controversy of the Main page having swastikas on it LONG gone, the PROPER and TRUE records of what had been selected should be restored. Otherwise the strategies of the totalitarian Ministry of Information in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four at altering the genuine records of the past will CONTINUE to be employed here by some, with apparent impunity and pride. I consider it lamentable that understandable reaction to a symbol ABUSED by authoritarian autocrats has been used to justify acts of extremely authoritarian behavior here. ~ Kalki·· 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
    • The revision history of the page appears to be intact. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I wasn't claiming that things had YET gone so far as to change the revision history — but the actual quote and layout that PRODUCED so much consternation and controversy has been censored from the NORMALLY viewable records, with the June 11 2010 quote and layout replacing it at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/June 2011 page, such had been maintained for ALL months accessible through QOTD by month. ~ Kalki·· 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion: There is a general discussion about asserting editorial control over images on the Main Page at Wikiquote:Village pump#Images on Main Page. ~ Ningauble 21:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The following message was composed after viewing some comments by IP earlier today but which I was constrained from immediately responding to because of blocks Cirt had placed on the IPs of my home computers — despite this continuing to be NOT appropriate action based on community consensus. I copied it to a thumb drive and am now posting it, along with a few comments regarding actions taking in response to the images and quotes which had been selected for the QOTD.
But don't you think your use of symbols actually reduces the ambiguity of the quotes by pushing people into interpreting them in the way you deem right? 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am WELL aware that people could easily believe such things, and even KNOW that such things might be true in some limited senses, but I also know that is not the primary FACT which could be construed from examination of the montage, nor of my words in response to perplexities or irritations which have been expressed or indicated here. I am not actually reducing ambiguities at all — I am simply finding means to make a few people a little bit more aware of SOME of them.

The wise know that ambiguity is ubiquitous. This does NOT mean that expressions or indications are valueless — as some who call themselves nihilists might seek to imply or construe — often in very presumptive or authoritarian ways —  but that MANY values can arise and be assigned to many things — including the words and symbols used in the common intercourse of human minds. Many of the wisest and most experienced explorers of thought and ideas would assert that there are no ends to the varieties of ambiguity which can arise in examining reality. ONE of the MOST IMPORTANT things to do is to BE AWARE of that FACT — and HELP people become so.

Throughout most of my life I have usually sought to find many ways to remain obscure and unnoticed — but when I feel that there is a need for me to be noticed at all, I usually try to be as amusing and entertaining and interesting and educational about many vitally important facts as I can be — not a mere irritation or abuser of anyone — but I am willing to sometimes irritate and be extremely harsh to those I perceive to be most casually willing to unjustly irritate and be overly harsh to others and their proper rights and liberties as human beings. I am QUITE aware that many might judge me to be sometimes overly harsh to others — and I would not deny that I might sometimes seem or be so — but usually when I am being harsh with anyone, there is indeed many aspects of justice or necessity at work that MOST people might not immediately or easily become aware of — and I ALWAYS acknowledge the right of others to disagree with me and to express their disagreements as honestly and vigorously as they wish.

Words and symbols, and the rules people devise with them ALWAYS deceive those who place too much trust in them. There is no way to be safe from deceptions — and those who seek to constrain and limit the amounts of information available to others in various ways are the MOST deceptive of all. Much of my own use of words, like that of many people, INDEED involves double-talk and multiple-entendre expressions designed to preserve and delight in ambiguities or the signaling of such, which will NOT be recognized by many — but I do NOT aim to keep anyone permanently or detrimentally deceived in ANY ways — and MOST abhor the mindsets of those who DO seek to do such things. I do NOT seek to do such people any harm — but I DO often seek to prevent them from doing needless harm to others or themselves — and this can involve letting some forms of harm to myself or others arise — to PREVENT what I perceive would be far worse harm to human liberty.

In my life I have encountered MANY who wish to END discussions SWIFTLY and with little consideration in ways which favor their own stances, and are unwilling or unable to debate or discuss matters — or even tolerate determined dissent. They often wish to RUSH discussions, and entirely lack the patience or wit to appreciate such complex genius as exhibited by Swift or Melville, or Adams who I can sometimes disagree with, despite immense admiration for them, or some of the worst absurdities of cleverly effective shallowness of such people as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck— who I can occasionally firmly agree with, though I abhor much of the general tenor of their expressions and many of their motives — and what they generally seek to imply with many expressions of truth or falsehoods which lead to the favoring and support of some of the foulest of falsehoods and outright lies which corrupt the minds of millions. I do NOT wish to inspire hatred or animosity for their personal lives — but I do not deny I have intense animosity for many of their aims.

IF I were to provide ANYONE a firm label for what I am it would be a COMPLEX one that would IMPEL them to examine MANY of the ambiguities and false assumptions that go into the casual use of words and labels which many use.

Though I can respect many elements of many diverse political and religious factions, I belong to NO established political party, nor organized religious institutions. In a very paradoxical paradigm of resolutions and reconciliations not easy for many to fathom, I might reasonably and perplexingly be called an existentially absurd passionately involved transcendently compassionate and aloof moderately pacific militant radical agnostic gnostic liberal conservative libertarian socialist democratic republican communitarian communist religiously irreligious Angelic Idiot, with a great fondness and aversions for many called anarchists as well as those too foolish or too wise to use any such labels, with a strong abhorrence of many forms of casual anarchism, and MOST forms of rigorous authoritarianism and tyranny — ESPECIALLY by those who would seek to absolutely define themselves or anyone else by ONLY one of any of these or any other labels — and vigorously opposed to ALL forms of terrorism. I know I CERTAINLY could find MANY things to disagree with amidst any who would like to use any of those words in such an exclusive and highly exclusionary way. Even when I myself use the term fascist in reference to people's attitudes or behavior in regard to something, I usually do not mean to imply that they are ONLY or primarily fascists or irredeemably so — but apply the term like I use the term painter — as a describing ONE aspect of what they do or are inclined to do — and with a hope that the NAMING and realization of their fascist tendencies can impel the integrity of at least some of them to abandon such and become a more healthy and aware individual. There are NO people I presume to be free of some capacities for tyrannical fascism or evil, though they can come to be motivated to be such through VARIOUS delusions and errors.

Though I am quite forgiving and tolerant towards many idiots — CERTAINLY being one myself, I am a person at war with many forms of idiocy — and have been intensely most of my life — though I have not usually let this show in so obvious a way as I have recently begun to here, and consider some of the worst forms of idiocy are those which seek to brand ANYONE as WHOLLY virtuous or vile — no matter how vain, vicious or truly villainous they might be.

As a first class IDIOT who recognizes myself as such in MANY ways, and many others as IDIOTS in ways they have not even begun to recognize, I seek to become an ever-worthier ANGEL of True Eternal Grace — and inspire others to be as well.

So much for the flow of verbose verifications of a tendency towards pragmatically pompous poetics and pretensions for now… I confess I sometimes do like precipitating necessary crises, when they must come — and further confusing some of the most tragically confused, and making people who most WORSHIP the idolatry of words TIRED and weary of trying to understand things BY words that can only, AT MOST, be INDICATED through words — and PROVEN by actions and events — and never actually PROVEN in all ways conceivable even by these.

I truly believe that ultimately, ALL IS WELL, no matter how distressing and tragic MANY things and events may OFTEN seem — and MORE well in more ways than I can ever indicate through words or statements… and I know that even saying this can distress and disturb some people who cannot see ANY way how this can be so — and think that things MUST be MOSTLY wrong if THEY cannot see how they are mostly right — or even, in some impossible to percieve ways ENTIRELY right. I believe they are particularly wrong in this — and logic and reason does support me on this — though not in ways that I am deluded enough to believe many of them could immediately understand.

I had a very few more comments beyond the above, in my original composition, but some of these are relatively insignificant as compared to issues that are now evident, as I now respond to further comments and activity which have occurred after I composed most of the above comments, as I have now arrived at my present location where my access to this wiki has not been constrained to my talk page by Cirts suppressive actions upon my home computer. I believe that the quote and imagery used was censored in activity I consider entirely inappropriate. I will seek to make a few more observations here in coming weeks, but am not immediately inclined to be overly involved in disputing what has been done at this time. I sorrow that people cannot recognize that the imagery used was in relation to the NEED for sincerely anti-fascist attitudes and behavior — and to reject behavior that are actually endorsements of fascist tendencies against what many might ignorantly suppose to be a pro-fascist presentation of symbols which have been used and abused by fascists.

For many years I have often sought to provide THOUGHT provoking imagery and quotes in the selections made for QOTD — and objected to calls for the banal and bland to be mandated by those who actually have severe problems with permitting a broad range diversity of thoughts and opinions to be presented. I expect that I will have to make further arguments on this matter within a few days, but for now will continue to do some simple editing while I consider matters. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

God forgive me, but this Kalki individual is becoming increasingly bewildered and autocratic. He (and only a sad and isolated male could ever resort to the pathetic, self-serving tripe he regularly emits) uses these pages as a platform to try to exorcise his own nothingness. Best to ignore. ( His excruciatingly unsophisticated use of block capitals to evince his illogical and lack lustre opinions are particularly tiresome.) I imagine no one ever reads the paragraphs of specious nonsense he produces, but still - can this individual not be removed from editing these fine pages? Wikiquote is not a private fiefdom for semi-educated drifters on welfare... (empty curve 7 July 2011)

I could respond to this particular form of shallow tripe more extensively, but I prefer to quote a fellow clown who knew he was a clown, as something of an antidote to those who are, and yet fail to perceive that, and would sternly punish anyone who doesn't take their tripe as seriously as they do:
In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. ~ Charlie Chaplin, in The Great Dictator (1940)
Like Chaplin I can laugh at myself as well as my adversaries, and not hiding or denying anger at open or disgused forms of intolerance, bigotry and fascism, do my best to expose it for what it is, even while doing my best to forgive those who are so ignorant and confused as to indulge in it in ways that are momentarily acceptable or popular because of the shallowness of many people's perceptions. Though I do speak in anger at times, I generally invite people to paths of greater ease and laughter, far more than I seek to be harshly menacing to those who are ignorant and confused and who tend to believe that they are somewhere close to the pinnacle of human wisdom in many possible regards — and fit to judge what should be the opportunities and fates of others. Those who are far higher than they in intellectual and ethical merit have abandoned such delusions for ages past, and simply seek to clarify the need for Liberty and Justice for all — NOT just those who comport themselves in ways the timid and tyrannous find most acceptable. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
I would like to clarify further a few things about the images and symbols used, in what was intended to be a very somber and sobering assessments of human misapplication of many symbols and signs and prejudices and presumptions associated with them: In presenting the statements of William Styron, which like my own were designed to actually prompt people to go beyond shallow and narrow comfort levels and probe the discrepancies between what people actually advocate and what they often do, there were 2-3 swastikas which could be properly designated Nazi swastikas which have become recognized symbols of intolerance and bigotry, and there are 16 other swastikas (as well as even those 2 or 3, however horribly misused they might be), which could be taken as evoking traditions dating back thousands of years which are ancient indications of such assertions as "ALL IS WELL" — from those of the generally gentle and pacifistic Jains — as well as those of the Hindu and Buddhists, and more recent innovations denoting ancient or modern ideas. I am always appalled when people call for strong forms of censorship and oppression to insure that views other than their own are not heard or considered — no matter how virtuous many of their own ideas might generally be — if they are truly virtuous they can withstand presentations of other ideas. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an opinion on today's (17 Nov 2011) QOTD from Voltairine de CleyreEdit

(Oh Gawd!, Not that worn-out old boogeyman, "fascism" yet again!?

Yep. Sorry. Today's QOTD seems to be practically a mission statement for fascism. At least for authoritarian "leaders" in fascist regimes. One can easily imagine this quote as part of Goebbels' introduction of Hitler before a huge crowd, saying it is a triumph of the will that we have such strong leaders who tenaciously seek to impose their wishes on the populace no matter how unpopular and no matter anything else, for that matter.

I think it is perfectly fine to expose people to quotes from fascists, communists, or whomever - it makes for a better educated, and therefore just plain better, citizenry. Heck, Ronald Reagan almost bragged that he had studied The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and he was strongly anti-Communist, for instance.


As an afterthought, it does bother me a bit when such quotes are presented with no commentary or context to indicate the antidemocratic aspect of the quote. Open-source projects are inherently democratic, IMHO, so we should permit and maybe even require that NPOV not be followed in one small way when presenting the QOTD. Avoid turning the QOTD into a political pulpit, but just a minimalist statement that,

"The editors identify the preceding quote as antidemocratic, and hope you consider that when thinking about today's quote, whether you consider that and then agree or disagree, our only aim is that you consider it before moving on."

Or some such boiler-plate statement, this was composed very much on the fly, and probably many of you can do something better. But maybe you see what I'm aiming for.

Again, this is just a talk page and just my opinion. I am not campaigning for or against anything; this is not a campaign in any way. My suggestion above is purely an afterthought, given momentary exposure and then moving on. I am not trolling for angry responses. If you just plain disagree with me, that's fine but please don't waste your bandwidth or everyone else's by posting flames or rants. My opinion isn't really important enough to justify that.

Thank you for listening. I hope you found it worth your time.  :-) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I might sometimes be harsh in my rhetoric and assertions, your honest commentaries are welcomed, and I believe any proper anarchist or libertarian socialist with high regard for the promotion of justice, unity and liberty of ALL people would certainly accept ANY and all honest expressions of opinions — no matter how much they must strongly disagree with many aspects of such statements — as I certainly DO.
I believe that many people do not understand that when one speaks with honest harshness, one IS being more genuinely RESPECTFUL of the rational capacities of others than one who delicately avoids indicating anything that might possibly offend or irritate the most "thin-skinned" of zealots and shallow of minds.
I regularly observe how thin-skinned and shallow critics of notions of liberty and justice that exceed their narrow "right-wing" or "left-wing" views very often are — while those I respect as the broadest-minded centrists can weep and laugh simultaneously at the hilarious ABSURDITY of many peoples reactions to any ATTEMPTS at honest and sincere presentation of ideas outside the narrow mazes of deceit and delusion they normally tread.
You state:
"Today's QOTD seems to be practically a mission statement for fascism."
This certainly is more than a bit ironic because Voltairine de Cleyre was a very highly respected anarchist and was speaking in this instance from a stance that could be reconciled not only with those of Individualist anarchism but those of any well developed forms of Libertarian socialism or Anarchist communism:
Let us have Men, Men who will say a word to their souls and keep it — keep it not when it is easy, but keep it when it is hard — keep it when the storm roars and there is a white-streaked sky and blue thunder before, and one's eyes are blinded and one's ears deafened with the war of opposing things; and keep it under the long leaden sky and the gray dreariness that never lifts. Hold unto the last: that is what it means to have a Dominant Idea, which Circumstance cannot break. And such men make and unmake Circumstance.
I myself am a person who actively strives to present MANY of the views of MANY people in thought provoking ways, and permit the presentation of even such views as I MUST disagree with and oppose — whereas many others would constrain or suppress them to such points as they could rarely if ever be heard, and NEVER in such a context as permits an adequate assessment of situations that might not accord with their preferences.
I am certainly NOT a promoter of mere selfishness or fascism, as many who style themselves "individualists" or even libertarians all too often ARE — but neither am I passively submissive to those highly deluded or well-disguised forms of authoritarianism which would forbid and censor and restrict the free expressions of others into some narrow shallow notions of what "politically correct" people — whether ostensibly of the "right" or "left" varieties would prescribe for all.
"As an afterthought, it does bother me a bit when such quotes are presented with no commentary or context to indicate the antidemocratic aspect of the quote."
At that point I mentally asked Who exactly would you have provide such enlightened commentary — a Politburo or some other bureaucracy of those MOST CONCERNED with DICTATING to others what can or cannot be said, and how or how not ANY statement can or "SHOULD" be understood?
You extend that statement and provide an example of what you would find admirable:
"Open-source projects are inherently democratic, IMHO, so we should permit and maybe even require that NPOV not be followed in one small way when presenting the QOTD. Avoid turning the QOTD into a political pulpit, but just a minimalist statement that,
"The editors identify the preceding quote as antidemocratic, and hope you consider that when thinking about today's quote, whether you consider that and then agree or disagree, our only aim is that you consider it before moving on."
I would characterize open-source projects as inherently anti-authoritarian or anarchistic — arguably as an anarchist de Cleyre is arguably "antidemocratic" — and CERTAINLY so, if by democracy you mean to imply that the majority has the right to tyrannize over minorities — but she is definitely ALSO anti-authoritarian — and asserts that any truly legitimate and just democracy recognizes and adheres to principles of Liberty — and does NOT permit majorities to absolutely control and dictate the rights of minorities, any more than any powerful minority should be permitted to dictate to weak or defenseless majorities what they can or cannot do. Far too often the stances of modern politics, even in nominal democracies, have adhered to policies designed to weaken and marginalize OPPONENTS and adversaries rather than ERRORS, delusions and LIES — and thus those things grow strong and influential among ALL factions, and the parties diminish in rational as well as moral integrity.
From my perspectives it is you who are advocating authoritarian "Thought control" and even proposing an increase in the powers of those who would make themselves or others "Thought Police" with great "officially" mandated control over people's lives and resources — often "officially sanctioned" by others MOST interested in being thought-police themselves. And thus tyrants and their toadies often rise to prominence and power, while genuine advocates of Justice, Unity and Liberty in ways that are not comfortable to many are actively suppressed.
To use the intro to "Authoritarianism" of which Fascism is a variety — such are DEFINED as forms of social organization characterized by submission to authority and thus usually opposed to individualism, liberalism, democracy, libertarianism and anarchism.
Anarchism is generally considered one of MOST hostile of ideologies to all the ways to fascism, and all forms of authoritarianism — and as such I strongly sympathize with MANY aspects, or most aspects of anarchist and libertarian socialist thought — though I can normally find some flaws or deficiencies in many of their expressions, I prefer their ways to any of those used to apparently justify the diminishment of human liberties and opportunities.
Though I am well aware that there are people who call themselves nihilists who would also claim that they are anarchists as well, who eagerly advocate violence and oppression against those they can characterize as "unjust oppressors", I believe the most profound and genuine anarchists would always repudiate those who advocate destructive violence more dire than that which is clearly necessary to prevent greater destruction, and ALWAYS be extremely cautious in assessing where the worst forms of oppression or injustice lie.
I recently moved a motto I have long loved: "Love rules without rules" to a prominent place on my talk page. I truly believe that those who speak with greatest authority ALWAYS speak with LOVE of TRUTH and the Truths of LOVE, while those who SEEK to rule or seek to establish rules which constrain and forbid and defame all actions outside of those they can appreciate as clearly or even immediately beneficial to their appetites and prejudices seek to create abundance of rules which forbid and constrain many forms of thought itself.
These are just a few thoughts of my own, in response to yours, and I fully advocate OPEN and honest expressions of views — and generally MUST oppose the efforts of some to constrain expression of honest ideas, or to limit them in absolutist ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
  • I cannot conceive how de Cleyre's statement about commitment to one's ideas could be interpreted as a mission statement for fascism. This misunderstanding demonstrates quite clearly why it is not a good idea to include commentary from users about what they think a quote signifies. Let the quotes speak for themselves. If they can sometimes be misunderstood then so be it; it is better than inviting the blind to lead the blind, or engaging in digressive discussions. ~ Ningauble 17:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Time on the main pageEdit

Is there a reason why there's a time on the main page? It's since it's cached it doesn't serve as a useful indicator of the current time. If it's just there to serve as a last edited time, it would be helpful to label it as such and possibly move it closer to the bottom. Johnduhart 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly useful. It actually indicates the time the page was last rendered, subject to caching, not the time of the last edit, which is shown with a timestamp on the bottom of every page. This page also has another stale cache issue, though a less volatile one, due to transcluding {{Main Page Quote of the day}}. ~ Ningauble 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

new hereEdit

hi im new to this so go easy on me people —This unsigned comment is by Alice miskits muse (talkcontribs) .

Telugu wikiquoteEdit

Please give the link to Telugu wikiquote in the main page. Thank you. The link is given here: Rajasekhar1962 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. ~ Ningauble 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's Quote of The Day(Feb.01,2012)Edit

Seems in very good taste...--Oracleofottawa 01:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to potential date shifts in different Time zones I am not sure whether you were commenting on the Hughes quote or the Joyce one — but the both were profound statements originally suggested by InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) which I attempted to present in memorable and significant ways. Thanks for the appreciation. ~ Kalki·· 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A Little Out of Hand?Edit

It really takes away from the impact of the main Wikiquote Page that it does not have any pictures at all! Surely we can work this out to the majorities satisfaction.--Oracleofottawa 02:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice re discussion on Image use policyEdit

Please see Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

List of misquotationsEdit

Can we delink this from the main page ? It needs a lot of clean-up and isn't representative of our best work. --Tryst (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Tryst (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote of the Day 10 Jun 2012Edit

It reads: "You can’t make anything go anywhere. It just happens". Thelonious Monk.[citation needed] Is it normal to have a {{citation needed}} on the main page? It Is Me Here t / c 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It is normal for the QotD to be have a link to a page on which a full citation may be found. (The quote has subsequently been added to the author page with a citation.) It is also normal for the quote to be selected from those nominated for the date rather than being posted out of the blue by a one-time IP user, but the person who normally handles it was absent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disband this WikiEdit

I love quotes. Probably more than I should. But this wiki is a joke and it just refuses to improve. Why don't you just give it up and disband the whole effort already? I knew that when I clicked on the link of the Seven Sages of Greece and it sent me to Wikipedia instead of a page within the wiki for directing to the individual sages that this wiki was never going to get better. No page for Chilon of Sparta, by the way? Get it together. Okay bye. -- 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tamil WikiquoteEdit

Please give link to the Tamil Wikiquote in English Wikiquote main page. Also in Wikiquote home page, I request to insert Tamil language above 100 list. Since the total number of pages in tamil wikiquote is now 109. Thank you. --Inbamkumar86 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Updated list of active Wikiquotes on Main Page and Other language Wikiquotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In [1] home page, please also add the language Tamil to above 100 list. --Inbamkumar86 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Requests to update the portal page may be made at template. Only the administrators of Meta-Wiki can edit project portals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote of the day 11 Sep 2011Edit

This quote does not appear on the movie's page on Wikiquote. 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[I am assuming you mean today's date 11 September 2012]: Actually ONCE upon a time it was, but due to the herd-think mentality which absolutely emphasizes quantities rather than qualities which is currently prevailing among many here, it was removed. I have neither the time nor sufficient interest to sort out all the deletions that have occurred because those lacking in either imagination or sense believe they are serving the project by drastically REDUCING the amount of ideas available to people according to the preferences of a very few who seem most concerned with actively controlling and constraining the contributions of others, and believe that is about the best service they or anyone else could render to this project — perhaps exceeded only by the devising of rules to constrain and control the contributions of others even more, and labelling anyone with a more genuinely conservative and liberal dispositions and greater imagination and interest in PRESENTING ideas as "disruptor" or disturber of their peace. I am generally spending my time doing things where I can contribute with far more sensible imagination without facing the regular barrage of senseless impediments that are increasingly being encountered here. I usually only spend a few minutes a day here now, where once it was a place to which I regularly devoted hours of my attention on most days. Those days, at least for now, are gone. I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

How can one add a quote?Edit

Acting nowadays is an interdisciplinary course for all professions. I thought the sports and the arts are exempted. Which among these professions has the subtlety to mask the lie? by Isidro T. Savillo I took this from his theoretical biology web page.

Not just a single quote of the dayEdit

I would suggest more than 1 quote for the day. make it 4 quotes for the day and it must cover various fields of interest... quote from a writer, from a scientist,from an actor from an imbecile, from a religious, from a prostitute or neuter, from a world circum navigator, from a hermit, from historian, from a deaf and dumb complexed human, from a gay or lesbian, from a fatty or slimmy person, from the royalty, from a paroled criminal, from a dreamer, from a provacateur, from an evil or witch, from a lawyer, from soothsayer, from a snake's hisses with an added chatter from a chicken it may form a sound pleasing enough to weave a quote of word/s, from a centenarian, from a scuba diver, from a neurotic or insane person, from a shoplifter, from a cabin crew, from a playboy or playgirl, from a dancer, from a museum curator, from a fan, from a housekeeper of old castles, from a lady in waiting, from a royal blooded baby whose mom was just one of the flings, from a dwarf or fairy, from a maniac... just like the quote you have right now- it seems so lowly low to take68.68.108.210 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit wikiquote linkEdit

Since Sanskrit wikiquote has come out of incubator some time ago, please provide an interlanguage wiki link to Sanskrit wikiquote ( on the sidebar here. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.-Hemant wikikosh (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Selected pagesEdit

The articles that appear in that list were "selected" over five years ago. Do they really represent the best of Wikiquote? I think this is something we should discuss. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe some should perhaps be switched with others, and a few added, but in the past there was a preference for not changing much there without extensive consideration. I believe it probably is about time to begin considering some alternatives or additions. ~ Kalki·· 13:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it would be good to discuss what is on the list. I actually made some additions last month to the 'People' list (adding Ralph Waldo Emerson, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell), but I think it is a good idea to review all categories. I recommend that you post a notice on the VP to start a discussion (and perhaps some nominations of what you might want to switch or add) ~ UDScott (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that the page Anonymous should be removed from that list, because it presents almost no sources whatever. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I would finally suggest removing the Timothy Leary and Starhawk articles from the list as well, to replace them with the more noteworthy authors Alfred, Lord Tennyson‎ and Alexander Pope‎. That way (if we also remove the Anonymous article, per above), the list would have exactly 30 pages. Thoughts? ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I would also be inclined to add Charles Dickens to the list. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I have never been one to wish to fix definite numerical constraints on much of anything, but know there are practical limits to how many can be included. I think the recent additions have been good ones, and would support the addition of Dickens and Tennyson, but would remove Leary only if some other figure of his era replaced him, such as John Lennon, and would retain Starhawk as a well known pagan feminist since the 1970s, and one of only 3 women on the list. Although there remain problems with the page, I am not inclined to remove Anonymous, but don't feel strongly about it either way. ~ Kalki·· 23:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC) + tweak
Interesting points (you make feminists proud). I agree with you when it comes to "definite numerical constraints"; indeed, as I wrote in an edit summary, "having only 30 pages is not strictly necessary". I don't mind if we just add to the list, say, Charles Dickens, without removing any other article. But you see the problem here — if we are only willing to add (everyone is), but never to replace, eventually that list will either become disproportionately large or, as is the case now, very important writers will be left out. Stalemate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why we don't implement a "Good articles" system here at Wikiquote. If we could do that, we wouldn't have this problem. ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that more room could be made for good articles on significant persons and works by clearing out the "Miscellaneous" group. It contains some links to categories or lists rather than articles (there is a separate section for categories below), and some poorly sourced pages that, though they are topics of interest, are not examples of good articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 2013 - lay outEdit

In the Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 2013 - lay out with four images surrounding the text, I find it extremely difficult to focus on the text. -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, without pictures, the QOTD would go unnoticed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The biggest problem is, I think, the selection of the pictures themselves. Indeed, that is implicit in the criticism "Wikiquote is not "Kalki's personal art project". One way to solve that problem would be to "force" Kalki to only select images of authors' portraits, thereby impossibilitating the use subjective pictures. I don't support this restriction myself, because I don't think Kalki would like it, and I fear that without him we would have no QOTD. Just a thought. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, hard to focus: it is a bit like trying to read a good book while the television is blaring at full volume in the same room. This has been discussed around the Village Pump before, at "Images on Main Page" and at "Main Page and images". My recent attempts to turn the volume down a bit were all reverted,[2][3][4][5][6][7] so compromise appears to be elusive; but no QOTD at all would be drastic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 2013 – layoutEdit

The pattern in April remarked above, which actually began in late March 2013, is continuing throughout May 2013, with as many as five or six images per quote.

The upshot of the discussions linked above was that Cirt removed all images "until such time as we have a consensus as to image use policy on the Main Page",[8] and a request by Kalki to have them restored was declined by Aphaia.[9] For more than a year thereafter, there were no images accompanying the QOTD on the main page, and there has been no discussion about formulating policy for image use on the Main Page.

Another take on those developments may be found on the QOTD by month project page under February 2012 (dif), which apparently expresses notion that the Wikiquote Main Page is, or ought to be, a venue for "free expression", and contains other remarks that strike me as inappropriate for a Wikiquote project page.

In the present situation, it is not really surprising that attempts to pare down to two images met with unilateral reversion. As indicated in the historical notes at QOTD by month, when the use of two images rather than one was first introduced it very quickly expanded. As with sweet or salty foods, it is easy to forget that "too much of a good thing isn't good".

I think an image of modest size on the Main page, or even two, is a good thing; but I think the present situation, in which our main portal and most frequently viewed content page is dominated by this "free expression" without any policy framework, is very inappropriate. I strongly encourage the community to give serious thought to how this use of the main page can be reformed.

A suggested addition of quantitative limits to the Image use policy might work, or it might be an exercise in futility since the existing policy itself is not being applied. One possibility, to avoid having the {{Main Page Quote of the day}} template push everything else but the masthead "below the fold", would be to move it to the two-column portion of the page.

I would be very interested in any other suggestions for improving the situation where, as Mdd remarked above, it is extremely difficult to focus on the text or, I might add, on any of the rest of our most prominent page either. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Kalki has only been using 2 main pictures (not 5 or 6, as you imply), one at the right, and one at the left. That seems reasonable to me. Are you objecting to the use of the other two much smaller pictures (at the top and bottom)? 2) How about specifying the size of the main pictures to be the size of the text, and never larger? That way it would be easier to focus on the quote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting looking at size in relation to the quote. Looking at today's Main Page, 27 May 2013, I observe that the quote and its attribution occupy just under 10% of the total size of the {{Main Page Quote of the day}} box.* Part of the total is occupied by header and footer, and part is whitespace introduced by the layout of images, but it is very significant, and not unusual in recent months, that the amount of space devoted to "presentation of the quote" is an order of magnitude greater than the quote and its attribution. The subjective effect of this objective proportion is that the presentation overwhelms that which is ostensibly being presented.
  * Individual results may vary due to screen resolution and window size. Always consult your own statistician before taking quantitative supplements.
~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Polemics on the Main PageEdit

The main page illustrations of today's quote of the day, February 25, 2014, strike me as unduly polemical. Leonard's comment on the poverty of contemporary language and thought, on the stultifyingly conservative style of media homogenized by the profit motive, is here compared to Orwell's treatment of language as a tool of totalitarian control, and is associated with the "Anonymous" group. Leonard does not ascribe any such intent to the media (would not, I think, give them that much credit), nor discuss anonymous/anarchist resistance.

I don't think trite comparisons suitable for a middle school essay are what should be used as Wikiquote's feature of the day. It is a distraction that just looks like some Wikiquote contributors have an axe to grind – an old, dull axe that blunts the impact of Leonard's remark about "the culture as a whole". ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, as an administrator, I do hope you are sufficiently aware of some activities here to realize that this is a presentation that was quite callously and thoughtlessly trimmed down by another admin, on a protected page, who I strongly suspect delights in harassing at least a few other people to the extent he is able to, without much complaint or censure of any other admins who actually have not so disgracefully misused their admin abilities as I believe he has.
In its trimmed down and censored state, some might simply look at it in the ways you describe, as is their right as individual's drawing upon what levels of awareness and appreciation of many diverse things as they can muster. If such things as some might interpret as assumedly "trite comparisons suitable for a middle school essay" are not to be presented at all, one would have to insist that they should not be presented as a reason for constraining the expressions of others, but of course that is a somewhat self-negating stance, and presents something of a paradox
Of course some might be so bold as to polemically assert that your particular polemics in framing and assessing the situation in one particular way, as are suitable for promoting routine suppression of divergence from routine perspectives are not to be pointed out as as actually polemics themselves, for that might be considered a rude and uncivil observation, and a "distraction" that actual presents what some might take as a disturbingly contrary, divergent and "complex" Point of view, to such a relatively routinely simple one.
Other views at least as valid and insightful as the one which you seem to propose might easily be adopted, sincerely and earnestly for many complex reasons, or even insincerely, for the sake of satire and mockeries of taking too many asinine assessments or assertions too seriously, might deal with the many diverse forms of semiotic analysis to which one could subject any presentations of images or words, or refer to the works of literature or film and popular culture which are represented by the indicated by the works of Alan Moore and George Orwell.
That all said, with as much good humor as I can muster in the face of various forms of relatively senseless censorship, which quite conforms to Leonard's assessments of the devastation upon human intelligence and art of many forms of routine and "unquestioning thought", the actual layout as first devised, did permit much more diverse interpretations with more general cultural ideas than the stark contrast of 2 images of two widely divergent figures, before it was trimmed down rather thoughtlessly and callously to conform to what a few people might seek to impose as "routine standards" by which to minimize the presentation of thought in entirely routine ways, with explicit indications of far more general routines of Groupthink behavior such as many routinely exhibit without actually thinking of it as anything resembling fascist behavior at all, and another representing some of the more extreme ways "unquestioning thought" often have resorted to in silencing unwelcome dissent or diversity.

The culture as a whole is losing its individual notes, its diversity. And this is… it's not only sad. It's devastating. It's devastating because routine language means routine thought. And it means unquestioning thought.

~ John Leonard ~

  Anonymous (2013) by anonymous.tif
I have no doubt that the even more extensive and vigorous presentations of ideas might be unwelcome to some, but I assert that it plainly provides a far better and diversely significant composition remarking upon general human culture than the censored version does. Others can certainly interpret things as they will. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the issue of whether the removal of some images constitutes censorship of ideas, I agree with what Ningauble wrote above. I would even go a step further and say that if the entire quote were included, it makes it even more apparent that the ideas that Leonard was trying to convey have nothing at all to do with a totalitarian use of language (as represented in the chosen images). To wit: "The culture as a whole is losing its individual notes, its diversity. And this is… it's not only sad. It's devastating. It's devastating because routine language means routine thought. And it means unquestioning thought. It means if I can't — if new words cannot occur to me and new image does not occur to me, then what I'm doing is I'm simply repeating what I've heard. And what we hear from an overpowering cultural force and the forces of homogenization, what we hear is sell, sell, buy, buy. That's it. That is the function." The knee-jerk instinct to associate any discussion of "routine thought" or "unquestioning thought" with Big Brother is certainly wrong in this case. Instead it is more an indictment of the ways in which today's society has been in many ways dumbed down through the proliferation of the media and its often money-focused message. Perhaps a better selection of images would have included something to do with the media or money. The bottom line is that the image selection has been questioned (not because of any complaints on how many images were used - even if all four were left, the problem would still exist), but rather the flawed connection drawn between the images and the quote. And I believe this was entirely valid. And I hate to say it, but it appears again that Kalki is engaging in an attempt to obfuscate an issue rather than simply address what was asked. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I am certainly not denying that many "problems" or "opportunities" of interpretation would still exist with the original layout — and must always exist, whether or not images are used. But I assert that the further images actually did provide a broader range of associations which could be made, and was NOT merely a simplistic equating of all forms of groupthink, including the commercializing ones of existing culture, to the most extreme forms of totalitarian thought. At any rate, the images, even reduced as they were, seemed to have produced at least some form of individual thought. So it goes. ~ Kalki·· 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Kalki, the quote is what should make people think, not the pictures. A quote (worthy of the name) speaks for itself. I am curious, do your instincts when reading through these quotes impell you to (or make you want to) surround them with pictures? It's a serious question. Cf. also their quote of the day (no pictures, only author+source). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Though I certainly accept and defend everyone's rights to have and develop various opinions, I must strongly disagree with even your relevantly moderate assessments of the proper role of presentation elements of various types. Augmenting a quote with imagery related to concepts clearly relevant to the statement or to which it is clearly applicable in ways that can be made clear to people of normal intelligence and mental capacities is a rather popular form of presentation. And actually your statement related to my "instincts" does prompt me to consider presenting some aspects of my "intuitions" and perceptions in the near future, that might help you to understand more of my own perspectives on many diverse learning processes, teaching processes, and vitally or morbidly social, unsocial and anti-social processes which people commonly engage in. The matters actually are sometimes relatively complex though, and some concepts will be unfamiliar to many, I am still considering how much to eventually present here on various subjects, either on my user pages, or in dialogue with others, and how much to primarily present elsewhere. ~ Kalki·· 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
There is no paradox in stating on the talk page what one believes is inappropriate for the main page. Remarks equating Polemics on the Main Page with Polemics on the Talk Page strike me as more than mere satire, as Kalki suggests (or obfuscation as UDScott suggests). Rather, they are wholly consistent with an extensive practice of using Wikiquote as a venue for presenting Kalki's thoughts about and "diverse interpretations" of quotations or, in a word, discussion of the quotes. Wikiquote's articles and its main page are not venues for discussion.

I recently read Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation and Other Essays, which I highly recommend. I quite agree with her that mere interpretation of content is a defective mode that can undermine genuine appreciation and effectively destroy the original text. I can't support the stronger position that interpretation has no place at all in serious discussion of art and literature. Interpretation has its place in the discussion of ideas. Notwithstanding Kalki's good intentions in sharing interpretations with us, Wikiquote is not that place.

Still less is Wikiquote the place for presenting other diverse ideas "to which it [a quote] is clearly applicable". This is what is known at our sister project, Wikipedia as "original synthesis to express a point of view" (even when the point itself is far from original). The defect in the present instance is not that it lacks still more images with "a broader range of associations". On the contrary, that would only serve to further obliterate the text, rewriting it with Kalki's own "true meaning".

Stepping back from the present instance, I must point out that this is not an isolated incident. Several years ago I participated in suggesting candidates for the Quote of the Day. When I observed quotes were being presented with images that focused on particular words and concepts employed in the quotes while ignoring what the author had constructed from those words and concepts, I was merely annoyed by the impertinence. When I found my suggestions presented with powerfully evocative images that effectively obliterated all sense of what the author was saying, I quit making suggestions. My suggestions did not serve the purpose of sharing or commemorating brilliant words from brilliant writers, I was only casting them into oblivion.

A much more recent example from this month, February 9, 2014, exemplifies the habitual practice of re-contextualization that interferes with the reader's opportunity to appreciate the quote on its own terms. Whatever Kalki's point in presenting flag draped symbols of national iconography, and notwithstanding that these are not the largest images presented, they frame the entire presentation as being about something entirely different from the quoted work.

I strongly encourage Kalki and all concerned parties to give serious consideration to the policy on relevance of images, not merely as a proscription against using Wikiquote as a soapbox, but as a prescription for allowing readers to actually appreciate for themselves the actual quotes that are Wikiquote's raison d'être. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous statements here I can agree with, and some I must disagree with — but as should be obvious, I am rather beset by a host of assessments of what should or should not be done by others, on this wiki, which as I have tried to make more evident, is a manifest outgrowth of ethically far more advanced impulses to maximize participation of all interested people in worthy projects and to minimize needless and detrimental controls over individuals.
As I have certainly been a VERY busy person here, throughout the years, I have certainly produced MUCH, which many others in many ways, can rightly or wrongly see fit to criticize or praise in various ways. Some of them even develop deep and lasting resentments or fixations on persons or narrow ideas about them which is always unfortunate. I believe it is every individuals right and duty to present INDICATIONS of what ideas they find significant, in what ways they can, including their own quite necessary assessments and interpretations of the INDICATIONS of others — but that is ALL one CAN provide. No matter what I do or say, present to others or decline to present, others CAN and MUST interpret what they CAN perceive in whatever ways they are necessarily inclined. As an absurdist with great respect for many diverse views which are often pitted against each other in ways that portray them in terms of simplistic and deficient dichotomies, I am acutely aware of such processes, and sometimes endeavor to find ways to make them more evident and understandable to those who do not seem quite so alert to them as I usually am. ~ Kalki·· 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
Perhaps the proposer of the selected QOTD should be encouraged to do their own design/layout for the quote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually would have no problem with that — similar ideas and many others for various forms of increased participation here have occurred to me for years, but especially since 2009 I have often been reluctant to propose these in the atmosphere of often bitter contentions and an over-fixation on "fixed rules" rather than natural collaboration without rigid rules, which has often times grown here. I actually have some such ideas I hope to be able to develop and present within a few months — but there are more pressing issues I am concerned with now. ~ Kalki·· 20:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Site policy applies to Main PageEdit

Site policy applies to Main Page.

Therefore image use on the Main Page should not violate NPOV.

We should really limit it to directly relevant images that the reader would understand the relevance.

For example, one or two pictures of the author of the quote, itself.

The point should be to complement the quote -- not make the reader want to look somewhere else and become confused.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that prompting the reader's curiosity to "want to look somewhere else" than the main page, to try to understand any relevance they do not immediately recognize, is a significant service to normal self-educational processes, and hardly such a disservice to anyone as attempting to keep them relatively ignorant and unfamiliar with any ideas or associations with significant information relevant to the author or the quote, as might severely confuse only people with severe mental impairments. ~ Kalki·· 01:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
Yes but not to the point to make text unreadable. That detracts from the quote itself. Please read w:WP:OVERLINKING. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe that your exaggerated example is simply one of deliberately obnoxious idiocy. The links which had been provided, each to such theme pages as have been created for these concepts by wiki editors are certainly NOT "over-linking". The TOTAL elimination of wikilinks from the QOTD, a major presentation section of the main page, such as you have removed on a few of the presently protected pages, is clearly an impediment to further exploration and involvement with Wikiquote. ~ Kalki·· 04:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please explain on the talk pages of those quote pages why those terms should be linked. Then we can discuss it there. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You have made extensive commentary on a number of pages in the last day — though I have repeated some of my comments in response to many rather mindless and obstinate repetitions you have made on these, I am not going to go through the complex procedure of justifying every wkilinked WORD that has existed on each of these pages to satisfy your urges to keep me repeatedly busy attempting to justify the use of hypertext links, which are actually a basic and foundational elements of nearly ALL wikis. ~ Kalki·· 04:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Bottom center image on today's Quote of the DayEdit

The bottom center image at File:Solar Dynamics Observatory Shows Sun's Rainbow of Wavelengths.jpg in today's Quote of the Day is not directly relevant to François Arago.

Per our image use policy it should be removed.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The image is actually directly VERY relevant to some aspects of the quote itself, as is its relationship to Arago as an early researcher on significant aspects of the wave nature of light. ~ Kalki·· 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That sounds tangential at best. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It is actually the type of thing intelligently curious people might actually find interesting or intriguing enough at having presented to them, as to prompt them to further exploration of the ideas and contributions of Arago. ~ Kalki·· 04:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Arago did not create that image. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course he did not. And to demand that he did before admitting to any relevance at all is precisely the sort of extremely shallow insistence on literally direct connections between significantly related things that stifles human involvement in many forms of educational exploration and endeavors. ~ Kalki·· 04:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

When did the practice of adding images to the quotations beginEdit

…and how is this not original work? I am sorry, but the ridiculous, often sentimental, and routinely naive pairing of image with verse thoughout the pages I have sampled here is simply an INTERPRETIVE art form, and has no place here. Having Nin's or Hemingway's lofty prose pared with any motivated editors choice of an available photograph gives us exactly what one might predict—a product where the original quality of the prose or poetic work is far diminished by the lack of comparable talent or artistic discretion on the part of the contributing, juxtaposing editor.

Consider: Would any of the authors included here for purposes of quotation allowed their editor at Doubleday or Scribners to open the decision-making regarding illustration of their books to any and all comers? Perhaps by leaving the text open in a binder in the publishers lobby, and allowing any walking up to paste in images they wished to illustrate the author's work?

Nonsense. Get rid of it all. It makes the venue a literary laughingstock. 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Return to "Main Page" page.