Wikipedia talk:Quotations

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Mid This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Should you align quotes' standards of English to that of their article, such as correcting "prioritize" to "prioritise" in a British English article or vice versa with an American? SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Quotations should be the original author's words. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ningauble. Keep as original. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute overt at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections relating to a quote b y Donald Trump. In essence he said (his words) "I would like the Russians to find some e-mails. The RS all say "Mr Trump asked the Russians to release the e-mails (his quote does not contain that request, thought it may well imply it).

So is it in fact correct to write "Donald trump asked the Russians to release the e-mails (and then to provide his actual quote)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but on some of the pages I have written in the past, I have noticed the quote boxes I have included have somehow, sort of, squashed slightly. Meaning, the space between the quotation, and the source, and the spaces between both and the side of the quote box, aren't as big as they should be. See Lúnasa with the RTÉ Concert Orchestra and Post Historic Monsters for example. I have double-checked they are formatted correctly, and compared them with quote boxes in other pages (like God Fodder or Happy 2b Hardcore) where this isn't an issue, but I haven't traced the issue. Any idea, anyone?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other pages aren't using padding and border. EEng 05:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm confused but I have checked and I'm pretty sure they are ?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not border. EEng 16:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the two pages with no border are the ones using thin quote boxes (God Fodder and Post Historic Monsters), but that doesn't explain how one of them has more space and the other one doesn't. And the other two pages with thick quote boxes (Happy 2B Hardcore and the Lunasa album) both use "border=2px" and yet one has more space than the other.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that if you take out the border and padding and just use the defaults, it looks fine. Why don't you just do that? Anyway, the place to discuss this is Template:Quote box. EEng 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how the quote parameter in template cite would be addressed here. Would it be considered overquoting or a violation of fair use if all references in an article used the |quote= parameter?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should include that quotations within a quote, which is set off by double-quotes, should be switched to single quotes. The same should apply to single quotes within a quote within the quote being switched to double, and so forth. It is a pretty standard rule for quotations, but judging by many quotes I have stumbled across on Wikipedia where that hasn't been done, I'd say it is an often forgotten rule (or maybe they aren't teaching it in schools anymore???). Since it isn't mentioned in the project article, I have refrained from correcting such quotes when I come across them. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic English and needn't be stated any more than plugging periods at the ends of sentences. If it needs fixing just fix it. I suspect it mostly happens through careless copy-pasting more than not knowing the rule. I can't conceive anyone will give you trouble. EEng 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking to quote something that was spoken verbally, but written down as a quote in an American source: eg; "That's what I chose that color", would you maintain the American spelling of "color" when using the quote in an article that uses British spelling? TheHYPO (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll activate our team of rabbis. EEng 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I would like to hear your improvement suggestions and opinions about my law quotations in foreign languages (!) in my article User:C-Kobold/EU_parliament_national_election_systems. Is it WP:QUOTEFARM? Is it WP:NOR? Please also consider why I made these long quotations from foreign laws and did not just quote (scientific) research papers or newspaper articles:

• to make the statements in the table easily verifiable with e.g. Google Translate and
• to make the statements in the table easily updateable: if the laws change, the content behind the links changes as well and the table can get updated easily. Scientific research papers or newspaper articles do not get updated however when laws change, so references to them are useless - Better link directly to the law! C-Kobold (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been changing the first sentences of some articles to X is "definition from Oxford dictionary".^[1] Example diffs: [1][2][3] I am using quotes instead of paraphrase because I do not want to try to paraphrase these carefully crafted definitions, as it could change the meaning. Just want to double check that there's no copyvio or best practice issues with doing this. Thoughts? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Please don't do that. Wikipedia should retain its own definitions of article subjects, not simply reproduce definitions stated in dictionaries. There are several reasons for this:

• While reproducing a single definition in a single article would not consititute copyright infringement on its own, once Wikipedia is reproducing hundreds of definitions across hundreds of articles from the same source, it very well could be considered copyright infringement.
• The scope of a Wikipedia article doesn't always match the scope of a definition in a dictionary.
• The meaning of words can change quickly in certain circumstances (take "woke" for example). Wikipedia needs to be able to adapt to those changes without waiting for dictionaries to catch up.
• Resorting to one specific dictionary can lead to edit wars about which dictionary has the best definition. Instead of having to choose one, Wikipedia should use all of them as input into its own definition.

Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Elizabeth Howe we present the following quotation from The Salem Witch Papers:

the above said goode how had a mind to joyn to iPswich Church thai being unsatisfied sent to us to bring in what we had against her and when we had decleared to them what we knew thai se cause to Put a stoP to her coming into the Church.

This is accurately reproduced from the book, which consists of transcriptions of hand-written documents from the 1600s. Apparently the author of the original manuscript wrote all of their 'P's in uppercase. If the original were typeset instead of hand-written I would support retaining the uppercases 'P's, but in this case it seems to be an awkward and distracting attempt to reflect a peculiarity of the handwriting. Should it be retained in the quotation as is, marked with [sic], or silently corrected? Nosferattus (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters further, I found a different transcription in a different book, Records of Salem Witchcraft:

the aboueſaid goode how had a mind to wyn to ipſwich church thai being unſatisfied ſent to us to bring in what we had againſt her and when we had declared to them what we knew thai ſee cauſe to Put a Stop to her coming into the Church

Do I need to reproduce one of these quotations verbatim (complete with its unique styling), or can I normalize things like the long s and capitalized 'P's? Nosferattus (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus, the simplest path through this is that you find a third source, using (reasonably) modern orthography, and quote that one instead. Otherwise, I believe the convention is to normalize a long s, but I'm not sure what the convention is for the strangely capitalized letters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus: A bit late, but, since nouns aren't capitalized, the capitalization of "Put a Stop" in the second book looks like a form of emphasis. Since from what you say that's not in the original, I think it would therefore be misleading to use that format. And in the original it's just an idiosyncrasy of the handwriting, hardly something we need to remain faithful to if we're going to make similar changes such as the long esses. If we had something similar in a modern ms, such as hearts for the dots on the i's and j's, AFAIK we wouldn't try to faithfully replicate them either. (Unicode won't even allow that, because no-one needs it.) If we're going to try to be that faithful to a source, we'd want to provide an image of the actual ms. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Germanic languages capitalizing nouns for no particular reason has a long history. In German, all nouns are capitalized to this day. It doesn't mean emphasis ... necessarily. EEng 06:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think a capitalized verb like "Put" would suggest emphasis, esp. when "Ipswich Church" is not capitalized. But that's not in the original.

I asked below about something else, and was directed to MOS:CONFORM, which makes it pretty clear that we shouldn't reproduce details like this unless they're themselves relevant. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the article Lincoln Kirstein I want to add a section on Kirstein's writing. My current plan is to take the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) section on this topic and paraphrase it. Here is how the EB section reads: "Kirstein’s literary output was prolific and eclectic. His works on dance include Dance (1935), a standard reference work; The Classic Ballet (1952; with Muriel Stuart); Movement and Metaphor (1970); The New York City Ballet (1973); Nijinsky Dancing (1975); and Thirty Years with the New York City Ballet (1978). From 1942 to 1948 he edited Dance Index, a magazine that published scholarly, illustrated, and annotated monographs on the entire spectrum of dance topics. In bound form (seven volumes), Dance Index became a major reference work for dance scholars. Kirstein also published poetry, plays, novels, memoirs, and critical studies on the visual arts, motion pictures, music, and literature."

Here is the link: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lincoln-Kirstein#ref71143

The above quote is too long to use as a quote, right? So I can paraphrase it. But is it acceptable when I say some of his works on dance to say the exact same ones EB said i.e. Dance (1935); The Classic Ballet (1952; with Muriel Stuart); Movement and Metaphor (1970); The New York City Ballet (1973); Nijinsky Dancing (1975); and Thirty Years with the New York City Ballet (1978)? Greg Dahlen (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is always wrong to present quoted material in Wikipedia's voice. However, I observe that many Wikipedia editors do this, presenting non-free text as Wikipedia's own opinion. Should this page state more specifically that this is not correct? Relevant policies and guidelines are WP:NPOV, WP:OWNWORDS, WP:F, WP:INTEXT. I would suggest that a clear statement should be added somewhere on this page, saying "Do not present any text that you have not written in Wikipedia's voice". If necessary, maybe a simple illustrative example such as the following could be added to make this clear. It is based on quoted material that is presented correctly at Jimi Hendrix.

Text	Correct?
Jimi Hendrix was arguably the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music.	N This is external text, presented as if written by a Wikipedia editor, and also violates WP:NPOV
Jimi Hendrix was "arguably the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music"	N The addition of quotation marks means that this is no longer unambiguously plagiarised, but it is still presented in the Wikipedia's voice, and still violates WP:NPOV
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame describes him as "arguably the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music".	Y The origin of the material is given inline, so it is clearly neither plagiarised, nor presented as Wikipedia's own opinion

Chiltern Sound (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The last two are certainly ok, and the first likely to be so if properly referenced to sources saying this. It is not necessary to always state the source of a quotation in the text (that is what the refs are for), though sometimes it is good to do so. No change needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already clear from policy that it is not acceptable to present text that someone else has written as if it is Wikipedia's own. Please identify the policies or guidelines that lead you to believe otherwise. Chiltern Sound (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating two things here, I think. The first issue is whether your examples are WP:COPYVIOs or paraphrases. The first one is acceptable as a paraphrase (rather than a direct copy-paste) if a large number of sources that are suitable for being cited for facts in the article voice support it by, themselves, stating it as uncontested fact rather than opinion - eg. peer-reviewed papers, top-quality news sources in non-opinion sections, some academic publications. I think it would be rare for such sources to say something like that in their own article voices, but it isn't completely unheard of, and if they did it would be inappropriate for us to represent it as just an opinion. I don't think it's likely to ever happen for things like your example, but the principle here (we reflect the sources) is important, because we frequently run into situations where some editors basically say "no, I won't accept that, it has to just be an opinion", and it's vital that there is some level of sourcing where we can say "well, sorry, but reliable sources treat it as fact." Otherwise an editor's insistence that some statement must be opinion and cannot be fact, regardless of what the sources say, becomes a way to inadvertently insert their WP:POV into the article. See WP:VOICE, Avoid stating facts as opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS used to have something about this, but I'm not finding it. Has policy changed? Do we need to mark changes of sentence capitalization with brackets, or is that considered so trivial that it can be silently changed? — kwami (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I think you're looking for the last part of MOS:CONFORM, where it says: It is not normally necessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he". It's up to editor discretion, but I personally do it because someone who's checking quotes for WP:INOROUT might not think that it is originally an entire sentence and throw the terminal punctuation outside of the quotation marks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidelines include this sentence: Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. I feel it would be worth expanding this into its own paragraph or even subsection, perhaps with its own redirect; it's an important point. Such quotations obviously aren't and shouldn't be completely forbidden (sometimes a quotation is simply so important that we have to include it, regardless, especially if it has strong secondary coverage), but the idea that using passionate, rhetorical quotes cited solely to a primary source is potentially hazardous and should generally be avoided seems worth expanding on. Primary citations to WP:RSOPINION sources are meant to be used to demonstrate that an opinion exists and that said person holds it, not to convince the reader, so pulling out their entire argument or their most dramatic rhetorical flourish and quoting it in the article strikes me as generally inappropriate - such things should be paraphrased dispassionately instead. --Aquillion (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong, concerning the Succession to the British throne page? Do we still have to use "her" in the note? even though Charles III has ascended the British throne? GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#Laws_by_country provides citations from different law codes. Can I machine (Google) translate citation from non-english speaking country and use it there? Londondare (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find guidance for this particular question so here I ask: If there's a quotation in a article written in English, but the original text was in a different language, should this be indicated somewhere (my intuition says yes...), and if so how? Adding [translated] to the end of the quote? Give the original language text in the "quote=" parameter of the citation? Footnote? Esculenta (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]