Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Rumor in African American culture

-Sketchmoose 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rumor in African American culture
Whatever they are, these are not quotes about rumor or culture. We certainly should not be expressing a POV about what constitutes a subculture or what is a rumor by collecting examples of whatever it is that these exemplify. Neither should Wikipedia, as decided in a vote there. — Ningauble 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and linked WP discussion. ~ UDScott 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be kept as a collection of conspiracy theory quotes, provided the quotes be parsed down to those that are verifiable, notable, and quotable in the sense of poignant of pithy expression. BD2412 T 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been away from Wikiquote for so long, I can't even remember what term I used to preface a non-vote comment in a VfD. Nevertheless, I'll make some observations. As I argued about a completely different generic-subject article title (also unrecalled) years ago on Wikipedia, articles there should have specific, documented, named phenomena. "Rumor in African American culture" was so vague and generic it couldn't possibly be justified as a Wikipedia article, so I concur with its deletion there. Wikiquote is a bit different, though. We group quotes by subject, so it's arguable that we can collect well-sourced quotes that are rumors found in African-American culture. Also, the fact that we may not have parallel articles of well-sourced articles from other cultures doesn't necessarily suggest we get rid of this one. On the other hand, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to have such a generic collection of mere rumors that happen to come from within African-American culture. Pithy quotes, yes. Propagating celebrity opinions, not so much. (I'd support celebrity opinions that are pithy quotes because they're pithy, whether they're manifestly true or completely wacky. It's all about the memetic value of the words.) I thought perhaps that a category could be created to collect rumor quotes, subdivided by cultures, with the quotes placed into relevant articles (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, Martin Luther King, Jr. (under "About")), but then the categorization would improperly imply that all quotes in those articles were part of that category. I'm also concerned about the racism that 98.195.47.88 talks about at Talk:Rumor in African American culture, but not perhaps for the reasons s/he stated. The implication that African-Americans are some kind of monolithic society, and this is what they gossip about, just doesn't sit well with me – especially when it seems to put on equal footing quotes about documented horrors of African-American history and experience with conspiracy theories that might choke a Flat Earther. It feels too much like we're trying to make an argument, rather than providing "an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations" on a specific subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I also think that it is inaccurate to characterize these kinds of rumors as segregated by race. The conspiracy theories addressed in this article are colorblind. BD2412 T 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Commentary: My nomination was a bit vague because I was holding my nose as I tried to look away from the thinly veiled whatever it is, and because I was thinking of a broader issue, to wit:
 * I believe we err in trying to use theme-as-characterization to express opinions about the quotes, rather than theme-as-subject to identify what the quotes are about, explicitly.
 * In this instance, it is beyond our purview to assess in a reliably verifiable way whether something is a widespread rumor, whether it is characteristic of or particular to African American culture, or, indeed, what "African American culture" means. For a less pernicious example, consider Incorrect predictions. This article has a long history of debate about whether quotes, considered in their original context, are actually predictions or, considered in their originally intended sense, are actually incorrect. Providing verifiable sources for the conclusions of these debates is really beyond the ordinary scope of Wikiquote article content. We have enough to do just documenting the origins of questionable attributions. It is true that something could be salvaged here, but the universe of statements that could be characterized as shortsighted is so vast that it would be better to put the quotes in theme articles on the subjects about which the predictions were made. More importantly, in that case it becomes unnecessary to attempt to characterize whether the intent was incorrectly predictive. Consider also the ambiguous case of Nonsense. In principle, this article consists of quotes that are appropriately about nonsense, but some are included as examples of nonsense. I did ignore my own rule that quotes should be about the theme when I added lorem ipsum, but I made the exception because it is widely repeated as a canonical case of intentional nonsense. (I think "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is also appropriate because the author was making a point about nonsense and it is sufficiently famous in his field.) Most other "examples of nonsense" do not belong in this article. From my POV, many things said by many politicians are nonsense, but it would be inappropriate for me to characterize them as such by placing them in this article. If somebody wants to write a book about The 1001 Stupidest things Ever Said they are entitled to their opinion, but it is not Wikiquote's place to express an opinion with such characterizations. The case can be made for characterizing quotes by their formal characteristics such as, e.g., Spoonerisms, Limericks, and Knock knock jokes. This is a fine idea if the characterization is not too broad. (Existing articles of this type are somewhat lacking in citations and/or notability.) Forgive me for running on at essay length about an issue that is broader than the case in point, but I think it is a fundamental one with bearing here. The twin editorial pillars of Wikimedia are Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. At Wikiquote, verifiability primarily relates to the reliability of attributions. If we undertake to characterize quotations in this way then the characterizations themselves must also be verifiable and, where they express a point of view, it must be a notable one, with a reliably sourced, neutral explanation of the point of view. Wikiquote is not really the place to essay upon such matters. ~ Ningauble 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having read all of the above, I think that unless the quotes are specifically discussing rumors in African American culture, placing them in an article titled as such implies editorial comment, which violates NPOV.  Unlike a knock knock joke, which is unambiguously defined and either is or is not a knock knock joke, calling something a rumor places a judgement on both its truth value and its prevalence. However correct we may think such a judgement to be, it's not up to us as Wikiquote editors to decide, and Wikiquote is not the place for expressing such a decision. -Sketchmoose 18:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is far from a coherent article and few of the quotes are memorable.--Longfellow 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)