Wikiquote talk:What Wikiquote is not
Not censored.
editI propose adding the following text to the policy :
"Wikiquote is not censored. Wikiquote cannot guarantee that quotations or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. The practical implications of this are as follows:
- Expletives should only be censored in quotation if this is how they are presented in the source.
- Content which is sufficiently quotable to be included should not be removed because it is objectionable.
- Censored forks of pages are inappropriate, and will be merged with the uncensored page or deleted.
Editors are encouraged to carefully consider whether adding objectionable content is appropriate before doing so. It is often a good idea to discuss the content on the discussion page of the article before adding it."
as our stance on censorship, which is not covered by existing policies. --Tryst (talk to me!) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- What problem does this solve? I have not noticed any unresolved debates over censorship. We do occasionally see someone trying to bowdlerize quotes, but when noticed it is promptly reverted as a simple case of inserting false information. (People who do this sort of thing are generally not guided by policies.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are some pages which have censored forks, such as Hell's Kitchen and Hell's Kitchen (uncensored), and there's no specific remedy to these pages in existing policy. I'd rather that we formalised our current stance. --Tryst (talk to me!) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with those pages runs deeper: it is not a case of users censoring the source, but of quoting different sources. As I understand it, the fork was at one time justified on the basis of there being two different productions, US and UK; but what we really have here are two editions of the US production, broadcast and video. I think a case could be made for deleting the "uncensored" video fork as much less notable than the broadcast edition. (There's also no specific remedy for pagefulls of unquoteworthy spew from "notable" broadcast programs.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should probably move the pages in question then, because at the moment it looks to anyone unfamiliar with the show that the "uncensored" page is a fork of the main page. I personally feel that Wikiquote would be improved by deleting both pages, there's nothing quotable in either of them. --Tryst (talk to me!) 16:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- On the narrow point above, some rename might be appropriate. However, I agree with Ningauble that no general policy is needed.--Collingwood (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- We should probably move the pages in question then, because at the moment it looks to anyone unfamiliar with the show that the "uncensored" page is a fork of the main page. I personally feel that Wikiquote would be improved by deleting both pages, there's nothing quotable in either of them. --Tryst (talk to me!) 16:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with those pages runs deeper: it is not a case of users censoring the source, but of quoting different sources. As I understand it, the fork was at one time justified on the basis of there being two different productions, US and UK; but what we really have here are two editions of the US production, broadcast and video. I think a case could be made for deleting the "uncensored" video fork as much less notable than the broadcast edition. (There's also no specific remedy for pagefulls of unquoteworthy spew from "notable" broadcast programs.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are some pages which have censored forks, such as Hell's Kitchen and Hell's Kitchen (uncensored), and there's no specific remedy to these pages in existing policy. I'd rather that we formalised our current stance. --Tryst (talk to me!) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the proposal, although I would have it as a freestanding policy page, and not part of WQ:NOT. Where there are censored and uncensored versions of the same show, song, or book, the uncensored version is the original work of authorship and should be used unless there is no source from which it can be definitively determed what, exactly, was censored. Where censorship is achieved by substituting an actual word for the censored word (such as the use of "Forget You" in the radio version of the Cee Lo Green song, "Fuck You") then the substitution should be noted in the notes following the original quote. Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother noting what was bleeped in a broadcast. BD2412 T 16:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Frex, when Jon Stewart has a "f[bleep]k" bleeped on The Daily Show, but an uncensored video posted hours later on thedailyshow.com has an unbleeped "fuck", we should go with the latter and write "fuck". Though its publication may be later in time, it accurately represents what originally came out of his mouth during the taping. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I recently noticed two cases in newspaper reports where words were *** out. Were I to add them to WQ, I would of course quote exactly what the source says.--Collingwood (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would remove any censorship, because it makes the quotations less easy to understand to some individuals. --Tryst (talk to me!) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, not unless there is a reliable and verifiable source for the uncensored version. It would be quite wrong to guess at the original version.--06:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Often there is, especially as no-one actually "*** outs" their words in real life. --Tryst (talk to me!) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- "The D—l you say!" Actually, this sort of self-censorship is not at all unusual. It became very common in the Victorian era, using a dash rather than asterisks (which became popular with the advent of typewriters), and is still very much with us today. Many examples may be found not only in works that have been edited, but also in manuscripts and letters from the hand of the authors. Spoken English, from the Victorian era to the present day, uses initialisms such as "G— D—" or "F-ing" to the same effect in real life. I have certainly heard people say "bleeping", and during the Watergate era "expletive deleted" enjoyed brief popularity as an explative. Of course, I am not suggesting that the host of Hell's Kitchen has ever engaged in any such hypocrisy (or subtlety of any kind), just that your categorical remark overstates the case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Often there is, especially as no-one actually "*** outs" their words in real life. --Tryst (talk to me!) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, not unless there is a reliable and verifiable source for the uncensored version. It would be quite wrong to guess at the original version.--06:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would remove any censorship, because it makes the quotations less easy to understand to some individuals. --Tryst (talk to me!) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I recently noticed two cases in newspaper reports where words were *** out. Were I to add them to WQ, I would of course quote exactly what the source says.--Collingwood (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Frex, when Jon Stewart has a "f[bleep]k" bleeped on The Daily Show, but an uncensored video posted hours later on thedailyshow.com has an unbleeped "fuck", we should go with the latter and write "fuck". Though its publication may be later in time, it accurately represents what originally came out of his mouth during the taping. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I strongly agree with comments by Tryst (talk · contributions) and Robin Lionheart (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not add "Further reading" sections to Wikiquote articles
editPer comments at Village Pump by User:Nick1372 and User:BD2412, I've added the wording about "Further reading" sections to this page, see DIFF. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Update: I've added some additional helpful wording by User:Ningauble from Wikiquote:Village Pump, please see DIFF. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikiquote is not a source of inspirational posters
editI notice that the Henry David Thoreau page is full of irrelevant or tendentious illustrations with quotations from Thoreau. In addition to the image use policy on relevance, I propose we add a "Wikiquote is not a collection of calendar art for quotations" or something like that. These motivational poster-style illustrations make me want to barf. --Macrakis (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
WQ:CRYSTAL clarification re: 'reliable publication previewing them'
editWhat exactly counts as 'reliable publication previewing them'? If it's straight from the horse's mouth (IE an official trailer or press release), would that not count as a 'reliable publiation previewing them'? This seems like it might be taken in a vague context, so clarification would be needed. The reason I ask is because Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker was deleted for being an 'unreleased film' yet all the quotes in there at present debuted in officially-released trailers and TV spots, and that status would suggest to me that these officially-released materials would count as the aforementioned 'reliable publications'. Ggctuk (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)