Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

BD2412 T 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)
The page has massive NPOV problems, stemming mostly from his controversial standing. Regardless, we have an ethical (and possibly legal) duty to treat living people compassionately when we discuss them, and I doubt any quotes on this page do so. Will (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a widespread problem, especially for politically oriented celebrities. The challenge the Wikiquote community faces is trying to get enough editors who are willing to patrol such controversial articles to remove poorly sourced, excessively one-sided, and/or egregiously misleading quotes, while allowing natural but temporary imbalances that come from different editors occasionally editing. I think we're still so far behind the curve on this that it's appropriate, if uncomfortable, to bring individual examples like this article to VfD in the hope of getting the community to resolve at least one article's problems. But I yearn for the day we have something approaching Wikipedia's armies of balancing editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a clear precedent with Ovadia Yosef, where we agreed that "NPOV makes no sense with controversial figures."--Cato 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that wasn't a precedent to automatically keep. It may have been part of an existing pattern in which we failed as a community to respond by adding pithy quotes that don't make the subject sound so negative (perhaps even within his own part of the political spectrum). The "Mel Gibson" VfD preceded Ovadia Yosef by more than a year, and it probably wasn't the first, either. Yet I'm not sure that any of these articles on controversial subjects have benefited much (if at all) from gaining a broader set of quotes, even when it's quite likely that there are pithy quotes to be found. But that doesn't refute the various "keep" arguments. It is possible that subjects may have no pithy quotes that don't express a set of POVs that many or even most would find objectionable. It remains an exercise for each and every one of us to discover otherwise by finding, sourcing, and adding other kinds of quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep You guys definitely flirt with being political. The word vandals will always be a problem, but IMHO you should not be held hostage to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clearcut (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 August 2008  (UTC)


 * Keep We should probably delete the unsourced quotes though.-- Poetlister 21:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Our duty is not to treat living people compassionately but to be fair. I shall deete any unsourced quotes.--Yehudi 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the page does have some problems and needs some cleanup and trimming. ~ UDScott 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with deleting unsourced quotes. - InvisibleSun 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. BD2412 T 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced quotes of. Controversial polemics are his stock-in-trade. Remove quotes about taken from a lawsuit as an inherently hostile POV. Ningauble 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about removing quotes from a lawsuit. We are not normally worried about NPOV in this way.  However, we must stress the nature of the source.-- Poetlister  20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point. POV was not the right way to express my concern. It seems like these citations are being used to construct an argument, that the person is hypocritical. Would it not be more appropos in Wikiquote to find a pithy quotation of someone stating the thesis? I don't really know, it just strikes me the wrong way. - Ningauble 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)