Talk:Alan Rusbridger

It's actually an observer piece
This quote has been removed by Ningauble (see here here) with the argument notwithstanding anyone's interest in the provenance of the article to which he refers, this simple assertion lacks Quotability, and is now restored (by an anom from the UK). Now the documentation and links given show, that the quote has been cited and has been commented in multiple sources, which does gives the source a certain quotability. -- Mdd (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What is in dispute here? (1) Somebody wrote a controversial column for the Observer. (2) The Observer and The Guardian are affiliated newspapers that share a website. (3) Several people complained to the editor of The Guardian. (4) He tweeted back, as quoted here, that they were complaining to the wrong editor. Some people may feel it was lame to distance himself, that he should have taken a stand as a senior official of the conglomerate, but that doesn't mean his matter of fact response has any Quotability. As I wrote about another controversy a while back:
 * "Some of the greatest quotes of all time are disputatious, but most points in dispute are not quoteworthy."
 * (Another editor suggested adding this to WQ:Q.)
 * The fact of his declining to become involved in the dispute may be newsworthy commentaryworthy, but his manner of doing so certainly has not stood the test of time as one of those mundane remarks that has become famous despite its plainness. Rather, when the article's narrative explanation is many times longer than the quote itself, it is sometimes a sign that the entry is not really about the quote at all, but is attempting to make a point about some controversy in which it arose. I still think it should be removed from the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This feels like haggling to me. I think we should only consider, if the quote is a topic in secondary sources or not. If you feel there is too much explanation, feel free to trim or rephrase that text. -- Mdd (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not haggling about how long the explanation should be: the anecdote might indeed be told more succinctly, but this is Wikiquote, not Wikianecdote. I am pointing out that the remark lacks any semblance of quotability for a compendium of quotations. This is very much like quoting someone saying "no comment" about an incident. News reporters and commentators do quote people saying this sort of thing, when they feel the fact of not addressing the issue is noteworthy; but the words quoted to document the fact that he declined or disavowed involvement simply are not a quotable quote to be passed onward, from one generation to the next in a compendium of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Mdd, if a politician is asked a question about whether he intends to address some hot-button issue, and responds, "no", and the media covers that response, does the word "no" then become quoteworthy (aside from its originality problem)? BD2412 T 16:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there does not appear to be much prospect for mutual understanding about this, I am posting a request at the Village Pump for other opinions on this question:
 * Is "It's actually an observer piece" actually a quotable quote?
 * Some fresh eyes on the question may be able to break the impasse. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that I agree with Ningauble that the quote should be stricken from the page. While it certainly is worthy of discussion in the context of the news event in which it was written, I fail to see how it rises to the level of quoteworthiness necessary to be included on WQ. I suport the removal of the quote. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Ningauble and UDScott. As Albert Einstein once wrote, "eggs, milk, flour". Okay, he may not have written exactly that, but he doubtlessly jotted down a shopping list at some point in his life. This is an equivalent level of mundane observation, which therefore probably does not belong in any compendium of meaningful quotes. BD2412 T 16:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that the particular quote is subject of consideration in secondary sources. This is what makes things notable on Wikipedia and quotable on Wikiquote. -- Mdd (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point - I just do not happen to agree that just because the quote is discussed by secondary sources does not mean that it should be included here. I still do not see how this particular quote is memorable in any way such that it be preserved here. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, there is clearly a majority here, so I have removed the quote (which was restored by an anom here). -- Mdd (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)