Last modified on 29 October 2009, at 13:12

Wikiquote talk:Quotes by living persons

Return to the project page "Quotes by living persons".

Early discussionEdit

former Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I propose the above policy should be implemented on WQ. It is only a matter of time before living people find that WQ exists (as the project grows and rises up the search engine lists), and inevitably some will discover they have been credited with quotes that they never said and are not at all happy about being associated with. This results in complaints to the Foundation and, in extreme cases, extremely adverse press coverage. Particularly dodgy are unsourced quotes, as the term implies that the person said them, but we're not sure where. Anyone can put anything under unsourced. It would be better not to allow the section for living people, or at least put such quotes on the talk page, under a title "Quotes to be verified". In fact for this reason "unverified" is a better term anyway than "unsourced" for any quotes without references. To gain credibility it would be better to have less quotes, but sound ones, certainly on the article page. Tyrenius 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We already informally follow this policy, as we do for many things that aren't formally in place here, and have frequently taken action on articles that don't follow those guidelines. We should consider if we still want to handle these issues in the informal manner for now, which allows us to refer to the latest state of that policy, or implement our own soon, which would add desirable Wikiquote-specific information but require ongoing mantainance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would point out many complaints about living bios come in the confidential channels, like OTRS. If we implement the policy about this issue, we are better to set up the guidance how the external people report their problem to Wikiquote project. --Aphaia 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, I currently use this on the project and threatened a block and performed a deletion based on it just the other day. The policy is technically already implemented on all Wikimedia sites. I would not oppose the uploading of a local copy (I would actually support it). For the reporting, we could possibly have a /Noticeboard on that page or just send them to the Administrator's noticeboard. Cbrown1023 talk 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
While I admit basically this policy are better to share with all projects, I don't think this policy "is technically already implemented on all Wikimedia sites." It belongs to English Wikipedia only, and in my observation the Foundation doesn't have an intention to apply it for all other projects automatically. One possibly relevant thing, even we are an English project as well English Wikipedia, the Foundation don't want to apply w:WP:OFFICE to us. Those policies technically aim only to English Wikipedia, and not automatically implemented to other projeccts. --Aphaia 08:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
/me has experience with dang WP:OFFICE policy... it's annoying, it is supposedly "foundation-wide" but Cbrown1023 has to decline a request for it to be transwikied to Meta-Wiki b/c it really isn't!!! Although you are right, we are still able to remove all material that has a libel concern or the like automatically as we come upon it. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I generally support taking the relevant Wikipedia policy here. We now have Category:Living people, but I consider it insufficient, so we should have a policy, possibly titled "Quotes of living persons".--Jusjih 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. I would invite all active contributors to give a look to the English Wikipedia policy now in topic (it would need some modification to adopt our project), and to join the tagging campaign for living people. --Aphaia 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started Wikiquote:Quotes of living persons based on w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as a draft policy. Please expand and discuss as needed. Maybe we can move this section there?--Jusjih 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your initiatives, Jusjih. I support to move discussion to its talk. --Aphaia 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick DiPaoloEdit

(unindent) That's a relief, but I think it would also be good to communicate this to editors, who might in all innocence not take on the possible consequences of certain material, or know how they should act. What prompted this was a small cleanup of Nick DiPaolo. I don't know anything about him, but I got to thinking that there's no verification for the quotes and some people would be mightily put out if those things had been attributed to them even as humour. I would have deleted it on WP. Any thoughts on this anyone? Tyrenius 01:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support for removal/deletion. I am not a laywer, but in my understanding "I don't know anything about him, but I got to thinking that there's no verification for the quotes and some people would be mightily put out if those things had been attributed to them even as humour." is the possible case of defamatory. If you think it possible defamatory, my recommendation is to list the article to WQ:VFD. --Aphaia 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The WP standard is far stricter than legal defamation - just anything not verified about living people can be removed, and if it's derogatory or controversial (and not verified with a reliable source) then it should be removed immediately (i.e. deleted/blanked). This overrides normal 3 revert rules. My own reaction to the above page would be to blank it, as it's all unsourced and then delete. In fact BLP violations should be deletable at will by admins (selective or whole as necessary). Tyrenius 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?Edit

What is NPOV supposed to mean in this context? A valid quote is a valid quote and must stay. Andries 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction must obey NPOV. NPOV does not always apply to valid quotes.--Jusjih 01:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV applies to any non-quote material, including context lines that attempt to explain or clarify the quotes. It's far too easy to work personal opinions into such explanations. For example:
  • My opponent has the IQ of a tennis ball if he thinks his policy can be implemented.
  • Politician Joan Q. Public, criticizing Sam Everyman's immigration plan
Although in this case the interpretation of "criticism" may be fairly obvious, a more NPOV context would be:
  • Politician Joan Q. Public, talking about Sam Everyman's immigration plan
The reliable source that should be provided with the quote should confirm that the subject was Everyman's immigration policy, and there can be no question that Public was talking in a speech, whereas there might be room to argue whether Public was serious or joking, or whether the comment was criticizing the plan or the person (or both). Let the words speak for themselves.
As for quotes, they inevitably express the ideas of the quotee, so they can't be forced into NPOV. But we must be careful not to quote out of context, as so frequently happens. But this kind of context should come from the speech or writing, not from an editor-written context line, whenever possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed language/ruleEdit

I propose adding the following language to this policy:

All quotes attributed to a living author must be verified in print by a reliable source. This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for an independent secondary source to print. Therefore, such quotes lacking a verifiable source will be deleted immediately; if all quotes on a subject's page are deleted for lacking sources, the page itself will be speedily deleted as a page lacking quotes.

Thoughts? BD2412 T 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In most cases I believe it would be acceptable to cite available online audio or video recordings, such as are commonly posted to YouTube and other sites, as sufficient verification of some statements, though preferably with clear information as to where and when such recordings were made. Though it might be a recommended guideline, I don't believe secondary sources in print should be an absolute rule, as that would eliminate much available and notable material from such recordings as were made in the famous conversation between Joe the Plumber and Barack Obama, and recordings which are being made increasingly available online, even if published transcripts are not. Were Jonas Salk still alive, such absolute rules would also eliminate some notable material I have recently added from the "Jonas Salk, “A Wise and Good Ancestor" interview with Richard D. Heffner on The Open Mind. As I have been beginning to make increasingly clear, my own attitude towards many things is much like Salk's, who stated : "My attitude was always to keep open, to keep scanning. I think that's how things work in nature. Many people are close-minded, rigid, and that's not my inclination." ~ Kalki 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber was reported in print media as well, precisely because it was notable enough to print. I will grant that a gem may pop up in an easily verified interview, but might a transcript be available? BD2412 T 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes "of" or "by"Edit

This pagemove may be sensible as a matter of vernacular usage, but I think it is technically incorrect. "To quote" is transitive, and the noun designates the result of action by the quoter, not the quotee. If I repeat something you wrote, it is a quote by me of you. Consider the grammatically parallel case of a paraphrase by me of you.
I would prefer that the redirect be from vernacular usage to correct usage rather than vice versa, but it's No Big Deal™. ~ Ningauble 17:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we're dealing with pages of quotes rather than quotes in a vacuum. On the other hand, wouldn't this policy apply to a quote on a theme page attributed to a living person? BD2412 T 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
On that hand, yes: the draft policy refers to "any Wikiquote page." (Cf. similar language at Wikipedia's BLP policy.) But on the other hand (I am running out of hands here) there is an exception for unsourced quotes being researched on talk pages. ~ Ningauble 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Suppose someone posts a quote attributed to their local Congressman on the talk page for Love or Children, said quote being "Oh, how I love to molest children". It need not be that outright extreme, even. But surely an unsourced quote of that nature would merit immediate deletion (and the quote would, for the sake of relevance, be 'by', not 'of' the claimed author). BD2412 T 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That would depend on whether the quote by an unidentified or unreliable source is alleged to be a quote of my local congressman or of yours.... But seriously, I mentioned the talk page exemption precisely because it is fairly broadly stated in current guidelines ([1], [2]) but should not be treated as a blanket exemption. An unsourced quote of "that nature" would indeed merit immediate deletion from a talk page. Note how Wikipedia addresses talk pages in the context of its BLP policy. Perhaps we should include some elements from that context here. ~ Ningauble 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)