Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

I am no fan of Jeffrey Epstein but the article for "quotes" by and about him got repurposed into POV-pushing to use Epstein's disgrace to push anti-Semitic conspiracy websites like Unz.com and MintPress News-- while coatracking attacks on Israel, Clinton, etc. 6 quotes from Philip Giraldi, pushing as fact his claim that Epstein was a spy for Israel. (Reliable sources like Rolling Stone have looked into that claim and not been convinced either way. So if we want one quote about the theory, we can get one from Rolling Stone not from Philip Giraldi.)

Julie K. Brown, who is an expert on Epstein, would be a good source of more quotes. Or one of his victims, quoted in this story. We could make this a good Wikiquote article rather than a bad fake Wikipedia article full of claims of "fact" backed up by zero RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Replacing sources with paywalled "Better secondary source for quote"
I have not taken the time to investigate whether the sources that have been replaced on this page with others are as bad as User:Rauisuchian and User:HouseOfChange say they are. However, I do have a beef with using sources such as Bloomberg, which are paywalled. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think excluding paywalled things like the NYT would improve Wikiquote. Sources need to be reliably published, but not necessarily free online. We cite books for example, the requirement is that SOMEBODY could check if it's a misquote. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is SOMEBODY? Who is going to check what the paywalled sources actually said?
 * I know you believe you are improving WQ, but I have been here just a little longer than you, and to me it looks like you are undoing efforts by others to build up WQ by creating a pleasant environment that will attract more editors which is the only way to save it from dying. We are not WP which seems (at least for now) to have an unending stream of new editors to replace the old and disillusioned (or blocked).
 * Just like others here I don't have the time to try and convince you. All I am asking is for you to look around a bit before jumping to conclusions. It is always a lot easier to destroy than to build. YMMV Ottawahitech (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of good sources are paywalled or offline. If you propose a policy change to forbid such sources, I would oppose the proposal. If you object to my editing, I would welcome a clearer explanation of what you think I should change, but my talk page or yours would be a better place for that. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with HouseOfChange that paywalled sources are valid for reliable sourcing + verifiability. Many reliable quotes are in print books, sometimes editions that are hard to get, whereas a paywalled news article on the internet rather than print, is easier to access and verify than these print book editions. As for the second quote using Bloomberg News, next to it there is a link to a backup source on YouTube that is freely available on the "Bloomberg Markets and Finance" YouTube channel. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC) edit Rauisuchian (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rauisuchian: Sure, paywalled sources are valid, but I personally dislike them and always work hard to find a non-paid source for each quote. Also, why do you say: "Better secondary source for quote"? Is there a requirement that I am not aware of on WQ to use secondary sources? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We use whatever reliable sources exist to verify a quote. A benefit of secondary sources attributing the primary source's quote, is to verify and determine the notability of quotes. Obviously usable secondary sources must have a direct quote, unless they are in the "quotes about" section. If you can find a reliable non-paywalled source to replace Bloomberg, for the one quote that doesn't have a backup source, feel free to add one. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009 and Wikiquote since 2013, and I have to say I have to agree with Ottawahitech. First of all, Wikiquote is not popular at all compared to Wikipedia and Wikidata. Everytime I do meetup, lately I've started to introduce Wikiquote (along with Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata) to the audience, just so that we shall keep promoting this not-so-famous Wikimedia project (which is probably almost dying, along with WikiSpecies). Wikiquote is quite easy to edit and straight forward, thus it can be quite handy for people to practice. But the thing is, I have to say, there are too many 'junks' inside Wikiquote. Forget about sources with paywall-restricted. There are so many quotes without any reference at all for Barack Obama, and I guess we should really clear those things up. Wikiquote is quite easy to edit/write for newbies already, therefore I agree that there should be some minimum requirement for a quote to stay in an article, which is have its direct online citation which are not paywall-restricted, so that people can easily refer back to the original quote (got this very bare minimum credibility to counter-check). And I also agree with Ottawahitech, I can guarantee no one will ever check the original hard-copy or paywall-restricted source even for the next 10 years. Therefore, to improve the credibility, accessibility and user-friendliness of Wikiquote to editors, especially the newbie ones, I have to say we need to have each quote accompanied by online citation which are not paywall-restricted. This is the very minimum MoS (manual of style) Wikiquote should have. If we keep okay-ing paywall-restricted sources and quotes without sources, I'm afraid people will start to write anything they want, like those typical unverified quote shared on Whatsapp group to the general public. Wikiquote should never end up like that. Double-check to the non-paywall restricted original sources (which are acceptable online sources according to Wikipedia's MoS) is the very minimum thing to have. My point is, no matter what is the exact existing rule of Wikiquote's MoS, but as a Wikimedian, I wish tomake Wikiquote a better Wikimedia project for everyone and also a very user-friendly for newbie editors, in which it can be really useful in tackling many of nowadays fake news or fake quotes spreading like wildfire everywhere on the Internet. That's the only way to make Wikiquote become more useful and to save it. Chongkian (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By and large I agree, but in this case the paywalled source has a freely-available YouTube source next to it that also verifies the quote. For the one without a backup YouTube source, I was able to verify it matches the quote with it saying "You have reached your free article limit" but the article was visible. A non-paywalled reliable source is better than a paywalled reliable source, but we don't have to worry about this here because the backup freely-available source. It's also not so paywalled that it doesn't have a couple of free articles shown. So, yes overall we want the most accessible sources possible, and Wikimedia projects should expand, but that is more of a wider topic and not immediately relevant to this talk page and citation. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)