Wikipedia talk:Quotations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikilinks in quotations

Is there a guideline or policy concerning when (if) it is appropriate to wikilink (markup) a quotation? 69.3.72.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking is about linking in quotations. Nurg (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Constitution articles

In articles about amendments to the United States Constitution (e.g., this one) there is a back-and-forth regarding whether the Text sections of those articles should use the "quote" template or the "cquote" template. Which side is correct? SMP0328. (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of response: "quote" is the correct template. The more decorative "cquote" is theoretically not supposed to be used in any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoring balance between for and against quotations

The essay, as I found it, was very heavy against quotes. But as an editor of controversial political subject, I know that every word of text will be questioned but a well used quote will not. Therefore, quotations are my friends, not my enemies. I made multiple edits to restore some balance between the arguments for and against using quotations. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Qoutes & References

What is wiki's policy on removing well qouted and referenced materials? (Can someone just radomly remove will referenced materials & qoutes simply because they dont like what it says?)

I presume just the ramification of it alone defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia if everyone went around removing what they dont like???

Henry123ifa (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WARN, probably Page blanking, removal of content or Not adhering to neutral point of view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You should check with the person who removed it. They may have had a reason besides not liking the material. Quotes are best kept short, and lists of quotes belong in Wikiquote.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes in quoted material

Hello. There is a conversation about this topic at Talk:Canadian French. It might be advisable to have guidelines about this issue. 216.239.65.66 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this page?

Since this is "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" what is it, exactly? Can anyone make unilateral substantive edits to it? It seems somewhat confusing to me, because I've encountered editors citing as if it was a policy in cases of disputes.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"This guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors." People cite it because they think it is good advice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask why people cite it - obviously they think it is good advice. I'm asking what it is, and by implication what weight if any does it have in settling disputes, if it is not a policy or a guideline. It's not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to know.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is an essay, and as such does not have the force of a policy or a guideline. It overlaps with and links to underlying policies and guidelines, and can assist in their interpretation and application. Policies and guidelines often link to essays for that very reason.

It is advice that can be used to inform a discussion. The discussion at "Proposal to promote to policy/guideline" above indicates that most observers, including those who oppose making it a guideline, believe it is good advice. If this all seems very ambiguous, consider that essays, guidelines, and policies do not settle disputes, disputants do. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, it is an WP:Essay, and you might like to read about WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Some essays (e.g., WP:Five pillars, WP:Bold, revert, discuss, WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Use common sense) often have more weight than some "official" guidelines. Wikipedia is not a system of laws or bureaucratic regulations; it's not a matter of finding a specially endorsed sentence that allows you to win a disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. For the record, I am not looking to find "a specially endorsed sentence that allows you to win a disputes," I'm just trying to better understand the procedures.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation style on article talk pages

Would it be useful to mention preferred quotation style on article talk pages - especially the case of when quoting other editors comments from other talk pages? There are a wide variety of quotation styles in common usage on article talk pages, some of which interfere with proper indenting or attribution. A related "issue" is the "use" of quotation "marks" as a form of disparagement or "commentary" rather than to signify "actual" quotations (quotation marks added "as" examples). Perhaps some guidance on quotation style on article talk pages would be helpful? Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While that is an important issue, I think it would better be addressed elsewhere, e.g. in the behavioral guidelines at WP:TALK. Opening that can of worms in an essay about using quotes in articles would be a confusing digression because talk pages are much less formal. (That said, I do believe that quoting anyone in any context should always be done with all due respect.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations?

In Condemnations_(University_of_Paris)#Effects, most paragraphs begin with "Pierre Duhem [said] ...", where Pierre Duhem just happens to be one of the scholars writing about the subject, and incidentally the one who was most perused by the authors of the article. That seems to adhere to the current recommendations of this essay, but I still find it very annoying and distracting. Should we try to improve that wording (how?), or is it actually good that it's so clumsy, because it may warn readers and invite the eventual addition of other viewpoints? — Sebastian 09:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoid preceding a direct quote with "that"

I propose an additional guideline for either Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations or Wikipedia:Quotations: Avoid preceding a direct quote with "that". An example of this objectionable usage appears in International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution#Media (permalink):

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said that "it should be increasingly evident that Mr. Mubarak is not the remedy for instability in Egypt; he is its cause. The road to stability in Egypt requires Mr. Mubarak's departure, immediately."

The word that should be removed because it implies that what follows is a description of what Kristof said, not his exact words. This principle is obvious, but because this error is so prevalent in Wikipedia, an explicit rule would be helpful. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your example reads okay to me. Could you perchance cite a grammar/usage authority for what this claimed rule is? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Though the use of that preceding a wholly quoted statement is unusual, and a blurring of the distinction between direct and indirect reported speech might be bad style, I would not say it is a style issue that we need a rule for. In any case, it should not be stated so baldly since this construction is quite normal when the reported speech is not a (single) whole sentence or clause (e.g. '. . . said that "the ageing dictator" was not the answer . . .').--Boson (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

I apologize in advance if this is not the proper forum for this question. If quoting a document that contains a spelling error, how should this be addressed? This university document spells the Nicolas Andry Award as "the Nicholas Andry Award". Thanks! Location (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Location: that is what [sic] is for. Quote it with the spelling error. The link you provided is dead, but do something like this made-up example:

• SUNY Upstate Medical Center reported, "In 2001 Joe Smith was awarded the Nicholas Andry Award [sic] for his work on intestinal infections." —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Awkward phrase

 Done

This guidance essay says "An exception are trivial spelling or typographical errors ...". This looks like lack of number agreement. Would it be better as "An exception is the case of trivial spelling or typographical errors ..." or "An exception may be made for trivial spelling or typographical errors ..."? Chris the speller ^yack 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the nature of images and text at the village pump

Hi folks. There has been an issue raised about how we treat text in an otherwise free image. Discussion is here at the village pump. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"false" versus undue

I made an edit [1] which was reverted [2]. My position is:

• Even if the phrasing was deemed by some to be inelegant, our policy is still one of "verifiability, not truth", so speaking of what is false is not well defined. The reverting edit summary makes a clarification about "unequivocally" false information, which is not done in the text, and would limit the case to very rare circumstances.

• emphasizing WP:DUE is useful for the far more common situation in which quotes are simply controversial viewpoints, as well as for cases of false information. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The wording about "saying the statement is false" tends to risk BLP trouble, because as in the McCain case, you are being urged to make an either or decision - believe the quote as stated, or say that someone is a flake or a liar. Usually a more nuanced text - he said this, but many others disagreed - is more encyclopedic. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reproducing footnote numbers within quoted text?

An editor is arguing[3] that omitting the footnote numbers from a quoted text is modifying the quoted text. Is there a policy regarding this? Thanks. — goethean 14:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Falsehoods

I am not happy with the phrasing this passage:

There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.

(1) Strictly speaking, that is a logical fallacy. "X said Y" is literally true even if Y is nonsense. I appreciate that there are people who will infer from that proposition that Y is true, but that is because they have an inadequate grasp of the English language. Even if we need to take steps to prevent that kind of inference from being drawn, it does not mean that that kind of inference is right. (2) In some cases (especially where one is dealing with a subject that is only taught or studied at an advanced level) it will be difficult or impossible to determine with absolute certainty whether a quote is true or not. James500 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How about something like:

If you quote a false statement without saying that it is false, readers might imagine that it is true.

James500 (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How to cite examples of an idea/argument

I would like to address the over-quotation tag on the evaluative diversity article. It contains a section about famous arguments which cites appearance of the arguments in major texts of the world's most popular religions. Like the quotes listed in the golden rule article, these quotes together supposedly make the case that the arguments are noteworthy, ancient, and not specific to any particular religion--readers may want to see the quotes to judge for themselves whether the case is actually made. Can you please clarify how quotes should be handled in such a case? 165.189.37.11 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a proposed section Wikipedia:QUOTE#Examples in which encyclopedias may list many quotes

Langchri (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotations about quotations

User:Joshua Jonathan added some quotes to the "Overusing quotations" section last December ("Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler’s heart") - I can't work out if these were trying to be pithy reminders of the importance of good quoting, or (as they seem to have been presented) examples of "The quotes dominate the article:", but since the former seems inappropriate and the latter seems oblique and unnecessary, I've cut them. --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: no idea anymore why I added those quotes, but they seem quite appropriate in this case. Which makes them actually relevant. And that gives a very nice 'feedback-loop', doesn't it? ;) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)