Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks

Discussion

I recommend that you suggest this as an addition to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. It would seem to fit better there than as a stand-alone page. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if there is general acceptance of this proposal we can merge it into that at some future point in time? I will post an FYI note there too. Hollow are the Ori 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree with the proposed guideline. (I've been astonished at the number of times people have edited direct quotations appearing within quotation marks, including "correcting" spelling and grammar, changing British to American spellings and vice versa, and sometimes just improving the language generally. Adding Wikilinks is the least of it. A quotation is a quotation, and should reproduce the original faithfully (including Lewis Carroll's idiosyncratic use of apostrophes in ca'n't, wo'n't, and sha'n't). Adding Wikilinks is editorializing, just as much as italicizing things to call the reader's attention to them. (In the latter case, you can put "[emphasis supplied]" but I don't think "[wikilinks supplied]" would be a good idea...)

Second, I agree with Rossami that this should go in Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, even though it isn't really an example of that policy, because it belongs in the general category "when not to link" or "when to remove links."

Third, since WP:CONTEXT seems to be honored mostly in the breach—only yesterday I was removing links from the opening lines of Boston College, in which someone had linked "private," "university, New England, United States, campus—if adopted, don't expect more from the policy than an easy abbreviation you can cite in edit comments when you are removing Wikilinks from quotations. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how much critical mass of support do you think I need before I can remove wikilinks from quotations without flack or revert war from those that apparently disagree? Hollow are the Ori 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never be completely free from flak or risk of revert war. Wikipedia tends to draw partisans who will pick fights over anything. But you have a principled and well-reasoned position. I've removed them where I saw them without too much trouble before. Be bold and just start fixing them. Call for help if someone does pick a fight. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a good idea to encourage HatO to expand his revert warring to more articles? Wouldn't it be better to settle the matter with a firm guideline derived from consensus? Gamaliel 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is contary to the very nature of Wikipedia. The MoS states "The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles." While I agree with Dpbsmith when he says that quotes should not be "corrected" or otherwise altered, I do not agree that a link is an alteration of content or format. It is simply a tool to lead readers from article to article. To remove them for fear of "altering" the content or meaning of a quote (and despite discussing this matter with HatO for some time, s/he has yet to provide a single example of how a simple wikilink would alter the quote in such a way) is to go way overboard and would make articles less useful and WP harder to navigate. What serves the reader better? A quote that remains in plain text because of unfounded fears or links which provide useful information and context? Gamaliel 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untainted quotations serve the reader and everyone far better than alleged ease of navigation in my interpretation. Hollow are the Ori 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this as a basic guideline, but not as a policy since there may be too many exceptions. JoshuaZ 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where this all started

For those interested in the article that precipitated this proposal see the Kimberly Strassel article and the on going disagreement there. I just realized some editors may be stuck thinking context only applies to the appropriateness of what to wikilink and they perhaps don't even consider the other context of what is appropriate for a quotation. Context is a two+ way street. Hollow are the Ori 04:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that example. I can now state with confidence that I totally disagree with the proposal. In the relevant quotes, I think the links are a huge enhancement for anyone looking for background on the issues being commented upon. (I couldn't find a link for "America's game-fowl industry": does anyone know whether she's talking about hunting or breeding? It's not clear from the quote; a wikilink would help ;). You are worried about "undue emphasis" given by wikilinks. People using Wikipedia are not stupid. They know that "hyperlink" is not "emphasis". As to linking trivialities, the existing policy prevents that. I don't follow what "other context" you are talking about: if you mean don't link something in a quote already linked elsewhere in the article, again existing policy covers that. jnestorius^(talk) 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what's really happening in Klamath--call it rural cleansing--and it's repeating itself in environmental battles across the country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups--from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council--is no longer to protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside. [1]

You know we've had, especially in the AIDS field, Brazil for instance has threatened to override the patents of various companies that spent years and years and enormous amount of research money trying to come up with these, in the end, miraculous drugs. [2]

If you're an environmentalist, you should love nuclear energy because it's pollution free. [3]

Clear Skies, to me, is so exciting because it's about free market environmentalism. And yeah, 30 years ago we set up a lot of mandates that were about forcing people to do certain things that has led to a lot of lawsuits. [4]

The EPA's truthful words went only so far to contain fear. [5]

Hillary [Clinton] aims to strangle America's game-fowl industry. [6]

By "other context" I mean the context of following the essence of the definition of "quote" which requires a 100% pristine uncorrupted copy of the source, including format. The issue is not just undue emphasis but emphasis or de-emphasis in opposition to the author's intended meaning. A quotation is a self contained entity, if someone doesn't know some part of it they have to go look it up and learn separately and/or construe intended meaning(s) from the quotation/source itself. Hollow are the Ori 10:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how telling people what "EPA" stands for opposes the author's intended meaning. Do you also oppose the bracketed "[Clinton]"? What's your position on ellipsis in quotations? Should we use the orignal font? Your absolutist stand borders on fetishisation of the source material. If you're that extreme, why bother quoting anything? Just link to the original where it can be read in the context of the surrounding sentences and paragraphs. "If someone doesn't know some part of it they have to go look it up": absurd, pointless, totally contrary to the essence of Wikipedia. jnestorius^(talk) 11:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This proposal runs contrary to the whole point of having wikilinks in the first place. The argument about undue emphasis and POV could be made about wikilinks in body text as well as quotes. Chuck 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After more thought, I am uncomfortable with this as an absolute rule. It is considered generally acceptable to modify a quote in order to eliminate ambiguity. In print media, such modifications are traditionally shown in single-brackets. For example, "The [Arctic] fox is white," said John Doe. Judicious use of wikilinks to serve the same purpose would seem to be reasonable. However, I would argue that they should be used with more-than-usual caution. We must be very careful to be sure that the link does not inadvertently alter the content or meaning. If we are providing the link just for link-convenience, we should first attempt to provide the link somewhere else in the article rather than inside the quote. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion

When applicable, the quote should be wiki linked to the appropriate place in wikiquote or wiktionary. Though again, this probably wouldn't be 'in' the quote, but a reference either at the end or at the begining. KalevTait 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not in the quote then I don't have a problem with it and that is actually something that should be done when following this guideline. Though, separately I don't think definitions should be wikilinked because comprehension of text either happens or it doesn't, the act of learning a word or phrase you don't know actually should be slowed down. Hollow are the Ori 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I like this proposal. Trying to think of a counterexample I can come up with the lyrics section in Das Lied der Deutschen which contains entirely appropriate wikilinks to some obscure (but topically important) European place names.Arbor 08:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why this guideline is called "should not" rather than "must not" contain wikilinks, though once people understand that quotations are fragments of human expression and to copy them requires 100% exactness I suspect few if any wikilinks inside quotations will ever be appropriate, perhaps only if the source text contains links itself. Hollow are the Ori 18:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a quote occurs to illustrate or back up an assertion. In such cases, it is likely the assertion will have space for the wikilink, which need not then be put in the quote. For example:

Joe Bloggs has been vocal in his opposition to Elbonia, saying "I think Elbonia is the worst thing ever".

Clearly it would be better to link the first occurrence of Elbonia rather than the second one. Link the first occurrence is an existing policy. If you want to say as a Guideline, "It is generally advisable where possible to wikilink to an article from outside the body of a quotation rather than from inside it", fair enough. Any stronger assertion than that is too likely to misguide those lacking in common sense. If someone is worried about "tidiness" then, rather than deleting a link altogether, they can move it elsewhere in the article, even if this means (gasp) adding a new sentence. Deleting a useful wikilink is always bad; moving it elsewhere in an article may be good. jnestorius^(talk) 09:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is the wikilinking of a mere reference to something else gives errantly greater emphasis on what in many cases is already too literal, for example, due to the emphasis of the wikilink readers might be even more likely to become deluded into thinking that those who criticize the Clear Skies Act are against clear skies, which is not true. Hollow are the Ori 18:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me on this one. I don't see how a wikilink gives greater or lesser emphasis to the text being linked. In fact, your example seems like an excellent example where a wikilink can eliminate ambiguity be taking readers to an article with a rich discussion of the controversy. The Clear Skies Act article includes a robust "Criticisms" section. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks and html links in general might add emphasis to what is already excessively literal. Just because legislation is titled with the phrase "Clear Skies Act" doesn't mean it intrinsically will make the sky clear. And how an author uses a reference is unique to each and every author. The point of having a quotation isn't about making mere references, it is about conveying their self contained argument or opinion. Feel free to add wikilinks you consider relevant just after the quotation or in a section just below. Hollow are the Ori 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this logic at all. Whether "Clear Skies Act" actually makes the sky clear has nothing to do with whether "Clear Skies Act" is wikilinked or not. In fact, if you think the title is misleading, you should want it wikilinked, to make it easier for a reader to find out how misleading it actually is. This is especially true since its entirely possible that a further discussion of the Clear Skies Act in the context of the article might be inappropriate. Chuck 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I support the proposal. Links in quotations (like links to parts of titles) look untidy and slow the reader down; if something needs to be linked, a way should be found to do so elsewhere in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. See my comments below. Carcharoth 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who support this guideline

~~# Polonium 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Users who oppose this guideline

Noisy | Talk 01:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I'd revert removal of wikilinks. It is totally contrary to the idea of Wikipedia.[reply]
Gamaliel 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTING IS EVIL! This attempt at a poll is premature. Can we please return to discussion? Rossami (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of quotes

I totally agree that quotes should be supplied plain, and without wikilinks. Firstly, there is far too much danger of linking to an article that the original author would never have intended by that word or phrase. But more importantly, wikilinking from a quote misses the whole point of what a quote is meant to be for:

A quote should be relevant to the article it is in. Hence anything in the quote that needs explaining should be linked from the surrounding text in the article.

Hey Presto! No need for wikilinking from the article. All relevant terms explained. All sides are satisfied. Carcharoth 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is Jabberwocky - the quote is plain and not linked, but the article then commentates on and explains the terms used in the poem. Like all good articles should. In other words, wikilinking words in a quote is being lazy and is sloppy writing. People who link from quotes need to stop and think (sometimes you have to do this when writing, you know) and work out why they are using this quote and then integrate the quote into the article by mentioning and linking the required terms in the text immediately before and after the quote. Carcharoth 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree and I think you've articulated the point well. Now, I do use ellipses and brackets when quoting, but I think links are different. Using links is too much like quoting Winston Churchill as saying

"I have nothing to offer but [a circulating tissue composed of fluid plasma and cells], [a net for trapping game], [a liquid produced by the body's process of lacrimation to clean and lubricate the eyes], and [a watery fluid, consisting mainly of sodium chloride and urea in solution, plus the odorants 2-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol]"

Of course, it would also be inappropriate to quote him as saying "I have nothing to offer but blood, ... sweat, and tears." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the correct thing to do here is to link this way (not sure what the correct quote is): "I have nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears." (click on the links). No, I'm joking really. :-) But seriously, thanks for the support. I have thought of an example that could be an exception. Have a look at The Rome-Berlin Axis (a book) and the way the chapters are linked. That is actually an efficient way of explaining what the chapters are about, but maybe a short description after each chapter should do the linking? There will probably still be grey areas, but direct quotes from books and people shouldn't, IMO, be linked. Carcharoth 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant quotes might still include words or phrases where more detailed explanation within the article at hand is innappropriate but where further explanation might be of interest to a reader. Your Jaberwokky example is a little silly, because that entire article is specifically about the quoted text, hence it makes sense to provide all kinds of additional detail about the text. Sometimes (especially in an already long article) it might not make sense to explain the detailed background of every unusual word or phrase in a quote, and here wikilinks are appropriate. Ironically, your Churchill quote is an excellent counter-example to your position. Would you provide a paragraph before/after that quote which defines blood, sweat and tears? Certainly not! So to the extent that you thought someone might want to follow a link to blood, sweat or tears, it would be entirely appropriate to wikilink within the quote, and entirely silly to provide a separate paragraph just so you could provide the links. Your claim that wikilinking is like replacing the words with definitions in brackets is just patently false. It is nothing like that and your claim of similarity is ludicrous. The only reason a wikilink is not appropriate in this case is not because it's a quote, but because blood, sweat and tears are so common symbols, that links are probably not needed.

Further ironically, that quote in the Churchill article contains a wikilink (although it is a link to the article about the speech). Further down in the Churchill article is a quote from the famous Iron Curtain speech, which contains wikilinks to the geographies cited in the speech. What is important about the Iron Curtain quote is not the specific geography, but that Churchill coined the term that became synonymous with Communist Eastern Europe. A separate paragraph detailing the geographies is wholly inappropriate. Wikilinks for the few who might be interested are wholly appropriate. Granted it is probably unnecessary to wikilink to "Eastern Europe", but a link to the relatively obscure port city of Stettin is exactly the type of circumstance wikilinks are excellent for, and hardly detracts from the quote.

As I indicated earlier I find the whole argument against wikilinks in quotes to be against the whole concept of wikilinks in general. The argument that you could provide further information within the article that would allow you to do without the wikilink could be made about any wikilink anywhere in any article. The argument that a wikilink adds bias could be made about any wikilink anywhere in any article. Chuck 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing is the difference between a quote and a piece of text from an article. The former is the author of the article quoting someone - ie. letting that someone else say something (call this the 'quote' voice). The latter is the author of the article saying something to the reader. The narrative of the article switches from author to the person being quoted, and then back to the author. The use of wikilinks intrudes the authorial voice into the quote voice, and destroys the effect of the quote. Instead of the reader reading the quote, the reader's attention is distracted by these links. If the author thinks the reader won't understand words in the quote, then the words should be explained or the quote shouldn't be used. But the explanation should happen outside of the quote.

In other words, you are failing to see how quotes, by their very nature, need to be treated differently from the article text. If you treat a quote like article text, you might as well just paraphrase the quote instead of quoting it. Carcharoth 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not missing the difference between a quote and article text. If you want to discuss this, please do so without being patronizing. Quotes are not sacrosanct in the way you seem to think. By their very nature, quotes lack the context of the original. Your argument could easily be expanded so that we would never use quotes, because eliminating the context necessarily changes the quotes meaning. Nor would you change the font. The very fact that an original might have been a speech, while the quote is now in print is also problematic for your logic.

Furthermore, you have completely missed the point that wikilinks do not provide explanation, they provide further reading. Yes, if you think you need to provide explanation, then do it in the article. If you think you would like to indicate where a reader can find further information, a wikilink suffices. There are plenty of times that furtehr explanation within in article would be superfluous, but a wikilink would be useful to a reader. That is the point of wikilinks in the first place. Hence my claim that denying the use of wikilinks in quotes is against the whole concept of wikilinks. Chuck 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if that came across as patronizing. Having looked at some of the examples, I agree that there is a case for wiki-linking from quotes. It may be that this phenomenon of excessive linking from quotes is just part of the overall excessive linking that seems to happen anyway. But I still think it is worth having something reminding editors to be careful. Having looked at some more examples of quotes, I think that whether to use links depends on the nature of the quote and the way the quote is being used. Would you agree that use of wikilinks in quotes is a special case of using wikilinks, and that the judgment an editor uses to decide what to wikilink must carefully consider the context, use and nature of the quote? And that this naturally leads to quotes being less wikilinked than the rest of the text of an article? ie. a word you might consider wikilinking in the main text of an article, you might reject wikilinking in a quote? Carcharoth 09:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I edit, I generally err on the side of not wikilinking within quotes. I see this issue as being not dissimilar to the prohibition against ending sentences in prepositions. Where it is easy to avoid, it is probably better to. But a complete prohibition tends to backfire and create awkward sentences "up with which I will not put". (Ha, ha ... another Churchill quote.) To finish the thought, I see no reason to formalize such a recommendation beyond the existing guidance that wikilinking should be done thoughtfully in order to avoid density of trivial wikilinks. Chuck 09:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I still feel that issues surrounding the correct use of quotes are not fully addressed by the Manual of Style. It is obvious that some people do feel uncomfortably 'tampering' with a quote by adding a link. I think it would be nice to remind people in general to respect quotes more, and not just link from them without thinking about it. I've looked through the manual of style, but can't find anything on correct and incorrect ways to arrange a quote, and use ellipsis and insert corrections, and acknowledge added emphasis, and things like that. Surely there is something somewhere?

Also, while Googling for this sort of thing, I came across the corollary to this, which is the issue of whether, when quoting an online source, you should include the hyperlinks that were present in that original quote! Carcharoth 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill example

First, may I point out long quotes that don't use wikilinks in the quotes:

Secondly, I would like to list the quotes from the Winston Churchill article to see if this will help provide some examples to debate:

"My daddy is Chancellor of the Exchequer and one day that's what I'm going to be."
"He [Churchill] and a photographer were both risking valuable lives. I understand what the photographer was doing but what was the Right Honourable gentleman doing?"
"strangled in its cradle"
"Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."
"Always so charming, always so wrong."
"either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country."
"rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces"
"Roman genius ... the greatest lawgiver among men."
He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back"
"the wilderness years"
"peace in our time"
"Winston's back!"
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech. He followed that closely with two other equally famous ones, given just before the Battle of Britain. One included the immortal line, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." The other included the equally famous "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.' " At the height of the Battle of Britain, his bracing survey of the situation included the memorable line "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"
"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"
they pledged to convert Germany after its unconditional surrender "into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character."
As he expounded in the House of Commons in 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions."
Unless some effective world supergovernment for the purpose of preventing war can be set up… the prospects for peace and human progress are dark… If… it is found possible to build a world organization of irresistible force and inviolable authority for the purpose of securing peace, there are no limits to the blessings which all men enjoy and share.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere.
he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values".
Arthur Balfour described The World Crisis as "Winston's brilliant autobiography, disguised as a history of the universe."
He said several times: "I will leave judgements on this matter to history — but I will be one of the historians."

I would add comments, but that will have to wait. Carcharoth 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it seems someone wants to delete the proposal

See the proposal here to delete this proposal. Plus my response. I would appreciate anyone else's views on what is happening, as I am quite shocked by this. Carcharoth 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion from Manual of Style archives

After a bit of searching, I've managed to find an fairly recent discussion from December 2005 in the archives of the Manual of Style: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_37#Wikilinks_when_quoting. Opinion seemed to be pretty evenly split there as well. Carcharoth 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect

I have attempted to distill the conclusions of this discussion into a few short bullets which I tentatively inserted into Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Specific issues. I recommend that we redirect this page and continue the discussion over there. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea. Thanks for doing that. To tidy up any loose ends, would it be possible to mark this proposal as "rejected", with a note explaining that it is too restrictive and that there are cases for and against wikilinking in quotes, depending on the context? If so, is there a need for a formal process to confirm rejection? Carcharoth 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now redirected. Sorry that I lost track of this for so long. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hollow are the Ori blocked indefinitely

It seems User:Hollow are the Ori is was a sockpuppet of ArbCom blocked User:Zen-master. 132.231.1.82 14:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 11 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]