Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard - Wikiquote
2 people in discussion
Discussions
Please block 136.158.33.179 (repeated creation of offensive pages). Thank you. Cysquatch (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Consensus is needed at Talk:J._K._Rowling#Astead_Herndon_"fairly_well-known_quote".
The article about the controversial UK author needs cleanup and improvement. Not-very-quotable quotes embellished with POV-pushing "clarifications" are piling up e.g. not-very "pithy, witty, wise, eloquent, or poignant" attacks on Labour Party [1] or this one taking the opportunity to denounce several SNP politicians.
Surely the "about" section should be allowed to contain SOME quotable criticisms of JKR. Also, although it is fine for a person's article to represent their viewpoint, this section is so extensive I worry about copyright issues. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The "attack on Labour" quote is from a June article published in the London Times during the UK general election and gained considerable attention in the UK. Practically every week, Rowling receives coverage for her dispute with particular policies of the Scottish National Party, currently leading the devolved government in Scotland, and her views on women's rights vs the trans-rights movement. The immediate context may soon fade, so I have tried to provide it in the notes which follow. The four SNP politicians mentioned in the edit HoC includes are not identified in the current version, but they are in multiple reliable sources, so I was clearly not including false information. The "decapitate TERFFs" placard was used at a demonstration after the Westminster government rejected a bill passed by the Scottish parliament, the first time it has happened in a quarter century of devolution. I make it clear the politicians say they had not seen it and denounce it. So the whole context is clearly notable, and the politicians surely deserve their defence to be included. The extracts from Rowling's 2020 essay on sex and gender issues may be too long on copyright grounds, but it is the main reason she has become controversial for many, so it is certainly notable. Philip Cross (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Glad we agree on reducing one part's copyvio--I made a start. I also reduced much bolding, which should be used to highlight especially quotable bits, not to emphasize points of view which an editor happens to share. WQ showcases quotes and is unsuited to longform preaching of any particular viewpoint. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did a "clean-up" on the 2023 section, to show what I propose. Quotes should be trimmed for quotability, and "clarifications" should stick to clarification, not extend into endorsing viewpoints or shaming bad guys. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- One of your deletions removed a link to a Wikipedia article on a rapist, a case which became notable in the UK. In the other you removed any indication of the party the politicians represented and the constitutional issue they were demonstrating against which involved a much reported bill passed by the Scottish parliament, but blocked by the Westminster government. I am assuming not all users will read the sources, some of which are behind paywalls. My notes were an attempt to establish the notability of the quotes via the notability of the issues Rowling was responding to. Otherwise the choice of comments made by JKR, which have been extensive, will look random. Philip Cross (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The notability/quotability of quotes doesn't require or benefit from political point-scoring pro or con a speaker's tiny local issues. On the contrary, openly partisan point-scoring makes WQ look bad.
- Consider Trump's "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs...They're eating the cats." Notable. quotable, cited to RS that gives its context. Adding editorial "clarifications" to that quote would pitchfork us in no-win partisan battles that shouldn't be happening here. WQ is not the place for it. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- These two examples are not "tiny local issues" in the UK, as I have tried to explain, but may seem to be for people thousands of miles away. As it happens, the Trump WQ article is grossly over-extended with repetition, possibly the largest of all WQ articles. JKR's article is not excessively long. Philip Cross (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Bolding the part of my comment above that is most important, in the hope it stands out from the TLDR being built here: openly partisan point-scoring makes WQ look bad. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It works both ways, "He/him" or rather "He/him", if you prefer. Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Philip Cross, you have made many excellent edits to this article and elsewhere throughout wikiprojects. My wish to change some edits that I consider harmful reflect no criticism of you personally deeper than that I believe you have a blind spot concerning the appropriateness of scoring partisan shots in wikiprojects. The difference between an important context and a partisan shot can be hard to see, but one simple test might be that "naming and shaming" any individual can rarely be a useful "context" for a wiki-quote. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Since specific politicians are no longer identified in one quote's note (only their party), I can only assume you are defending not naming an imprisoned rapist in the other. Your "partisan shot" is when, according to you, I am "naming and shaming" an individual whose sexual ambiguity was the main factor in the controversy over whether they should be imprisoned in a Scottish male or female jail. Adam Graham/Isla Bryson is in no way formally transitioned (in current terminology, "gender affirmed") and began self-identifying as female while held in custody before their trial. In my view, your position is really rather curious. Philip Cross (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- My position is that the villainy of a rapist and the idiocy of a government's related action have zero usefulness in explaining the context of a quotation in Wikiquote. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Rowling's quote is a specific reference to "Sturgeon, her government", the sourced article's title has no direct indication what policy decision the quote is referring to. Any linked article's title may be insufficient. Philip Cross (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The substitute clarification I offered ("Rowling was responding to Sturgeon's announcement that a transgender rapist would be moved out of a women's prison") is sufficient, together with the link to the RS cited, to give the context. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Since specific politicians are no longer identified in one quote's note (only their party), I can only assume you are defending not naming an imprisoned rapist in the other. Your "partisan shot" is when, according to you, I am "naming and shaming" an individual whose sexual ambiguity was the main factor in the controversy over whether they should be imprisoned in a Scottish male or female jail. Adam Graham/Isla Bryson is in no way formally transitioned (in current terminology, "gender affirmed") and began self-identifying as female while held in custody before their trial. In my view, your position is really rather curious. Philip Cross (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Philip Cross, you have made many excellent edits to this article and elsewhere throughout wikiprojects. My wish to change some edits that I consider harmful reflect no criticism of you personally deeper than that I believe you have a blind spot concerning the appropriateness of scoring partisan shots in wikiprojects. The difference between an important context and a partisan shot can be hard to see, but one simple test might be that "naming and shaming" any individual can rarely be a useful "context" for a wiki-quote. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think this list is important but I also feel that it doesn't belong to the mainspace. Where should we move this without a redirect? MathXplore (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In addition, I think SheSaid 2024 Event: African Women Academics also needs a page move without a redirect. MathXplore (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Vandalism. Pinging @Lemonaka: Hide on Rosé (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
But should we leave a redirect or not? Do we accept non-Romanized redirects? MathXplore (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- If this page were to stay, yes it should be renamed - but I have just nominated it for proposed deletion because this person does not appear to meet notability standards. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- For what it's worth, I moved it to Thawrat Hawamida. It still seems delete-able to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am requesting that the Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) be temporarily protected because it has been subject to strange edits such as this. I also would like to suggest a ban for the IP behind these edits in question; it was last blocked for a week for similar edits on the exact same page. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The diff you linked is in principle either making a quotation accurate or adding inaccurate information and new information to a quotation. I don't have a copy of this film in front of me, so I'll assume good faith here that the diff is making an inaccurate quotation. That is a problem. Your edit summaries are inappropriate. You have pursued this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress where I asked you to provide diffs that actually constitute vandalism rather than just edits that you disagree with. This is maybe a little odd or needlessly detailed, but it is not like the other diff that is (ostensibly) making an inaccurate quotation. As I already wrote at Vandalism in progress, it's best to try to resolve this on the talk page. There has been one post to Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) and it was 14 years ago.
- I appreciate that you want the page to be as good as it can be, but I'm not convinced that you're going about it the best way possible. I will defer to any other admin who wants to protect the page and that's a perfectly fine approach, but if it's just protected for x weeks, what do you think will be different later? Do you think this IP editor will change his mind? Just give up and stop editing? It would be best if you can collaborate to make the page better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply