Wikiquote:Village pump

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Wikiquote discussion pages (edit) see also: requests
Village pump comment | history | archive General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Reference desk comment | history | archive Questions and discussions about specific quotes.

Archives

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is the place if you (a) have a question about Wikiquote and how it works or (b) a suggestion for improving Wikiquote. Just click the link above "create a new topic", and then you can place your submission at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about who said what, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikiquote:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikiquote:Help. Latest news on the project would be available at Wikiquote:Community portal and Wikiquote:Announcements.

Before answering a newcomer's question abruptly, consider rereading Please do not bite the newcomers.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of Wikiquote, (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in one of the village pump archives if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

---

Pattern of mass deletions in United States and other articles

Summary of mass deletions in United States: 1. Lack of due process Over 97% of content deleted No VfD process followed No prior or subsequent attempt to obtain consensus for article reorganization from prior contributors No prior or subsequent attempt to obtain consensus from editor community for removal of material contributed by other editors 2. Transparency about purpose of mass deletions No attempt to review project of mass deletions with wider Wikiquote editor community to obtain consensus Some statements imply mass deletions are intended to enforce uniform POV, contrary to WQ:NPOV.

The United States can create chaos, they've been creating chaos for the last 56 years around the world, It's not something new. Are they going to make it more...worse, more prevailing? ~ Bashar al-Assad

Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair. ~ William Blum

I don't believe that any country can arrogate this task of bringing down other countries' governments. The CIA has been involved in probably 90 or 100 covert regime change operations since it was founded in 1947. My whole life has been the United States at war. It's sickening. It's tiring. These wars are disasters. It's just not our business to say, "That one's despicable. That one has to go." ~ Jeffrey Sachs

I don't give a shit who says what. If the muthafucka is wrong, he's wrong. ... In this country, authority is a cover for wrong. I don't respect wrong and I don't respect authority that represents wrong. ~ H. Rap Brown

For a century, this nation has been like an octopus of exploitation, its tentacles stretching from Mississippi and Harlem to South America, the Middle East, southern Africa, and Vietnam; the form of exploitation varies from area to area but the essential result has been the same—a powerful few have been maintained and enriched at the expense of the poor and voiceless colored masses. This pattern must be broken. ~ Stokely Carmichael

I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one. ~ Ward Churchill

And throughout the history of the borderlands, the military or armed militias have been dispatched there to keep black slaves from fleeing, remove Native Americans from ancestral lands and suppress Mexican-American revolts stemming from anger over white mob violence. ~ Russell Contreras

The prejudices of patriotism, the pressures of our friends and fear of unpopularity and death should not hold us back any longer. It should be total war against the economic and political and social system which is dominant in this country. The American system has been destroying human life in peace and in war, at home and abroad for decades. Now it has produced the growing infamy of atom bombing. Besides these brutal facts, the tidbits of democracy mean nothing. Henceforth, no decent citizen owes one scrap of allegiance (if he ever did) to American law, American custom or American institutions. ~ David Dellinger

The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it can, at will, drop bombs, with only a few hours' notice, at absolutely any point on the surface of the planet. No other government has ever had anything remotely like this sort of capability. ~ David Graeber

Ironically, the founders of the republic have been hailed and lionized by left, right, and center for—in effect—creating the first apartheid state. ~ Gerald Horne

The essence of a U.S.A. totalitarian socio-political capitalism is concealed behind the illusion of a mass participatory society. We must rip away its mask. ~ George L. Jackson

Average Americans have little or no influence over the making of U.S. government policy. ... Wealthy Americans wield a lot of influence. By investing money in politics, they can turn economic power into political power. ~ Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens

Dear Wikiquote community,

I wanted to bring to your attention a pattern of clearly politically motivated edits on Wikiquote.

In the United States article, I have compared the revision dated 28 October 2020 revision to the 6 March 2025 revision, and I find a very distressing pattern of changes.

The discussion below documents this pattern in two aspects (1) at a high level using w:lexical frequency analysis, and (2) at the level of individual quotations.

Lexical frequency analysis of two dated revisions of article text

term	10/28/2020	03/06/2025
segregation segregate	12	0
racism racist	31	1
slavery	87	19

Searching for "segregation" and "segregate" (segreg*) yields 12 results in the earlier revision. In the new revision, this is reduced to zero.

Searching for "slavery" in the earlier revision yields 87 mentions. In the new revision this is reduced to 19.

Search results for "racist" or "racism" (racis*) are reduced from 31 to 1.

It seems that User:Ficaia has reorganized the entire article from alphabetical to chronological, and in the process removed a large number of quotations from Black people, including Martin Luther King, Jr, Stokely Carmichael, George Jackson and others. This user has removed many quotations critical of the USA, its history, and its role in the world. Here are just a few examples of the many quotations that have been removed:

Erasing Black voices and the history of racism against Black people

• It is a trite yet urgently true observation that if America is to remain a first-class nation, it cannot have second-class citizens.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., address at the Golden Anniversary Conference of the National Urban League (6 September 1960), New York City, New York.

• We must work assiduously and with determined boldness to remove from the body politic this cancerous disease of discrimination which is preventing our democratic and Christian health from being realized. Then and only then will we be able to bring into full realization the dream of our American democracy, a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men do not argue that the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his character.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., address at the Golden Anniversary Conference of the National Urban League (6 September 1960), New York City, New York.

• We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., interview at the Herman W. Read Fieldhouse (18 December 1963), Western Michigan University.

• The United States has always been a nation at odds with its professed aspirations of equality and justice for all—from the genocide of original inhabitants to slavery to military aggression abroad. But there have been periods in our history when courageous social movements have made significant advances. We must learn from those who’ve gone before us as we strive to build a movement that can tackle today’s injustices—and help all of us survive.
  • William Barber II, The Real Epidemic is Poverty (March 30, 2020), The Progressive

Erasing Native American voices and the history of violence against Native Americans

• I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one.
  • Ward Churchill, in Z Magazine, vol. 8, p. 32.

• If you're a real American that is, an American Indian you're lucky to be alive. For whether he really believed it or not, the white man has acted on the principle that "The only good Indian is a dead one". This was certainly one of the foundation stones upon which the white European invaders of North America and their descendants established and built the republic of the USA.
  • Stetson Kennedy, Jim Crow Guide: The Way it Was (1955), Ch.1, "No Room For Redskins".

Erasing dissent on the U. S. role in the world

• We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.

• Benjamin Harrison, Statement of 1888, as quoted in Treasury of Presidential Quotations (1964) by Caroline T. Hamsberger

This is only a small sample of the massive removal of all critical voices from the article. It is clearly a hatchet job intended to erase everything critical of the United States. I am working on further documenting the situation, but I wanted to raise an alert immediately in case there is a way to prevent further damage to the Wikiquote project.

Best regards,
Peter Capofreddi
Pennsylvania State University
Peter1c (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of racism, you better have good evidence. Ficaia (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Ficaia, I have already presented a small sample of the evidence above. I don't know what your agenda is but it is very obvious that your edits exhibit a clearly politically motivated pattern of removing Black and dissenting voices which I intend to document thoroughly. You are trying to stage a white supremacist coup on Wikiquote and it will not happen without opposition. Peter1c (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't like being called a white supremacist.

Consider the following quotes I added to the article:

• Sell a country! why not sell the air, the clouds, and the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?
  • Tecumseh
• They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one; they promised to take our land, and they took it.
  • Attributed to Red Cloud
• "Is it the master?" returned the girl....
  "The master!" said Colonel Diver, stopping short and looking round at his war correspondent.
  "Oh! The depressing institutions of that British empire, colonel!" said Jefferson Brick. "Master!"
  "What's the matter with the word?" asked Martin.
  "I should hope it was never heard in our country, sir; that’s all," said Jefferson Brick; "except when it is used by some degraded Help, as new to the blessings of our form of government, as this Help is. There are no masters here."
  "All 'owners,' are they?" said Martin.
  Mr Jefferson Brick followed in the Rowdy Journal's footsteps without returning any answer.
  • Charles Dickens

How very racist of me. Ficaia (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear User:Ficaia,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I'm sorry, I should have given you credit for adding those quotes. It was generous of you.

Now please compare your first and last revisions and determine how many quotes you removed representing the voices and interests of Black people, Indians/native Americans, victims of U. S. imperialism, and other oppressed and marginalized peoples. I will count them also and we will see if we can agree on the number.

Then your assessment would be the number you added (at least 3) minus the number you subtracted.

Also on further inspection I see it was unjust of me to do my comparison based on an earlier edit that is actually long before your first edit, so I will redo my analysis considering your first and last edits.

The article is now less than half of its former size. If your criterion of inclusion for previous content is as skewed as I have found it to be so far in my investigation, I can only expect you surgically decimated voices standing up for oppressed peoples.

In the latest revision, there is exactly one mention of racists or racism, exactly zero mentions of segregation. How is this a competent "cleaning up" of an article on the United States? It is more like a whitening up, an erasure of the real history and present situation of Americans and the victims of U. S. imperialism.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

Best wishes,

Peter

Peter1c (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"The article is now less than half of its former size. If your criterion of inclusion for previous content is as skewed as I have found it to be so far in my investigation, I can only expect you surgically decimated voices standing up for oppressed peoples in order to promote the racist agenda of whatever racist organization or person is funding your hacks."

So now you're accusing me of paid editing. Ficaia (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge I made these unsubstantiated claims as quoted. I have removed them from the text of my remarks since they do no represent my considered position. Peter1c (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe this is okay to say, @Peter1c. It's an aspersion and it's not at all assuming good faith. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello IOHANNVSVERVS. I did assume good faith. I have provided ample evidence that these editors are not acting in good faith. They are claiming their motive for removing material is that it is not widely quoted, but a quick google search shows it is widely quoted. I think we need to uncover their actual motives. See below for the evidence. Peter1c (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I have offered a good faith settlement: to help the editors who created the latest revision merge the material they have added with the material previous editors have added. Their failure to offer any kind of response to my good faith proposed settlement also indicates bad faith. The previous material that was removed is not just from me, it is from many editors. Their motivations are clearly different from what they are saying out loud. Their hack job will arouse indignation in you also if you look at all the widely quoted material they have removed. Thanks for weighing in on this. Peter1c (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

When editors delete an entire article and then rebuild it according to their own criteria, neglecting to include more than half of the content of the previous article, perhaps in some sense they are acting in good faith (faith to whatever criteria they choose), but they are certainly not displaying good faith to the previous editors who have worked hard to compile and curate the article. This is why my reaction from the outset was to perceive these edits as vandalism. The correct method for removing material is to do it one quotation at a time with clear justifications for each removal. The method of demolition and reconstruction adjudicates previous content, in effect, as unquotable until proven quotable. And the editors who created this revision have made little effort to adjudicate quotability by searches or any objective criterion. They have removed many widely quoted texts with no justification. The presumption of good faith has to have some kind of limits when I see ample contrary evidence. Do you really think the pattern of obliterating all explicit mentions of segregation and racism is a coincidence in a pattern of good faith edits? I don't know how to calculate the probability that this erasure occurred purely by chance (p value), but it is clearly very low. This was a demolition job, not a good faith edit. Peter1c (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your idea of cleaning up the neighborhood is kicking out all the Black people, demolishing and rebuilding a gentrified white enclave. It is really disgusting that you call this a clean up operation. What was your motivation for decimating Black voices and obliterating all dissent from the narrative of American innocence? Please break it down for me. Peter1c (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to explain things to someone who repeatedly calls me a racist. Ficaia (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, before I came along there was no Tecumseh. No Sitting Bull. No Crazy Horse. No Red Cloud. No Geronimo. All added by me. Ficaia (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ficaia, I give you credit for the new material. The problem I have is how you handled the previous material. Why is up to you to unilaterally decide what stays and what goes? Why did you choose to demolish and start from scratch? It is very problematic that you call this a clean up and the product is sanitized of Black and dissenting voices, as if America were pristinely innocent of any racist past. Do you consider Black people and their concerns to be dirt to be removed to clean things up? That is the impression you are giving by your actions. It is not an onotological question of your identity as racist, the issue is that these edits show a blatant and unmistakable racist character. I have not reviewed your other edits to see if they show a similar pattern. But I intend to do so. This kind of demolition approach is not welcome here. I think the other senior editors must have moved on to greener pastures, or they would all be calling you out on it. Peter1c (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You've accused me of being motivated by racism. You've called me a member of a white supremacist coup. You've called me a paid editor. Someone should ban you. Ficaia (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would advance your white supremacist agenda significantly. You have still not offered an alternative explanation besides the two I have already offered for surgically removing Black and dissenting voices from the updated article. You are deflecting discussion onto issues about identity when the question is not about a racist identity, it is about the racist character of your edits. Why did you remove all mentions of racism and segregation from the article? What was your motive? I will help you do a merge of your material with the existing material if that can be an acceptable settlement. I do not agree with chronological organization of theme pages, and it is rare on Wikiquote. I'm not sure why you chose to organize that way, but this is a minor issue. Peter1c (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You've also claimed that I think black voices are "dirty and unclean". Well, you "guess" so -- I guess that makes it okay, right? Ficaia (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am looking for some explanation for why you removed all mention of segregation and racism from the article. Please explain your actions. Then I will stop hypothesizing explanations, which is a natural although admittedly not helpful response. I am still waiting for your explanation. Why did you remove all mention of segregation and racism from the article? Peter1c (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything because of what it was about; I've removed it because it was unquotable/hasn't been quoted anywhere before. We only do a disservice to minorities by representing them with sub-par material. I've spent the last 4 months improving the article. I've added plenty of quotes about racism, slavery, American imperialism, etc. Minority voices are, if anything, overrepresented in the captioned images. Not every quote about slavery has the word "slavery" in it:

Deep in the festering hold thy father lies,
of his bones New England pews are made,
those are altar lights that were his eyes. ~ Robert Hayden (also added by me)

Maybe stop using ctrl+f and read the article. Ficaia (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the revised article, that is why I am responding with so much indignation. The updated article is clearly a politically motivated hack, an attempt to provide a sanitized version that obliterates canonical, widely quoted Black and dissenting voices to maintain the false but convenient narrative of American innocence. The fact that you have included other quotations that you prefer is not a persuasive defense for removing important, canonical quotations.

Your statement that the material removed is not quoted anywhere is a blatant lie. Here are a few examples of how widely quoted that material in fact is:

1. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22experienced+only+the+American+nightmare%22
2. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22church+is+still+the+most+segregated+major+institution+in+America%22
3. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22remove+from+the+body+politic+this+cancerous+disease+of+discrimination%22
4. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Between+1945+and+2005+the+United+States+has+attempted+to+overthrow+more+than+50+foreign+governments%22
5. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22unjustifiable+war+of+one+portion+of+its+citizens%22
6. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22this+nation+has+been+like+an+octopus+of+exploitation%22
7. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22United+States+you%27re+not+allowed+to+talk+about+class+differences%22
8. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22memo+that+describes+how+we%27re+going+to+take+out+seven+countries%22
9. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22economic+elites+and+organized+groups+representing+business+interests+have+substantial+independent+impacts+on+U.S.+government+policy%22
10. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22The+most+unpardonable+sin+in+society+is+independence+of+thought%22
11. https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Americans+have+no+commission+from+God+to+police+the+world%22
12. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22if%20America%20is%20to%20remain%20a%20first-class%20nation%2C%20it%20cannot%20have%20second-class%20citizens%22

You can see that, even limiting the search to books and not including peer reviewed articles, each of these quotations produces more than 100 search results! Your claim is entirely false, unsubstantiated, and the fact that you make this claim casually without checking indicates a dire lack of intellectual integrity. You have not in fact checked each quote you removed to ascertain how widely it is quoted. You have claimed (both of you seem to agree), "I haven't removed anything because of what it was about; I've removed it because it was unquotable/hasn't been quoted anywhere before." Clearly this is not an accurate description of your motives and methods. You are lying about your motives, your methods, and, with this pattern of prevarication established, I can only assume you are lying about other things as well.

You say that Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, George Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other canonical Black thinkers are "low quality". Your standard of quality is entirely subjective and makes no reference to peer reviewed material from the African American Studies or Indigenous Studies discursive regimes. It is just what you subjectively like, which reduces to whatever provokes no feelings of guilt or discomfort in you.

You are designating Black thinkers that challenge your false ideas about history as "low quality," i.e., trash, and cleaning up the neighborhood by taking the trash out. I am not sure what your agenda is, but you are not arguing in good faith on this.

One of the principles of Wikiquote is that editors are bound to respect the contributions of previous editors and not demolish entire articles and build them up from scratch. That would be bad enough in itself. But the way you have built up your new gentrified article is deeply problematic.

You have said that "minority" (not the correct term) and dissenting voices are already overrepresented. By what criterion did you establish this? Was it on the basis of the percentage of the population in the USA? Or in the world? Again, you are dissimulating about your motives and methods. What is the true motive you are trying to conceal with these disingenuous fabrications?

You have also failed to respond to my good faith settlement offer: to merge the two versions in order to preserve both prior content from other editors and your new content. I will help you do a merge of your material with the existing material. I do not agree with chronological organization of theme pages, and it is rare on Wikiquote. I'm not sure why you chose to organize that way, but this is a minor issue. Your failure to offer any kind of response to this good faith settlement offer indicates a lack of good faith. Peter1c (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You are shamelessly mischaracterizing my point.

I have included quotes by Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. I've even provided proper sourcing for them. But we don't have to include everything they ever said.

Quotes by those authors also constitute a very small percentage of the content you want to return to the article.

You continue to call me a racist and smear me in various other ways. We don't do personal attacks here. You should be banned. Ficaia (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

For any admins watching:

• "Your criterion for removing quotations is in fact something entirely different and more fatal: blatant racism, a desire to silence dissent. You are lying about your motives, your methods, and, with this pattern of prevarication established, I can only assume you are lying about other things as well" -- I don't think I should have to put up with this.

Ficaia (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ficaia, Thank you for telling me I should be banned. You are doing the colonizer playbook to a tee. First, demolish the existing structures in the place you want to colonize. Then rebuild according to your own plan. Then when the indigenous people who survived the bombing are angry and therefore less than diplomatic, you can label them as troublesome (angry Black woman, Palestinian terrorist, etc.).

Fascists do your bombing calmly. I don't know how, but you do. But the people you are bombing do not have the luxury of remaining calm.

You know the fascists murdered George Jackson for speaking the truth. They murdered Malcolm X. They murdered Martin Luther King, Jr. I brought their voices back to life on Wikiquote. And you have just murdered them again.

I am not going to react calmly to your murder of all these voices. They are my comrades.

You propose to come in and demolish everything and rebuild it according to your plan. That is a colonizer mentality. I will continue to assert the right of the indigenous content on this page to speak, and not be murdered.

You can't expect me to remain calm and level headed. No person with a conscience would remain calm and level-headed. You are trying to silence the opposition. It is clearly a fascist coup.

And of course you recognize me as your opposition, so you want me silenced too.

I am 57 years old and you are raising my blood pressure with your attacks. You begin by attacking, deleting more than half the content of the page. Then you become upset when I react and step out of line. It is such a classic colonizer move. You calmly inflict a coup and enjoy watching me react.

And now after your demolition and reconstruction, the previous inhabitants of the page have no rights to be rehoused and reheard. Maybe the colonizers will build a Trump tower on wikiquote too.

Anyway if you succeed in silencing me, you have still provided good material for my research. This case will make a good publication, or maybe a chapter in my dissertation. I will continue my analysis with this in mind. I get sympathy and approval from academia and they are sympathetic to my abrasive prophetic voice. I object to your edits because they constitute a travesty according to the academic standards I have been taught. You are choosing your own judgement over peer review, totally arbitrarily. To whom are you accountable? I think it was also you who removed Jeffrey Sachs from the War article. He passes peer review, but you don't like him. What makes you feel authorized to pull these authoritarian moves?

You are trying to deflect from the substance of the issue onto the question of how diplomatically and politely I raised the issue. It is a kind of argumentum ad hominem. My politeness or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of the issue. You still have not answered the question: Why did you remove all explicit references to segregation from the article? Why did you remove all but one explicit reference to racism? Why did you demolish the page and start from scratch instead of following the usual procedure of deleting one quote at a time? It is suspicious that you did a massive deletion in the guise of reorganization. Why are you (rather than the professors in my AFAM classes) the authority on which African American voices are most relevant? If you have already completed your PhDs, you are ahead of me. Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have the credentials you would need to merit the authority you arrogate to yourselves. But if you had these credentials, you would not do an unqualified hatchet job as you did.

I am bringing the people you murdered back to life again. Perhaps you will have your way, and you will have me silenced along with them in this venue. It might be better for me anyway to focus on my dissertation.

You seem to enjoy silencing voices you disagree with. I didn't silence anyone when I added opposition quotes. I preserved every single George Bush quote justifying killing innocent Iraqis.

You have to understand the difference between migration and colonization. Colonization means conquest, genocide, displacement, destruction of existing land rights. Migration means recognizing sovereignty of current inhabitants, sharing land rather than stealing it, cohabitation rather than conquest, dialog rather than dictatorial control, listening to prior inhabitants rather than enforced silence.

You have colonized the page rather than joining into the community that created it. I am so surprised no one else has objected.

But fundamentally you are right, my tone is off. I should accept seeing murder before my eyes without batting an eyelash. I hereby apologize that I failed to live up to this expectation.

Peter1c (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You continue to level personal attacks against me. You should be banned. Ficaia (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The fascists have decided "minorities are overrepresented" and it's time to "clean up". But it is unacceptable to call out this cleanup for what it is. When you selectively silence voices that challenge the ideology of American innocence, that makes you a burner of books, a fascist. I don't know your motive, but destruction is not benevolent. Trying to silence voices is not what wikiquote is about. So now that Trump is in power, you fascists are empowered to reduce the representation of African Americans everywhere online. It is so blatant. You are abusing the assumption of good faith of this community as you remove valuable material. Peter1c (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

These personal attacks on Ficaia are completely against policy. Edits are to be judged on whether or not they improve the article, not an the basis of your guesses about the motivation behind them. In my opinion, Ficaia has made a concerted effort to improve the article, spending a lot of time and edits to add good material and remove the POV-pushing unquotable stuff with which the LibraryClerk sockfarm larded it. Looking at the images you put here for illustration, the only one that has a quotable quote on the topic United States is Rap Brown. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No one is making personal attacks. We are just objectively pointing out that Ficaia has made a real transgression of good faith to the community by disguising deletions as a reorganization. If you actually look at the NPOV policy, it clearly indicates that in cases where there are differing views that are mainstream, peer-reviewed, widely discussed, etc., differing views should be given weight in accordance with their prestige. Ficaia's edits not only failed to follow the correct procedure, they are clearly enforcing a slanted pro-USA POV that does not account for the diversity and disagreement in views about the U.S.

WQ is an international community. The nations being bombed, destabilized and couped by the U. S. in its fatal imperialist hubris also have a right to weigh on what they think of the United States. We will include your well-sourced views as well. It's just not acceptable to delete the views added by other editors to enforce your point of view monolithically.

Your buddy is making a real, unethical attempt to hack the WQ project to enforce their POV. I am calling that out. Maybe you like the resulting slanted POV, I don't know. I know you are trying to gaslight me by saying me calling out the problem is the problem. These kinds of tactics are really sleazy and underhanded.

Peter1c (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we just put all of the removed/contested quotes on a subpage of the talk page and work through them individually to see if anything is salvageable? BD2412 T 05:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:BD2412. Thank you. That would be OK with me. I am ok with whatever method we use to adjudicate and merge the contents. I have a strong preference for alphabetic organization because in my experience maintaining the chronologically sorted theme pages is a nightmare. I am open to all suggestions to how to resolve the situation and I will cooperate with the consensus of the community. Peter1c (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are my two cents: First, while I understand the sentiment of moving all questioned quotes to a sub-page, I would actually go in the other direction - meaning that I would revert to the full condition of the page (with all quotes restored and sorted alphabetically) and then quotes that are in dispute can be discussed on a talk page regarding potential removal. I am inclined to lean in the direction of preserving quotes that are obviously notable and properly sourced.
Second, I would also protect the page to prevent further edit warring while this discussion occurs.
Third, all talk that labels either user with disparaging terms or other name calling must cease immediately. Regardless of anyone's motivations for adding or subtracting quotes we should try to remain civil in figuring all of this out. If any of this continues, the perpetrators should be blocked (which of course makes it difficult to work this out - so please refrain from such behavior).
Surely we can solve this without all the noise and the personal attacks. UDScott (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the reverting continued without further discussion, I have protected the page for the next two weeks (can be extended as needed). Please discuss any further proposed changes and try to resolve the current conflict. As stated above, also please refrain from any further personal attacks - if they continue, individual blocks will be imposed. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:UDScott. I am OK with whatever approach we can agree on to merge the original and added content. Based on my experience I would strongly recommend alphabetical organization. It is a nightmare to maintain chronologically organized theme pages. Peter1c (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would like to offer some clarification on the meaning of the assumption of good faith in the Wikipedia community.

Table 2. Clarification of meaning of assumption of good faith

editor action or statement	referent of statement	assumes good faith?	comment
removing quotations added by other editors without (1) indicating removal in the edit summary or (2) making any attempt to discuss proposed removals with the community	N/A no statement	No	Assumes open discussion with other editors would not resolve the issue and removals must be done covertly.
edit warring	N/A no statement	No	Assumes open discussion with other editors would not resolve the issue and fails to engage in open discussion.
confronting other editors about edits and editing patterns	edits, editing patterns	Yes	assumes (often contrary to evidence) that confronted editors are capable of recognizing the problem with their edits and editing patterns. Assumes a possibility of learning, repentance and reform.
confronting other editors about language and tone used in discussions, suggesting less confrontational methods of presenting disagreements	editor's language	Yes	Making the editor's language and tone rather than their personal identity the subject of the confrontation allows for the possibility of learning, reform and repentance.
saying an editor needs to be banned or removed as a reaction to being confronted	the editor's person the editor's entire career on Wikipedia	No	Saying an editor needs to be removed in the context of a discussion of edits or editing patterns constitutes an example of escalation of conflict and personalization of conflict. This kind of statement represents shifting the locus of the conflict from edits and editing patterns to the person, their competence and their viability as a member of the community. This kind of statement specifically negates any possibility that the problematic editor might be able to learn from the discussion, reform or repent for their problematic attitudes and actions.

1. When editors delete an entire article and rebuild it according to their own criteria, neglecting more than half the content of the previous article, they hardly assume good faith in the previous editors who worked hard to compile and curate the article.
2. I hope it was always clear from the context that everything I am saying is a reaction to particular edits and editing patterns, and is not intended as a personal attack.
3. When editors stated they perceived my comments as a personal attack, I have always attempted to clarify that this is not at all my intention, and I am criticizing editing patterns, not making ontological denigrations of the editors as human beings.
4. I think it is clear from the context that even my most hyperbolic statements are intended to be in inspiration to learning and repentance.
5. I have never suggested, implied or intended to suggest or imply that another editor should be banned or removed.
6. The accusation that I am "not assuming good faith" seems like gaslighting, projection, i.e. using counter-reprovals and other deflections as a means for evading discussion of the original issue.
7. Any accusation that I lack an assumption of good faith is entirely false. I have a lot of faith in the good hearts of the WQ community!!!

Peter1c (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve certainly questioned Ficaias contributions on more than one occasion, examples are:

1. Mistranslations or out-of-context translations from the Talmud
2. In the article Dasa, he added quotes which are outdated racist, colonial misrepresentations of a major religious text of a world religion,
3. Adding images and maps promoting questionable views on archaeology and that conflate race with language and religion
4. Deleting quotes because of his 'pov concerns' rather than because of quotability, some of these deleted quotes were critical of racial interpretations of history

I could provide more details if necessary, but since these actions have ceased, I’d rather not dwell on them. While I do not want to make any accusations, these examples did highlight a degree of insensitivity and a poor understanding of the sources. That being said, it’s also important to acknowledge that Ficaia has made many outstanding and commendable contributions that have significantly enhanced the project. --ᘙ (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Other mass deletions

This issue is part of a pattern of mass deletions of content. I am working on documenting the situation further and will continue to report my results on this thread.

Table 1. Mass deletions of prior content on Wikiquote

date	article	edit	edit summary	comment	status
July 3, 2024	Indomania	Mass deletion of content, including table of contents.	Empty edit summary.	-	-
November 27, 2024	Poverty reduction	Blanking entire article.	Empty edit summary.	-	(Status: Reverted 29 November 2024 by C.J. Griffin)
February 2, 2024	Persephone	Blanking entire article.	Empty edit summary.	-	-

Peter1c (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Indiscriminate or automated removal of content is definitely something that either should never be done or at the very least should get a clear community consensus for being done prior to someone doing it. It seems like that is what is happening at your diff. That said, the content of what was removed was also not entirely wrong. E.g. the quotation that begins, "The year 1863 will remain cherished and blessed..." is clearly far too long and contradicts Wikiquote:Quotability, which is a reasonable guideline if not a strict policy. It's unfortunate that this edit is certainly inappropriate but also includes some reasonable elements in it. @Ficaia: it seems like you are routinely removing a lot of material such as here and here. Can you please explain here what is going on? Are you using any kind of semi-automated tools here? What is your goal with these mass removals? Is there any kind of consensus for your edits that I'm ignorant of? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be a sub-topic to the above one about mass removal on United States. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

How to avoid these kinds of unnecessary disputes in the future

Here are some relevant Wikipedia policies to keep in mind to avoid disputes:

• Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.

• w:Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

• Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose to be bold, provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.

• w:Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

I see Ficaia created a draft as a subheading of Talk:United States on November 18, 2024 so clearly some effort was made to comply with this policy. I'm not sure why this approach was not continued.

• Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted.

• w:Wikipedia:Be_bold

Peter1c (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to restore all your personal attacks against me above, including the original title of this thread. You can strike through anything you no longer believe, but you don't get to change arguments which have already been responded to. Ficaia (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments and questions about justifications offered for mass deletions

Table 3. Justifications offered for mass deletions of material contributed by other editors

justification for mass deletions	comments and questions about justification
"The LibraryClerk sockfarm spent literally years adding unquotable POV-pushing quotes to many articles." See, e.g. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five.	Other Wikiquote users have pointed out that the material contributed by the LibraryClerk sockfarm constitutes only a small fraction of the material removed in the mass deletions. Is the LibraryClerk sockfarm issue the actual reason for the mass deletions, or a pretext for a wider cleanup project? Where can the Wikiquote editor community review the reasoning behind the mass deletions as they are actually being implemented?
The removed material is POV-pushing. Editors are abusing Wikiquote "to push pro-Kremlin, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel, and anti-US editorializing, presented as quotes." See, e.g. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five.	From w:Wikipedia:NPOV: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective." In the context of Wikiquote, this means bias in an article should be remedied by adding rather than deleting material to correct the bias. From w:Wikipedia:NPOV: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Views critical of U. S. foreign policy are not by any means marginal or minoritarian when we look at global peer reviewed literature. From WQ:NPOV: "'Neutral point of view' should not be confused with 'point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations'; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing." The example used in the policy document is the United Nations. Does this also apply to the U.S. State Department? Wikiquote is an international community. Differing viewpoints should in theory be able to coexist, without a single nation dictating the editorial policy. Why does the U. S. viewpoint on international relations receive priority?
The removed material is not widely quoted	This would need to be established on a quote by quote basis. I have found many quotes that were removed are in fact very widely quoted. The problem with mass trials is that the individual doesn't get a fair hearing.
The removed material is not quotable	See Wikiquote:Quotability for the established criteria of quotability. Criteria include quality of source, notability of author, etc. Notice that "agreement with my personal views" is not one of the criteria. I see many quotes from very famous figures cited from high quality sources being removed. It is clear that in citing "quotability" to justify these removals, something different is meant from the meaning of quotability as traditionally defined in the Wikiquote community.

Fundamentally, the problem with mass deletions of material is the same as the problem with mass trials, mass deportations, etc. It is very unlikely that each individual will receive a fair trial. It is very unlikely that the criteria for removal will be established beyond a reasonable doubt for each individual. The defense of each individual never gets a chance to be heard.

I see User:HouseOfChange indicated his intent to undertake a project of removing contributions of LibraryFarm sockpuppets at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five. This is good that HouseOfChange has shared this intention with the community. But the actual edits I see in these mass removals seem to be of a scope far beyond removal of the LibraryFarm contributions. My impression is that this wider intention is more accurately described as removing all quotes critical of the United States domestic and foreign policies. For example: critical history is a burgeoning field in academia, but the editorial policy of removing all quotes critical of the U. S. is in effect silencing this entire domain of historical scholarship and making it inaccessible to Wikiquote readership.

Why are we moving away from Wikiquote's longstanding inclusive policy that allows our readers to be exposed to many different perspectives on important issues and make up their own minds? Why are we moving away from the well established policy that POV issues are resolved by adding more material and organizing the page in a neutral way that doesn't give undue prominence to a single view?

In philosophy, the idea that only what supports the material or political interests of a certain nation or party deserves an audience and qualifies as a candidate for truth is sometimes called "partisan epistemology" or "epistemic partisanship". This is contrasted with objectivity, neutrality, fairness. Nonpartisanship requires an international perspective that includes the viewpoints of all nations and peoples. I am not sure when the Wikiquote community decided it was so pro-U.S.A. that all dissenting voices needed to be silenced? I was certainly not privy to the discussion where these things were decided. It makes me feel like a decision is being made on behalf of the editor community without an attempt to survey what our actual positions are.

Why should the editorial staff of Wikiquote enforce a monolithic pro-U.S. view and silence all dissenters and critics?

Peter1c (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It would have been just as objectionable is the LibraryClerk sockfarm added long unquotable pov-pushing material to promote pro-US, pro-Israel, rah rah stuff to the project. Nobody is trying to silence dissenters and critics, but unquotable POV-pushing is not acceptable from any viewpoint. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello HouseOfChange. Thank you for explaining your position on this. One might have been misled from some of your statements. If the question of pro-US/anti-US material interests affected by the quote is irrelevant to your verdict as your revised position indicates, perhaps we might hope that in the future this justification will not appear so prominently in justifications for removals. I am now reviewing your deletions in War crimes. Most would be 100% kosher with me if not for the section heading. I am finding a few that are notable and I will audition these for re-inclusion on the talk page. I really appreciate your clarification of your position. Peter1c (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

HouseOfChange was/is right about the war crimes page. I made some improvements on that front. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello IOHANNVSVERVS. Thanks for your comment. I see there were a lot of quotes with non-notable sources and I am glad they were removed. I know USA is not the only nation that commits war crimes. I think this implies we need to be expanding coverage of other nations' war crimes, not concealing our own sins.

From w:Wikipedia:NPOV:

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.

Seems to also apply on Wikiquote.

I found three quotes that were removed that pass my check for notability and sourcing. I have put these on the talk page for discussion. Peter1c (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed settlement approaches

Table 4. Proposed settlement approaches for United States

user	most recent proposed settlement approach
Ficaia
HouseOfChange	BD2412 proposes a method that has worked well in the past. Could we start small with this, discussing proposed changes just to the image quotes and the A section? If we can build consensus on this mini-project, going forward might be smoother.
IOHANNVSVERVS
BD2412	Put removed/contested quotes on a subpage of the talk page and work through them individually.
UDScott	Revert to full condition of the page with all quotes restored and sorted alphabetically. Disputed quotes can be discussed on talk page regarding potential removal. Preserve quotes that are obviously notable and properly sourced.
Justin	Removal of content requires prior community consensus. Some of Ficaia's removals are justified per WQ policy. It's unfortunate that this edit is certainly inappropriate but also includes some reasonable elements in it. Other mass removals require justification. Request clarification on possible use of semi-automated tools. Request clarification on goal of mass removals. Request documentation any prior consensus for the edits.
Peter1c	Merge new additions into alphabetically organized revision of 8 March 2025. Then proceed to discuss proposed deletions and chronological reorganization.

I think whatever way we choose to move forward should honor the intentions of other editors who have contributed to the article. This implies all deletions of material require some kind of due process. Mass deletion of material with no due process is not a good precedent. It seems to me the intentions of prior contributors can best be honored by restoring all quotes that were removed without due process and then processing removals one by one with with due process.
Administratively, the most straightforward way to accomplish this would be something like this:

1. begin with the currently locked version (alphabetical)
2. add in all quotes contributed by Ficaia
3. remove poorly sourced quotes
4. remove other quotes with due process by obtaining consensus
5. decide whether to organize the final article alphabetically or chronologically or in some other way

I hereby volunteer to do 1-3 if there is consensus for this. Peter1c (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Peter1c has made the identical proposal at Talk:United_States#Discussion_of_settlement_approaches, and two other editors have responded there. Qnyone who wants to join that conversation is invited to join it at Talk:United_States#Discussion_of_settlement_approaches HouseOfChange (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/IOHANNVSVERVS

Please note that a request for adminship is now open at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/IOHANNVSVERVS. BD2412 T 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Finding quotations with AI

I did a quick search and didn't see this covered, so I thought I should raise this topic. When searching for quotes with AI, editors should be aware that the AI engine is more concerned with satisfying the request in your prompt than with producing a correct quote. I have often received a memorable quote with a reasonable looking source from AI, then I look it up and often the quote doesn't exist. Sometimes the source is made up too. Make sure to always fact check everything that comes from AI, including AI response from google and other search engines. This is a public service announcement. Peter1c (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Small text not working

Small text isn't working for me. See Luigi Mangione, in the Manifesto section's caption ("Note found during his initial arrest, December 2024 ...")

Example/test

Seems to be working here, but not there. Any help appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In the Mangione page example, the text is shown correctly as small text on desktop but not on mobile.

In the "example/test" text above it shows as small on both desktop and mobile. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 19 March. The switch will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 19 March 2025.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Linking to other language Wikiquotes

I tried to link an English Wikiquote page to its corresponding Russian page. [1]

It isn't working for some reason [2]

Any help appreciated, thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have linked it through Wikidata. I suggest using Wikidata for consistency across languages. If you want to add an interlanguage link manually, use the format: [[ru:Михаил Нехемьевич Таль]]. Hope this helps! Saroj (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And how did you connect it to Wikidata? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• @IOHANNVSVERVS: If a WQ article has a WP article then it normally has a WD page too. You can click over to the WP and click "Wikidata item" in the list on the left (on desktop). At the bottom of the WD item it will list projects. Go to Wikiquote, enter "en" for English and enter the page name exactly as it appears on WQ. GMG^talk 19:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata and Sister Projects: an online event

Hello everyone, I’m writing to announce an upcoming event called Wikidata and Sister Projects that will be a mini online conference to highlight the different ways Wikidata can be connected and integrated with the other WM projects.

We are currently looking for session ideas and speakers for our program and wanted to reach out in case there were any editors here that might have a cool idea for a session proposal. Sessions can be found on the event discussion page.

As previously mentioned, we would like to showcase any relationship between Wikiquote and Wikidata and in what ways the two projects can benefit each other.

The event is scheduled between May 29 - June 1st, 2025. If you have any questions about the event, would like more information or have a session idea to propose, please feel free to get in touch by replying to this post or writing on the event page or on my talk page. Thanks for reading, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Footnotes

There's a discussion on my talk page here about the use of footnotes/inline citations. Others are welcome to give their opinions, either in that discussion on my talk page or here in this thread. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you make it clearer what you want to discuss and why? E.g. give an example of something related to footnotes that you want to see changed on WQ? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@UDScott informed me that "we don't usually use Reference sections or footnotes here on WQ. We try to remove them whenever one appears on a page". I added a footnote to Dorothy Thompson (the first/top two entries) which I think is reasonable / should not be removed.

There's no real need for a discussion on this, but UDScott stated that "Change is OK, but I would suggest perhaps opening up some discussion about it before making such a fundamental change that would ultimately affect nearly every page here." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In those two cases, I think the normal way of citing a source would actually be better and less confusing. I think I see your point that citing things in Wikipedia gives more information about the source than we normally do, but since in both cases you have an available URL there isn't really a need for that extra information on the WQ page. I am not "against" footnotes if they have a useful case, but I don't see one there, just my opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What about in this this case? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Final proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter now posted

The proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter are now on Meta-wiki for community notice in advance of the voting period. This final draft was developed from the previous two rounds of community review. Community members will be able to vote on these modifications starting on 17 April 2025. The vote will close on 1 May 2025, and results will be announced no later than 12 May 2025. The U4C election period, starting with a call for candidates, will open immediately following the announcement of the review results. More information will be posted on the wiki page for the election soon.

Please be advised that this process will require more messages to be sent here over the next two months.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)