User:RogDel/Notability as a source of quotes

Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed.

Introduction
The point of this essay is that anyone notable as a source of quote/s is notable according to Wikiquote, even though he or she may be non-notable according to Wikipedia.

A person non-notable on Wikipedia may be notable on Wikiquote
A person does not have to be notable according to Wikipedia for being notable according to Wikiquote. In other words, a person may be non-notable according to Wikipedia and at the same time may be notable according to Wikiquote. Why? Because: 1. According to Wikiquote:Quotability, a famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person. Such person, for example, may be non-notable on Wikipedia and yet s/he is considered notable enough on Wikiquote to warrant an article on him/her. 2. Since Wikiquote is meant to be a compendium of quotations, not an encyclopedia covering biographies of people, its notability standards could quite logically be different from Wikipedia. In other words, since Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, a person does not have to have encyclopedic notability to be notable on Wikiquote. Encyclopedic notability would be required on Wikipedia. Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia

A person notable only as a source of quote/s is notable on Wikiquote
Since Wikiquote is for quotes, a person notable only as a source of quote/s must be notable according to Wikiquote, even though such person may be non-notable according to Wikipedia. For instance, an aphorist cited as a source of quote/s in hundreds of reliable sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the aphorist can certainly be presumed to be highly notable as a source of quote/s even though s/he may be non-notable according to Wikipedia for the possible lack of significant coverage on him or her in independent reliable sources. The aphorist does not argue or explain, he asserts; and implicit in his assertion is a conviction that he is wiser and more intelligent than his readers.

Basic criteria
A person can be presumed to be notable (worthy of notice) as a source of quote/s if he or she has been cited as a source of quote/s in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the person, the way a person is presumed to be notable on Wikipedia if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Quotability
Q: Does notability (as a source of quote/s) imply quotability? The standard for determining whether material should be included in Wikiquote is quotability. Anyone presumed to be notable as a source of quote/s could be presumed to be quotable too. It’s almost tautological. Couldn’t a person notable as a physicist, for instance, be presumed to be a physicist? Also, according to Wikiquote:Quotability, the presence of a quote in a published collection of quotations is strong evidence of quotability, both as to the quote and as to the author of the quote. Wouldn’t similarly then the presence of citations that cite a person as a source of quote/s in multiple published secondary sources which are independent and reliable be strong evidence of quotability as to the person (i.e. the author of the quote/s)? In other words, if a person is cited as a source of quote/s in multiple published secondary sources which are independent and reliable, wouldn’t it be strong evidence that the person (i.e. the author of the quote/s) is quotable? And if a person can be presumed to be quotable, shouldn’t Wikiquote (which is a compendium of quotations) have an article on them? Comprehensive: Wikiquote aims to have quotes from many different people, literary works, films, memorials, epitaphs and so on.

Q: Then why is it that a person who is considered non-notable on Wikipedia is likely to be considered non-notable on Wikiquote too? if an article about the topic has been deleted from Wikipedia on grounds of non-notability, then it is likely to be considered not notable on Wikiquote The reason is that although notability on Wikipedia is not necessary for notability on Wikiquote (when the subject is notable only as a source of quote/s), a person who is generally non-notable (i.e. s/he who does not possess encyclopedic notability) is unlikely to be quoted in independent reliable sources. Notable or remarkable people (i.e. they who possess encyclopedic notability) are normally quoted by others in reliable sources, though there may be exceptions to it. And Wikiquote may certainly allow such exceptions to be considered notable, since such exceptions are notable for quotes and Wikiquote is for quotes. One of the simplest tests for notability of a subject, and of a quote, is to check whether other people have quoted it. They may have been approving or dissenting, said it was well-put or badly-written, but if a quote is often retold by others, then it is notable. If, on the other hand, no-one has thought it worth repeating, then the quote is probably not notable.

Q: What's the fundamental difference between objective quotability and subjective quotability? Practically, it is the difference of likelihood, nothing else. Objective quotability is in fact nothing but a form of subjective quotability. Nothing as of yet is really objectively quotable. When we say that something or someone is objectively quotable, we only mean that it is quotable in the opinion of one or more people who are very unlikely to be wrong in their opinion on the quotability. In other words, objective quotability is subjective quotability which can normally be trusted, which is very unlikely to be false. If a quotability determined by someone or something (say an extremely intelligent computer or machine) whose opinion on that particular quotability is impossible to be wrong, that quotability would truly be objective quotability. Can we find such person or such thing at all?

Q: According to this essay, a person quotable as per just one highly reliable independent secondary source is notable on Wikiquote and deserves a standalone article on them. However, according to Wikiquote:Quotability, although a famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person, in order to insure that the quote itself is sufficiently famous for this purpose, it must be scrutinized heavily with respect to having withstood the test of time: any quote made within the past ten years must be scrutinized under the presumption that it is not inherently quotable, unless, for example, the author of the quote is highly notable and frequently quoted, or the quote received extensive coverage or has itself been adopted and repeated by other notable persons. Doesn’t this essay then contradict Quotability on the barometer of notability for standalone articles?

Yes, it does. However, If a quote is (objectively) notable (worthy of notice), it is (objectively) quotable (worthy of being quoted). If a quote has been quoted in a highly reliable independent secondary source, it is (objectively) notable, since, as we have seen before, unlike Wikipedia, neither multiple nor significant coverage is required on Wikiquote. Therefore, If a quote has been quoted in a highly reliable independent secondary source, it is (objectively) quotable, the fact which can overcome the presumption in Wikiquote:Quotability that any quote made within the past ten years is not inherently quotable.

Summary
Anyone, who has produced at least one quotation that is cited with attribution to the author in at least one published secondary source which is reliable and in both ways independent, is notable (as a source of quote/s) on Wikiquote, irrespective of his or her notability on Wikipedia. The degree of notability of the person (such as barely notable, moderately notable, highly notable) would depend upon the degree of reliability of the sources, the number of sources, the number of quotations, and the degree of notability (if any) of the author/s of the sources. Any degree of notability (of the person cited) may be sufficient to justify the existence of an article on that person. Anyone notable as a source of quote/s is quotable. A person who is not quotable is not notable on Wikiquote. Thus, a person who is not quotable cannot be the subject of a Wikiquote article; because Wikiquote basically exists for quotations and therefore the article on the person would either be empty or contain material that has no relevance to Wikiquote. And, a person who is objectively quotable is objectively notable on Wikiquote, even though they may not be objectively notable on Wikipedia. On Wikiquote, notability and quotability go hand in hand. Notability on Wikipedia does not imply notability on Wikiquote, and vice versa. "Notability as a source of quote/s" means nothing but "quotability", and vice versa.

Miscellaneous
There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified, and new prejudices to be opposed.

Common misconceptions

 * A person must be notable on Wikipedia to be notable on Wikiquote.


 * A person can be considered "notable as a source of quotes" only when there are reliable and independent published sources which talk about his or her notability as a source of quotes.


 * A quote (or its author) can be considered notable only when it is quoted by several notable works or persons.


 * Any source that is normally considered reliable is 100% reliable.

Some other important facts to remember

 * Notability does not imply fame. A notable person may not be known widely enough to be considered famous. Fame and notability are different things. And, like Wikipedia, for Wikiquote purposes, the subject has to be notable, even though they may not be famous.


 * A self-published writer, a blogger, for example, may be objectively notable not only on Wikiquote but on Wikipedia too. Objective notability rests upon published sources that are independent and reliable.

I am not saying a pseudophilosopher can never be notable or widely quoted. Some have become very widely quoted bestselling authors. I shall never be ashamed to quote a bad author if what he says is good.
 * A person who appears to have dubious academic credibility, a pseudophilosopher, for instance, may still be objectively quotable. A pseudophilosopher may be the author of quotable quotation/s, because although s/he may lack sufficient intellectual rigour, they may have produced objectively interesting thought/s and, more importantly, quotation/s.

Why none of the objectively notable authors should be left red-linked

 * Red links do not look good; when most of the authors are blue-linked, red links look odd. (e.g. Joel Hawes at Purpose)
 * Red links (or no links) are inconvenient for the reader.
 * Suppose a reader likes a quote by a red-linked author and wants to see if there are any more quotes on Wikiquote by them, wouldn't it be much easier for the reader to just click and visit the standalone Wikiquote article on the author instead of looking for the quotes through the search box?

6 Important Points about Notability on Wikiquote
1. Wikiquote is basically for quotations; it is not an encyclopedia that covers biographies of people. 2. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that it can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. 3. Wikipedia requires "multiple sources" so that it can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. 4. Points 2 & 3 imply that "significant coverage" and "multiple sources" are not vital to the concept of notability. They are required for things other than notability, things which normally do not matter on Wikiquote (See Note 2 & Note 3 for details). 5. Therefore, if a quote is cited as a quotation in a published secondary source which is highly reliable and independent (or in a published tertiary source which is at least moderately reliable) there is no reason why it cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote. Similarly, if a person is cited (or noted) as a source (or an author) of quotation/s there is no reason why s/he cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote and why Wikiquote may not have a page on them. In other words, 'if a quote is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable (i.e. a source which can reasonably be relied upon), it can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed''). If a person is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable as a source (or author) of quote/s, the person can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed) as a source (or author) of quote/s.''' However, the source is required to have a sufficient degree of reliability to be considered truly reliable for practical purposes. (Since theoretically nothing can be considered truly reliable. See Note 8 for details.) 6. A person who has produced multiple notable quotations could be presumed to be notable as a source of notable quotations. (Couldn’t an author of multiple notable quotations be considered notable on that which is exclusively devoted to the collection of quotations, i.e. Wikiquote? An author of 3 notable books, for example, would be considered notable on Wikipedia or on a place exclusively devoted to the collection of information about books and authors, a literary encyclopedia.) Examples of persons notable as source of notable quotations: Joel Hawes, Kedar Joshi, and Sally Kempton. Needless to say, these persons are also notable as source of quotations, which may include quotations that are (objectively) non-notable in themselves.

The notability and quotability policy in a nutshell



 * Any notable quote is quotable: if it is objectively notable, it is objectively (and possibly subjectively) quotable; if it is only subjectively notable, it is only subjectively quotable.


 * A quote is notable if it is quoted in a published secondary source which is highly reliable and independent or in a published tertiary source which is at least moderately reliable. If the secondary source is not highly reliable, then multiple sources may be required. An otherwise objectively non-notable quote may become notable if its author is objectively notable, either as a source of quotes or on Wikipedia. Quotability of such quote may be highly subjective and difficult to determine.


 * An author is notable if s/he is the author of one or more notable quotes, or s/he is notable as a source of quotes, none of which may in itself be notable, or s/he is notable on Wikipedia and subjectively quotable and notable on Wikiquote (i.e. A person who is objectively notable on Wikipedia, but objectively non-quotable, may become subjectively quotable and notable on Wikiquote).


 * Any author objectively notable as a source of quote/s is objectively quotable.

Examples
The following are some examples of persons who appear objectively notable as source of quotes (i.e objectively quotable). Each of these persons may also be notable for producing at least one notable quotation which they are cited along with as its source.

=== Jerome Blattner (The degree of notability as a source of quote/s: Barely notable) ===


 * A person who trusts no one cannot be trusted. (The quote looks notable in itself, considering the degree of reliability, the number and the nature of the sources (secondary/tertiary))
 * As quoted in Microeconomic Theory second edition: Concepts and Connections (2013) by Michael E. Wetzstein, Routledge; and in Quotes on Trustworthiness at academicintegrity.org

Rose Cherin (Barely notable)

 * Heirlooms we don't have in our family. But stories we've got. (notable)
 * As quoted in Family Therapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal (2008) by Mark A. Yarhouse and James N. Sells, InterVarsity Press; and in A message from UTSA Vice President of Student Affairs- Dr. Gage E. Paine (November 2010), utsa.edu

Nick Diamos (Moderately notable)

 * Everybody lies, but it doesn’t matter because nobody listens. (notable)
 * As quoted in (Dis)trust in Software Projects: A Thrice Told Tale. On Dynamic Relationships between Software Engineers, IT Project Managers, and Customers (2007) by Dominika Latusek and Dariusz Jemielniak, The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, vol. 3(1), pp. 117-125.


 * Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. (notable)
 * As quoted in The Quotable A**hole: More than 1,200 Bitter Barbs, Cutting Comments, and Caustic Comebacks (2011) by Eric Grzymkowski, Adams Media; in Missing More Madoff Mayhem (January 23, 2009) by Ron Surz, FinancialCounsel.com; and in The Addison-Wesley science handbook (1997) by Gordon J. Coleman & David Dewar, Addison-Wesley Publishers, pg. 128.

=== Joel Hawes (Moderately notable; perhaps Highly notable) ===


 * Aim at the sun, and you may not reach it; but your arrow will fly far higher than if aimed at an object on a level with yourself. (notable)
 * As quoted in You're Born an Original - Don't Die a Copy (1993) by John Mason, Revell; in Moments of Reflection (1995) by Jean Howarth and Mike Walton, Heinemann Educational Publishers; in Worth Repeating: More Than 5,000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes (2003) by Bob Kelly, Kregel Publications; and in Secrets of Mind Power (2005) by Harry Lorayne, Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc.


 * You may be whatever you resolve to be. Determine to be something in the world, and you will be something. I cannot, never accomplished anything: I will try, has wrought wonders. (notable)
 * As quoted in Thoughts On The Business of Life at thoughts.forbes.com

Vithu Jeyaloganathan (Barely notable)

 * Your identity changes with how you perceive reality. (notable)
 * As quoted in SACRED SPACE: Your Identity (July 11, 2009), The Times of India; and in SACRED SPACE: Who are you? (September 21, 2011).
 * Variant: “The identity of one changes with how one perceives reality.” As quoted in Between Dog and Wolf: Understanding the Connection and the Confusion (2012) by Jessica Addams and Andrew Miller, Dogwise Publishing

=== Kedar Joshi (Moderately notable) ===


 * Certainty is the most vivid condition of ignorance and the most necessary condition for knowledge. (notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), CERTAINTY; also as quoted in Assessment of Echocardiographic Left Atrial Size: How Accurate Do We Need to Be? (August 2012) by Brian D. Hoit, MD, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Volume 5, Issue 8.


 * God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down. (notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), GOD; also as quoted in SACRED SPACE: Towards Light (June 11, 2010), The Times of India; in SACRED SPACE: Reason And Logic (July 12, 2011); and in SACRED SPACE: God and I (December 8, 2011)


 * If knowledge is my God, doubt would be my religion. (non-notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), DOUBT; also as quoted in Just-if-ication: A Discussion of Scientific Reasoning (29 July 2011) by Raam Gokhale, Philosophy Pathways, Issue 164.


 * Intellect is intellectual at analysis; genius is genius at synthesis. (notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - General) (2007), GENIUS; also as quoted in Lessons learned from the PICES/GLOBEC Climate Change and Carrying Capacity (CCCC) Program and Synthesis Symposium (May–June 2008) by Harold P. Batchelder, and Suam Kim, Progress in Oceanography, Volume 77, Issues 2–3, Pages 83–91, Section 1. Introduction.


 * The failure of previous philosophy is essentially the failure to see the self-evident. (non-notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), PHILOSOPHERS; also as quoted in Fracaso by Pedro Oller, La Republica PREMIUM, 8 December 2009 (Spanish).


 * The real doubt is the doubt that doubts that it doubts. (non-notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), DOUBT; also as quoted in Quote in Time, The Nassau Guardian, Page A6, March 4, 2010.


 * The world is a philosophical prison and Man is the philosophical prisoner. (non-notable)
 * Quotes by Kedar Joshi (Quotations - Superultramodern Science and Philosophy) (2007), PRISON; also as quoted in Prison Quotes at WriteAPrisoner.com

Sally Kempton (Moderately notable)

 * I became a feminist as an alternative to becoming a masochist. (notable)
 * As quoted in Witty Words from Wise Women: Quips, Quotes, and Comebacks (2001) by B. J. Gallagher, Andrews McMeel Publishing


 * It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head. (notable)
 * As quoted in Before It's Too Late: Helping Women in Controlling or Abusive Relationships (1995) by Robert J. Ackerman, Ph.D. and Susan E. Pickering, Health Communications, Inc.; and in Feminist Critical Policy Analysis II: A Perspective from Post-Secondary Education (1997) by Catherine Marshall, Falmer Press


 * When men imagine a female uprising, they imagine a world in which women rule men as men have ruled women. (non-notable)
 * As quoted in Notes for Participants, National Forensic League's Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Feminism and Gender Equality (November 11, 1995) by Twiss Butler, National Organization for Women

John Kord Lagemann (Moderately notable)

 * Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason. (notable)
 * As quoted in Master Your Fears: How to Triumph over Your Worries and Get on with Your Life (2004) by Linda Sapadin, Ph.D., John Wiley & Sons; in Daily Aromatherapy: Transforming the Seasons of Your Life With Essential Oils (2008) by Ruah Bull, Joni Keim, North Atlantic Books; and in The Practical Psychic: A No-Nonsense Guide to Developing Your Natural Abilities (2011) by Noreen Renier, Adams media

Willis Player (Moderately notable)

 * A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment. (notable)
 * As quoted by The Washington Post, Potomac magazine (November 15, 1972), p. 12; in The Cynic's Lexicon: A Dictionary of Amoral Advice (1984) by Jonathon Green, Routledge & Kegan Paul; and in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989).

Henry J. Tillman (Highly notable)

 * If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. (non-notable)
 * As quoted in Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals, Third Edition (2011) by Robert A. Day, Nancy Sakaduski, ABC-CLIO


 * Life is something that everyone should try at least once. (notable)
 * As quoted in In Your 60s (2009) by Judy Valon, Wakefield Press; and in Pathological Altruism (2012), edited by Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson, Oxford University Press


 * Oregano is the spice of life. (non-notable)
 * As quoted in Spice of life (May 23, 2005) by Rajiv.M, The Hindu


 * The saying ‘Getting there is half the fun’ became obsolete with the advent of commercial airlines. (non-notable)
 * As quoted in Strange but True (February 9, 2011) by Samantha Weaver, The Mountain Eagle (newspaper)


 * The world is my lobster. (non-notable)
 * As quoted in Deep(see) stuff (August 1, 2005) by Samar Bajaj, India Today