Talk:Julian Assange
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ottawahitech in topic Why does "Quotes about Assange" differ from the norm?
Link added to external links sect
editThis link has been added, twice now, by Gregcaletta (talk · contributions), [1] and [2]. It is an unreliable site, just someone's random blog, and should not be linked on this page of a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Further, these appear to be copyvio, directly from Wikileaks website itself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole point of an external links section is to link to sites which are not considered "reliable" enough to include the material in the article, but which nonetheless provide information relevant to the article. This is the policy on WIkipedia, and and I have no reason to believe the policy would not be the same here on Wikiquote. The reason the site is not "random" in because it contains a list of quotes attributed to Assange, of which I have no reason to doubt the vercity, and it is a blog which Wikileaks have endorsed both on their twitter page and on their facebook page. Also, your claim that these come from the Wikileaks official website is false. Many, if not all, of the quotes do not. If they all appeared on the official page, there would be no reason to include the link. Gregcaletta 03:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not acceptable to repeatedly spam links in the external links section to personal blog pages, especially on pages of living persons. -- Cirt (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am the one who put together the quotes blog being talked about here. The quotes were not copied from Wikileaks, I got them from various online videos of talks/interviews with Julian Assange. And yes the quotes page was linked to by the Twitter account run by Wikileaks, although I don't think they're responsible for the Facebook page.
Since the quotes came from publicly posted online video they can be independently verified. If it's relevant here I can try to go back and find the different videos but it might take a bit since I didn't see the need to write down where each quote came from at the time of making the quotes page.--Anitawirawan 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)- All the more reason to use the actual sources for the quotes themselves, and not this personally-put-together-blog-site. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Anitawirawan wants to track down the sources (and maybe even contribute cited quotes to Wikiquote?) that is a Good Thing™. Bear in mind that plain links to YouTube are not generally considered reliable (anonymous posts there are often hoaxed), but if you can identify the original source of the recording, or at least some details about the occasion on which he spoke, that could make all the difference.
In the meantime, I do not think this link to a personal collection is very useful here, although I understand that some other regular contributors may have different opinions about this type of link. ~ Ningauble 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Ningauble. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Anitawirawan wants to track down the sources (and maybe even contribute cited quotes to Wikiquote?) that is a Good Thing™. Bear in mind that plain links to YouTube are not generally considered reliable (anonymous posts there are often hoaxed), but if you can identify the original source of the recording, or at least some details about the occasion on which he spoke, that could make all the difference.
- All the more reason to use the actual sources for the quotes themselves, and not this personally-put-together-blog-site. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am the one who put together the quotes blog being talked about here. The quotes were not copied from Wikileaks, I got them from various online videos of talks/interviews with Julian Assange. And yes the quotes page was linked to by the Twitter account run by Wikileaks, although I don't think they're responsible for the Facebook page.
- No, it is not acceptable to repeatedly spam links in the external links section to personal blog pages, especially on pages of living persons. -- Cirt (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole point of an external links section is to link to sites which are not considered "reliable" enough to include the material in the article, but which nonetheless provide information relevant to the article. This is the policy on WIkipedia, and and I have no reason to believe the policy would not be the same here on Wikiquote. The reason the site is not "random" in because it contains a list of quotes attributed to Assange, of which I have no reason to doubt the vercity, and it is a blog which Wikileaks have endorsed both on their twitter page and on their facebook page. Also, your claim that these come from the Wikileaks official website is false. Many, if not all, of the quotes do not. If they all appeared on the official page, there would be no reason to include the link. Gregcaletta 03:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, I still don't really understand the objection to the link. It provides quotes of Julian Assange which are not on the page but which have not been adequately sourced to a "wikiquote" standard. What better reason for including an external link could there be? Gregcaletta 02:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you expend all this energy instead towards finding the original sources for these quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you? Anitawarin said he would do it but that it would take some time. It would take even longer for you, and I personally have no problems with just an external link in the meantime. I am also curious to understand why you still object to the link. I have explained why each of the initial objections to the link are insufficient. You said the link was "random" and a "copyright violation" and it has now been clearly demonstrated that neither is the case. The other objection was that the blog was "unreliable", but If you are not even attempting to explain your objections, then you can no longer justify your reversion of my addition to the article. Gregcaletta
- Quote pages on living people have higher standards than other random pages, and should not stoop to allowing personal websites created by individuals on blog websites. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are not even attempting to explain your objections to the link. The link provides quotes which are not in the article and are therefore useful to anyone looking for quotes by Julian Assange, and you have not given any explanation as to how the inclusion of the link lowers the quality of the article. Gregcaletta 02:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is an unreliable blog website. The purported quotes should be found to the original sources, and preferably sourced to reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear that you are not even reading what I have written above. I have already explained why this point is not valid. Here it is again: "The whole point of an "external links" section is to include access to information which is significant but can not be integrated into the article. In other words, if the site contains relevant information and is sufficiently reliable, the information is integrated into the article; if the site contains relevant information and is NOT sufficiently reliable, then access to the information is provided in the "external links" section." Gregcaletta 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, the point of an external links section is not to point to unreliable blog websites arbitrarily created by individuals, especially not when it concerns a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Questionable sources and external links. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it appears that you are unfamiliar with the policy you just linked to. It says "material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article." (emphasis mine) This refers to factual claims made by the blog itself. The blog I included is not such a blog. Rather, it is a fantastic collection of quotes by Assange based on a range of quotes available elsewhere, though difficult to locate, and endorsed by Wikileaks itself. Anyway, a "questionable source" is one with "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Does this particular blog have a poor reputation? From WP:External links, "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic [and] not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". Clearly the link I included falls under this category. ALthough the blog is not a reliable source, there is no serious question that the quotes listed are inaccurate, given that the blog in question has been endorsed by the Wikileaks twitter page (probably run by Assange himself). Gregcaletta 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reliability is determined by editorial review (of which this purported blog site probably has none), usage of said source by other reliable secondary sources, etc. Not by "endorsement" from another website. If that were the case, anyone could create a blog as such to link to from an external links section, but that would be highly inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you are not reading what I said. I didn't say the blog was reliable. In fact, I said the opposite. The policy link you provided referred to "questionable sources". Questionable sources are sources for which the accuracy is disputed, not the reliability. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the accuracy of the quotes provided in the blog. Gregcaletta 03:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am disputing it. Ningauble is disputing it. It lacks editorial review. It lacks reliability. If it is so important to Wikileaks, then Wikileaks can provide detailed source information for the quotes, on a page on its own website. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ningauble noted that the site is not reliable. He did not dispute the accuracy of the quotes themselves. You still don't seem to have made the distinction between a source which does not qualify as reliable, and source which is questionable in its accuracy. "Reliability" is a quality of a source being consistently accurate, and is a necessary criteria for the inclusion of material in the article, but not for inclusion in the external links section. A "questionable source" is one which is consistently innaccurate and such sites should not even be included in the external links section. The blog I have provided is neither a "reliable source" nor a "questionable source". It is a collection of accurate quotes which nonetheless do not meet wikiquotes standards for "reliable source", and which therefore cannot be integrated into the body of the article, but which are still useful to the reader, so they should be included in the "external links" section. Are you seriously disputing the accuracy of the quotes themselves, after Wikileaks have publicly endorsed the blog? Gregcaletta 03:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ningauble noted that the site is not reliable. He did not dispute the accuracy of the quotes themselves. You still don't seem to have made the distinction between a source which does not qualify as reliable, and source which is questionable in its accuracy. "Reliability" is a quality of a source being consistently accurate, and is a necessary criteria for the inclusion of material in the article, but not for inclusion in the external links section. A "questionable source" is one which is consistently innaccurate and such sites should not even be included in the external links section. The blog I have provided is neither a "reliable source" nor a "questionable source". It is a collection of accurate quotes which nonetheless do not meet wikiquotes standards for "reliable source", and which therefore cannot be integrated into the body of the article, but which are still useful to the reader, so they should be included in the "external links" section. Are you seriously disputing the accuracy of the quotes themselves, after Wikileaks have publicly endorsed the blog? Gregcaletta 03:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am disputing it. Ningauble is disputing it. It lacks editorial review. It lacks reliability. If it is so important to Wikileaks, then Wikileaks can provide detailed source information for the quotes, on a page on its own website. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you are not reading what I said. I didn't say the blog was reliable. In fact, I said the opposite. The policy link you provided referred to "questionable sources". Questionable sources are sources for which the accuracy is disputed, not the reliability. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the accuracy of the quotes provided in the blog. Gregcaletta 03:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reliability is determined by editorial review (of which this purported blog site probably has none), usage of said source by other reliable secondary sources, etc. Not by "endorsement" from another website. If that were the case, anyone could create a blog as such to link to from an external links section, but that would be highly inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it appears that you are unfamiliar with the policy you just linked to. It says "material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article." (emphasis mine) This refers to factual claims made by the blog itself. The blog I included is not such a blog. Rather, it is a fantastic collection of quotes by Assange based on a range of quotes available elsewhere, though difficult to locate, and endorsed by Wikileaks itself. Anyway, a "questionable source" is one with "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Does this particular blog have a poor reputation? From WP:External links, "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic [and] not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". Clearly the link I included falls under this category. ALthough the blog is not a reliable source, there is no serious question that the quotes listed are inaccurate, given that the blog in question has been endorsed by the Wikileaks twitter page (probably run by Assange himself). Gregcaletta 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Questionable sources and external links. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, the point of an external links section is not to point to unreliable blog websites arbitrarily created by individuals, especially not when it concerns a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear that you are not even reading what I have written above. I have already explained why this point is not valid. Here it is again: "The whole point of an "external links" section is to include access to information which is significant but can not be integrated into the article. In other words, if the site contains relevant information and is sufficiently reliable, the information is integrated into the article; if the site contains relevant information and is NOT sufficiently reliable, then access to the information is provided in the "external links" section." Gregcaletta 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is an unreliable blog website. The purported quotes should be found to the original sources, and preferably sourced to reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are not even attempting to explain your objections to the link. The link provides quotes which are not in the article and are therefore useful to anyone looking for quotes by Julian Assange, and you have not given any explanation as to how the inclusion of the link lowers the quality of the article. Gregcaletta 02:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quote pages on living people have higher standards than other random pages, and should not stoop to allowing personal websites created by individuals on blog websites. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you? Anitawarin said he would do it but that it would take some time. It would take even longer for you, and I personally have no problems with just an external link in the meantime. I am also curious to understand why you still object to the link. I have explained why each of the initial objections to the link are insufficient. You said the link was "random" and a "copyright violation" and it has now been clearly demonstrated that neither is the case. The other objection was that the blog was "unreliable", but If you are not even attempting to explain your objections, then you can no longer justify your reversion of my addition to the article. Gregcaletta
- Why don't you expend all this energy instead towards finding the original sources for these quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- And what reason do you have for doubting the accuracy of the quotes? As I have pointed out lacking a "editorial review" disqualifies the site form being considered "reliable" to the standards of Wikiquote, but it does not disqualify the site from being accurate. It is possible to have a series of accurate statements that have not been subject to editorial review, so what reason do you have for doubting the accuracy of the quotes? Gregcaletta 03:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are repeating yourself and going in circles now. The link remains disputed. Please do not revert and re-insert it, as doing so would be disruptive. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am have repeated myself because you have refused to respond to my points. It is clear by now from your unwillingness to respond my points that your real reason for continuing to object to the link is that you do not want to admit to having made a mistake, even though your original objections such as "copyright violation" have now been clearly demonstrated to be unfounded. It is sad that what used to to be such a radically innovative website has become an undemocratic and reactionary bureaucratic dictatorship of sysops, who believe their experience on the site gives them the right to resist positive changes to the article without giving reasonable explanations. In this culture, it is no wonder that so many Wikipedia editors are leaving, and so few new editors remain for long. I think I will join them. Gregcaletta 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are repeating yourself and going in circles now. The link remains disputed. Please do not revert and re-insert it, as doing so would be disruptive. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The issue here is simple: It is a personal blog. That this is an issue should not require a great deal of explanation. See w:Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, item 11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." There is a strong presumption that such links are not appropriate: "This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited."
While Wikiquote does not have the same degree of rule elaboration as Wikipedia, being a much smaller community, the underlying reasons for this presumption in Wikimedia projects should be self-evident. Valid reasons for making an exception here might arguably be broader than at Wikipedia, but they must nevertheless be very strong reasons if they are to overcome the presumption that personal blogs are not appropriate resources for Wikimedia projects. ~ Ningauble 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think I have given some pretty solid argument for why an exemption should be made here. Namely, this Wikiquote page is a page for sourced quotes by Julian Assange. The external links section is for any relevant quotes which cannot be included in the article due to being unsourced. The blog in question contains one of the best collections of unsourced Assange quotes on the internet and has been specifically endorsed by Assange. If I were a visitor this website, and I were looking for quotes by Assange, I would be glad of the link to such a great collection of quotes, and I do not see how the addition of such link worsens the article in any way. Of course, as no one has bothered responding to any of my points in this whole discussion, I doubt you will do so now. (I apologise for the rambling nature of my previous comment. I was in a bad mood that day. But I have decided I will no longer be contributing significantly to Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. I can't make any truly useful improvements when so many editors are obsessed with blindly following policy, rather than asking the simple question "does this edit make the article more useful to the reader?" and then applying common sense) Gregcaletta 05:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with this comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I updated the site to state the original source of each quote along with a link to video of the particular speech/interview. --Anitawirawan 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you. Would you like the quotes to be integrated into the article, or would you prefer your blog to remain in the "External Links" section? Gregcaletta 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The website itself is still unreliable, and should not be linked from the External links subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Links to YouTube are not generally considered reliable
edit- "Bear in mind that plain links to YouTube are not generally considered reliable" (comment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. Please, let us stick to reliable independent secondary sources, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the same sentence he went on to say "but if you can identify the original source of the recording, or at least some details about the occasion on which he spoke, that could make all the difference". I did exactly that. Gregcaletta 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube. Were these quotes reported on, in any books? Newspapers? Academic journal articles? -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- How ironic that the parameters for material on a page about Julian Assange are that it has to first come from the mainstream media.--Anitawirawan 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does not have to be "mainstream media", but does have to be reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So is a (verifiable) quote transcribed from a video filmed and posted online by an organization such as the Oslo Freedom Forum valid to be posted here?--Anitawirawan 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I have added that one quote back [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was thinking about all the quotes on the page in question that had come from the Olso Freedom Forum video. I've updated the page with a link for each quote to the video posted by the organization that had filmed and hosted the particular speech/interview. The only exceptions are the couple from Ars Electronica since they haven't archived the 2009 videos yet.--Anitawirawan 22:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where are these quotes listed? -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube. Were these quotes reported on, in any books? Newspapers? Academic journal articles? -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- "The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube." No, I also provided details of when and where the appearances took place. The first two were at conferences at which Assange is known to have appeared, from the official pages of the conferences. The third quote was from an interview that Assange did with a major Swedish news organisation. I included these details. The fact that these events are also archived at YouTube does not decrease their credibility. YouTube links are not accepted on their own or in general because they can potentially be a hoax. You cannot seriously believe that any of these quotes is a hoax. In response to your question "where are these quotes listed?", they are listed on the site by Anitawirawan which were removed from the External Links sections without explanation, and they have all been sourced. Gregcaletta 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I have added back into the page, the one quote that was from a trustworthy YouTube account, the account for the organization itself, Oslo Freedom Forum. :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- "The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube." No, I also provided details of when and where the appearances took place. The first two were at conferences at which Assange is known to have appeared, from the official pages of the conferences. The third quote was from an interview that Assange did with a major Swedish news organisation. I included these details. The fact that these events are also archived at YouTube does not decrease their credibility. YouTube links are not accepted on their own or in general because they can potentially be a hoax. You cannot seriously believe that any of these quotes is a hoax. In response to your question "where are these quotes listed?", they are listed on the site by Anitawirawan which were removed from the External Links sections without explanation, and they have all been sourced. Gregcaletta 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube. Were these quotes reported on, in any books? Newspapers? Academic journal articles? -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where are these quotes listed? -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was thinking about all the quotes on the page in question that had come from the Olso Freedom Forum video. I've updated the page with a link for each quote to the video posted by the organization that had filmed and hosted the particular speech/interview. The only exceptions are the couple from Ars Electronica since they haven't archived the 2009 videos yet.--Anitawirawan 22:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I have added that one quote back [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So is a (verifiable) quote transcribed from a video filmed and posted online by an organization such as the Oslo Freedom Forum valid to be posted here?--Anitawirawan 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does not have to be "mainstream media", but does have to be reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- How ironic that the parameters for material on a page about Julian Assange are that it has to first come from the mainstream media.--Anitawirawan 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only source that Gregcaletta (talk · contributions) put forth to purportedly confirm the quotes was links to YouTube. Were these quotes reported on, in any books? Newspapers? Academic journal articles? -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the same sentence he went on to say "but if you can identify the original source of the recording, or at least some details about the occasion on which he spoke, that could make all the difference". I did exactly that. Gregcaletta 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As stated in my last message, I have updated the page in question with links to the original sources. That means links to pages made by the organizations that filmed and hosted the events where the quotes came from. That means with the exception of the Oslo Freedom Forum, all non-YouTube footage. These organizations are: ALDEADLE, Sveriges Television, and New Media Days Conference. I think it's good to truly look into things so that we can avoid previous mistakes like saying the quotes site copyright violated Wikileaks.--Anitawirawan 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can provide that info, here, on the talk page, so we do not have to keep re-checking the personal blog website? Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Uh... why should he have to do that? He responded to your previous requests: "Why don't you expend all this energy instead towards finding the original sources for these quotes. I guess when he has finished doing the errand for you, you will send him on another one? Gregcaletta 10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, per the comments by admin Ningauble at User talk:Ningauble, these quotes really have not been shown to be noteworthy. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The thing that frustrates me Cirt is that you have changed your argument each time. You said that there were copyright violations, based on no evidence. When that was shown not to be the case, you complained that they were not properly sourced to include in the article (although this should not be relevant for an external list) and you suggested that somebody located the original sources. Once this had been done, you objected an inclusion of a Youtube link used to back up the sources. You then suggested that Anitawirawan copy his sourcing from the blog to the talk page (a senseless errand). You are now using the argument that the quotes "have not been shown to be noteworthy". I am afraid once I explain why this is not an adequate argument, you will merely come up with a new objection, but here goes. Wikiquote:quotability says that "(in particular) where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. How a quote is weighed under this factor is a very subjective decision, which may be determined by consensus of the community". So as I said, it is determined by "consensus of the community", not by the fact it is a quotation of a quotation. Although it is inherently subjective, the quotes I recently included in the article, (which you reverted) I think are clearly some of Assange's best, to even the most remotely reasonable observer. It is clear that You have not been making an effort to reach consensus. You created the article, and have since reverted every attempt by others to contribute. To further establish quotability (beyond the subjective) this is a set of quotes that have been publicly endorsed by Wikileaks, most likely by Assange himself, which I would have expected would only further compound the quotability of those particular quotes. Gregcaletta 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both argument points are valid. The sources provided are not the best in terms of reliability, and the quotes chosen are arbitrary, random, and not noteworthy, as they have not been discussed in any secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here is the second problem. You clearly did not read anything I just wrote, because what you just said did not address any of my points. Excellent consensus building, Cirt. Gregcaletta 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- This use of sarcasm is just one example of the lack of polite and kind talk page demeanor exhibited by Gregcaletta (talk · contributions), as compared to the (different) matter-of-fact and polite tone by Anitawirawan (talk · contributions) and Ningauble (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here is the second problem. You clearly did not read anything I just wrote, because what you just said did not address any of my points. Excellent consensus building, Cirt. Gregcaletta 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both argument points are valid. The sources provided are not the best in terms of reliability, and the quotes chosen are arbitrary, random, and not noteworthy, as they have not been discussed in any secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- The thing that frustrates me Cirt is that you have changed your argument each time. You said that there were copyright violations, based on no evidence. When that was shown not to be the case, you complained that they were not properly sourced to include in the article (although this should not be relevant for an external list) and you suggested that somebody located the original sources. Once this had been done, you objected an inclusion of a Youtube link used to back up the sources. You then suggested that Anitawirawan copy his sourcing from the blog to the talk page (a senseless errand). You are now using the argument that the quotes "have not been shown to be noteworthy". I am afraid once I explain why this is not an adequate argument, you will merely come up with a new objection, but here goes. Wikiquote:quotability says that "(in particular) where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. How a quote is weighed under this factor is a very subjective decision, which may be determined by consensus of the community". So as I said, it is determined by "consensus of the community", not by the fact it is a quotation of a quotation. Although it is inherently subjective, the quotes I recently included in the article, (which you reverted) I think are clearly some of Assange's best, to even the most remotely reasonable observer. It is clear that You have not been making an effort to reach consensus. You created the article, and have since reverted every attempt by others to contribute. To further establish quotability (beyond the subjective) this is a set of quotes that have been publicly endorsed by Wikileaks, most likely by Assange himself, which I would have expected would only further compound the quotability of those particular quotes. Gregcaletta 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, per the comments by admin Ningauble at User talk:Ningauble, these quotes really have not been shown to be noteworthy. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Uh... why should he have to do that? He responded to your previous requests: "Why don't you expend all this energy instead towards finding the original sources for these quotes. I guess when he has finished doing the errand for you, you will send him on another one? Gregcaletta 10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrono order
editPlease keep the quotes in chronological order, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the face of disagreement, simply proclaiming what one prefers is less conducive to arriving at a consensus than explaining why it might be preferable, particularly when it entails a deviation from the usual practice. Anyway, I propose discussing the question of chronology in this thread, even though it is also mentioned in the following thread, because that thread comingles multiple issues and does not yet address the merits of ordering "quotes about" chronologically. ~ Ningauble 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- As discussed and adopted as a guideline for theme pages, and for reasons linked in that discussion, I favor sorting by author and by chronology within author. I think "quotes about" is a theme, even when it is included as a section within another page. Most people articles actually are sorted thus, excepting that the particular author who is the subject of the page is placed first in a dedicated section. ~ Ningauble 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Chronological order and cite formatting
editPlease keep quotes in chronological order. Please do not remove cite formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might be more apt to call this reformatting rather than removal, as I would not consider the result unformatted. It would be more conducive to arriving at a consensus if, rather than implicitly denying the validity or existence of the revised format, one were to offer reasons for preferring one format over the other. ~ Ningauble 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cite formatting you are promotting is an option here — NOT a mandate, as far as I am aware, and your recent edits have DESTROYED chronological arrangements and removed legitimate quotes. I believe that you are also inclined to use extensive footnote formatting, which has long been deprecated here, and issue your comments as if they were imperatives others should obey witihout question — and you have abundantly made clear your vindictive and punitive attitude towards anyone who dares to dissent to your demands and dispositions, as your comments, lacking in merit or validity haver resulted in me being blocked here for an entirely unwarranted period of time — as well as the Wikipedia, and at Wikimedia commons, where I remain unable to edit, as I have not, as yet had time or sufficient inclination to challenge the blocks you initiated against me there. Your presumptively dictatorial and imperious manner is something I find quite disgusting, and I make no effort to hide that fact. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kalki (talk · contributions) has removed the cite templates, and removed the chronological order formatting, again, without waiting for discussion. Reported this to WQ:AN, at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Disruption_by_User:Kalki_at_page_Julian_Assange. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Cite templates" are a MINOR formatting issue — and I am attempting to preserve added material, and maintain chronological order — which is MUCH easier to do with straightforward WYSIWYG formatting of citations that can proceed as they have for YEARS here, rather than using bulked up citation templates, which are a relatively recent innovation which some prefer, but I make no pretense of believeing to be preferable, and actually believe are detrimental in many ways. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The entire article used citation templates as the main format for the quotes cited. Kalki chose to undo this format for the page, disrupting the stability of the page on a living person - with no prior discussion - and then decided to engage in further disruption by reverting and again removing the prior format style of the previously stable page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Kalki chose to undo this format for the page, disrupting the stability of the page on a living person" — This is a bunch of profoundly foul HOGWASH. The formatting of citations is certainly NOT prescribed in the manner Cirt is implying it is or should be, and revising the citation format is NOT some horrendous offense to "the stability of the page on a living person" as Cirts fearmongering attempt at intimidation pretends it is. My supposed "disruptions" to this project in attempting to do constructive edits here are but minor things compared to the major disruptions Cirt has caused with his rather extensive attempts at character assassination and diminishing my reputation and abilities to edit on Wikimedia projects. I am not addressing all the abuses I consider Cirt to have engaged in, but the time will come when I might well do so — I have far more interesting matters to attend to now. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- In this edit, which Cirt characterizes as "disruptive" and reverted, I had added Assange's Date of Birth, arranged the quotations ABOUT Assange BY AUTHOR, which anyone who has spent more than rudimentary time at Wikiquote knows is a STANDARD arrangement for such sections, and removed a citation formatting that is designed for long lists of footnote citations which I consider ridiculously inappropriate for interlinear citations, and contemptible to insist upon as if it were mandated here. I added a quotation by Newsweek journalist Ben Adler, in which he quoted entirely relevant comments about Assange by Sam Freedman and Dan Abrams — I believe these clearly are notable and appropriate comments to include here. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please interact on talk pages without using bold, and CAPS formatting? -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I can, but I am no more inclined to make any major effort to suppress that aspect of my inclinations than you are to suppress yours of regularly adopting an imperious tone that seems to imply or assert that you know what is best for everyone else to do, and anything against your preferences and styles of behavior should be automatically depricated or even forbidden. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just that the use of bold and CAPS makes it most difficult to comfortably parse what is attempted to be communicated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I can, but I am no more inclined to make any major effort to suppress that aspect of my inclinations than you are to suppress yours of regularly adopting an imperious tone that seems to imply or assert that you know what is best for everyone else to do, and anything against your preferences and styles of behavior should be automatically depricated or even forbidden. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please interact on talk pages without using bold, and CAPS formatting? -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding "cite formatting", the issue raised here (leaving chronological ordering to a separate thread above, and disregarding personal remarks and other digressions) is whether or not to use citation templates. No policy or guideline mandates or deprecates use of these templates, and it has long been a matter of editor preference. Few regular contributors use them, but visiting Wikipedians often do. Some of the considerations are:
- Templates can lead to a degree of consistency in the style of the resulting text. However, due to the variety of templates and their multiple options and parameters, the potential for uniformity is largely unrealized in practice.
- The templates were originally designed for formatting footnotes at Wikipedia. I think it debatable whether the same formats are desirable for Wikiquote's style of interlinear citation. Some of the templates (not used in this case) are modeled on academic styles that were designed to facilitate indexing a separate bibliography. I really do not like seeing the "First, Last" naming convention here, and am not aware of any major compendia of quotations that use it.
- Proper use of the templates is relatively obscure for people who do not use them regularly. I am sure most random visitors from the general public, upon attempting to edit a page with templatized citations, find the wikitext unreadable, to the detriment of the principle that "anyone can edit."
- It can be convenient to copy and paste a citation from another wiki, template included, but this can lure one into neglecting to customize the citation for the context, as by providing local wikilinks or omitting information that is redundant in the enclosing page or section.
- On balance, I do not favor using these templates, but I would not go out of my way to reformat citations that use them. When I do have occasion to edit such citations, e.g. to provide missing information or to move footnotes inline, I usually un-templatize them in passing. It hardly matters enough to make an edit-war, so I imagine the actual reason for this dispute lies elsewhere than the point being disputed, and I apologize if this lengthy post has the effect of contributing to making a mountain out of this molehill. ~ Ningauble 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you much for your analysis and commentary. I hesitate to edit this at this time, but I would like to at least restore the edit I had initially made, which I believe conforms to such recommendations, and perhaps restore the other quote added by someone else, if there are no significant objections to it. Both the quote I added and that added by someone else seem to me relevant to the page, and the one I had added incorporates commentary by 3 notable journalists on Assange. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose removing cite templates. Ningauble, the entire page already uses cite templates as the standardized format. I do not object to new quotes being added with a different cite format, with the option to format them later, but going out of one's way to remove the standardization and uniformity for all the citations - is unnecessary and a threat to page stability. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you much for your analysis and commentary. I hesitate to edit this at this time, but I would like to at least restore the edit I had initially made, which I believe conforms to such recommendations, and perhaps restore the other quote added by someone else, if there are no significant objections to it. Both the quote I added and that added by someone else seem to me relevant to the page, and the one I had added incorporates commentary by 3 notable journalists on Assange. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- That applying formatting which has been the standard on this wikiproject for YEARS is "going out of one's way to remove the standardization and uniformity for all the citations - is unnecessary and a threat to page stability" — is quite frankly a crock of crap. As a wiki we SHOULD permit and encourage innovations and changes — but when the longstanding consensus of what works best on the project as a whole is clearly undermined, editors should be free to remove rather pointless and detrimental innovations without seeking permission from anyone — they should simply be free to do that, and people who seek to impose NEW rules or new standards should be required to post convincing and sufficiently persuasive arguments to sway the community as a whole to their position — not simply expect others to bow down to what they believe would be the most convenient or appealing style for they themselves to maintain or supprort. I am sure Cirt has MUCH to contribute to the project, but laying down new laws or standards to be accepted by others without open disputes and adoption for clear reasons by the whole community is NOT one of them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cite templates exist. They are used on multiple pages. There is no "standard" or policy dictating that they must not be used and that they must be disruptively replaced on pages of living people. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Implying that any particular format is something which it would be innately "disruptive" to replace with a more generally used norm, and repeatedly tying this implication to some false associations that doing so might violate some sort of ethical policies because it is on some "page of living people" is a rather shallow and fetid position. Of course these templates exist, and many people find it convenient to use them, and I don't regularly object to them being used. NOT being an asinine absolutist about anything, I am NOT suggesting that they be scrapped entirely, or forbidden in any way and never have done so, but hold that they should also not be treated as themselves sacred or sacrosanct in any way. I have in fact regularly removed such formatting, despite it being inconvenient for me to do so, as I belleve the long standing form is generally far more convenient, practical and straightforward for most people not overly addicted to such specific templates. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pages on living people should be treated with more care than other pages, and disruption on such pages should be avoided. I thank you for refraining at present from said behavior, and engaging in discussion at the talk page. I echo the comments of Ningauble above, that cite templates foster both consistency in formatting across pages, and convenience in importing material from other pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- You take my comments out of context: I said that their potential for uniformity is not realized in practice, and that their convenience leads to sloppiness. ~ Ningauble 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I too agree with the assertions that "cite templates foster both consistency in formatting across pages, and convenience in importing material from other pages" and thus I Do NOT object to their being used — but the format that might be convenient for other people on other projects in other uses is NOT the optimal format to use here, and should NOT be treated as a holy ideal or sacred idol that other users should be compelled to bow down to, or prevented from altering; especially not with specious arguments that "Pages on living people should be treated with more care than other pages" — such arguments apply properly to the CONTENT of such pages — and certainly NOT to the relatively trivial and largely unrelated matters of the formatting in which it might be presented. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Kalki that citation format has nothing to do with the respect and diligence due to living people, unless it is so flowery as to constitute hagiography or so ugly as to be disparaging. ~ Ningauble 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pages on living people should be treated with more care than other pages, and disruption on such pages should be avoided. I thank you for refraining at present from said behavior, and engaging in discussion at the talk page. I echo the comments of Ningauble above, that cite templates foster both consistency in formatting across pages, and convenience in importing material from other pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Implying that any particular format is something which it would be innately "disruptive" to replace with a more generally used norm, and repeatedly tying this implication to some false associations that doing so might violate some sort of ethical policies because it is on some "page of living people" is a rather shallow and fetid position. Of course these templates exist, and many people find it convenient to use them, and I don't regularly object to them being used. NOT being an asinine absolutist about anything, I am NOT suggesting that they be scrapped entirely, or forbidden in any way and never have done so, but hold that they should also not be treated as themselves sacred or sacrosanct in any way. I have in fact regularly removed such formatting, despite it being inconvenient for me to do so, as I belleve the long standing form is generally far more convenient, practical and straightforward for most people not overly addicted to such specific templates. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cite templates exist. They are used on multiple pages. There is no "standard" or policy dictating that they must not be used and that they must be disruptively replaced on pages of living people. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding ease of use, I cannot agree with the comment in this edit (which didn't work until the template was revised somewhat) that "cite templates make this needlessly easy to do." I think it is self-evident which of the following snippets of wikimarkup is easier (differences shown in bold):
- last=Ellsberg|first=Daniel|authorlink=Daniel Ellsberg|
- [[Daniel Ellsberg]],
- The first is nearly three times longer, and will break if parameter names and punctuation are not exactly right. ~ Ningauble 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding ease of use, I cannot agree with the comment in this edit (which didn't work until the template was revised somewhat) that "cite templates make this needlessly easy to do." I think it is self-evident which of the following snippets of wikimarkup is easier (differences shown in bold):
Primary source additions
edit[4] = please, avoid use of primary sources for additions, as in this example. Let us rely mostly on secondary sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- ONCE AGAIN, Cirt is behaving AS IF his preferences were MANDATES here, which, so far as I am aware, they are NOT. Cirt is an admin, and as far as I can be has regularly used his status here to IMPOSE his will and preferences, and in the case of myself to punitively apply his supposed authority in removing my appropriate rights, not only here, but at other wikimedia projects. As far as I am aware, there has been NO mandating of such a policy as Cirt is pretending should be submitted to as if it were. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, avoiding primary sources for selecting quotes on a page about a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was engaged in discussion which was the subject of this thread, and your behavior and false presumptions and assertions here and elsewhere, which I believe are very relevant to discussion of this incident, and many others. The person who added that quote was quoting PUBLICLY available information, originally posted at the subject of the article's public blog, and now posted at the Internet archive as significant enough to preserve there. I personally would not have actually added the material, but I can agree it is somewhat notable, and probably worthy of inclusion. I actually have very little interest in Mr. Assange, beyond some interest in defending his right to do as he will, and as he must with his levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion about many things, despite my actual belief in the wrongness and shallowness of much of his will and decision making processes. I am not seeking to be a denigrator or a defender of any or all of his actions, any more than I am seeking to be a defender or denigrator of all the possible motives of the poster of this particular quote. I do seek to defend this wiki from further imperious presumptions such as you have occasionally engaged in, where any edits you don't agree with are to be treated as if they were "disruptive", and in the case of my previous dispute with you, even subject to severe penalties of a vendetta of character assasination across multiple projects, where you accused me of being a "known abuser" of accounts, which I continue assert is NOT the case. Many accounts you could identify as uncontestedly presumed to be mine, here or elsewhere, have been blocked and all the contributions I had attempted to make on such user pages to enhance the general atmosphere of the project, in a generally jovial and hardly malicious way, and which I have begun to restore at my Restorations page, simply replaced with variations of some template such as {{sockpuppet|Kalki|confirmed}} . ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please refrain from unnecessary verboseness, and overemphasized usage of bold text. It makes it much more difficult to successfully have a constructive and positive dialog. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course accepting your characterization of any points or observations you don't wish to be made as "unnecessary verboseness" or somethng which "makes it much more difficult to successfully have a constructive and positive dialog" would permit you to entirely indulge in your inclination to presume that YOU should entirely set the agenda for others to discuss, and permit NO concerns or issues others might wish to raise in response to the complex interrelations of many events which I assert cannot actually be properly addressed in so constrained and limited a fashion as you would prefer to have them addressed by. I digress of course from issues of conformity to expectations which are rather alien to me and this project, and decline to defer to requests to ignore any issues of the ethical or practical considertations of being disposed to obey whatever some other individual or group of individuals would prefer, demand, or insist on as more convenient for them without clear and proper ethical justification of why what they find most convenient is something anyone else should accept as an ideal or mandate of their own. Simplistic minds and arguments often seek to keep things seeming so simple that they can imply or impel others to accept doctrines of "Might makes Right." I assert that what is right or best is NOT something always so easily or simply determined, and arguments on such matters, to be as fair as possible, should be as open as possible to all related issues and concerns — and NOT relegated to some pathetic paths onto some railroaded tunnel-vision track where the only outcome possible is one which can clearly be foreseen. If you choose to disrupt the wiki process by designating any other views, styles, agenda or concerns but your own narrowly and shallowly defined ones as things to be discarded and automatically classified as innately "disruptive", and can convince enough others to do the same, then you have successfully corrupted and crippled the wiki processes and initial aims of the Wikimedia projects far more than any vandals or trolls ever have. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the subject of primary and secondary sources, which I thought was the subject of this thread:
- I agree that the quote to which Cirt objects looks like a very obscure bit of bloggery that we do not need to include; however, I do not agree with his prescription for emphasizing secondary sources. What is required is quotability. This has come up several times, so I have drafted an essay at Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which may be of interest for clarifying the application of these terms to citing quotations. In particular:
- A secondary source citation is but one of several indicators of quotability, and all secondary sources are not created equal.
- We should not remove the entire "Quotes about" section of this article just because all of the citations are primary with respect to the quotes, nor give a free pass on quotability to every source that is secondary with respect to the subject.
- I support the principle that quotability is particularly important when dealing with quotes by and about living people, especially when they are involved in controversy, but it is not as simple as discriminating between primary and secondary sources. ~ Ningauble 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Quote about Facebook
edit"Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented." How wasn't this included? 85.246.171.18 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Why does "Quotes about Assange" differ from the norm?
editI see that the subsection "Quotes about Assange" is ordered (most recent first). Just wondering why thisAssange Quote compendium differs from the norm? Anyone? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)