Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ovadia Yosef

~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef
See below — Cato 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC) to allow more time for debate. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Probably notable enough for an article. However, there is an extreme POV on this page, making him look like an extremist fundamentalist.  I do not think that this POV is fixable, because the great majority of what a man like that says will not be suitable for Wikiquote, and is unlikely to be quoted in a reliable, easily verifiable source.--Cato 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who is making him look like an extremist fundamentalist? The "Saving a life overrides territories" quote that I added there a long time ago is a famous jewish law sentence similar to the left-wing style argument that 'sacredness of life is more valuable than sacredness of land'. The unsourced quotes are also accurate (I didn't add them). If you know of other interesting stuff that he said that makes him look less extremist then you're welcome to add it, but why try to censor accurate information that's already there? I vouch for the translations from the Hebrew newspapers (I did the translations), but if it's not enough for you then you can verify it with someone else who knows Hebrew. iddo999 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Hebrew is quite adequate for the purpose, thank you.--Cato 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The man is notable, the quotes are interesting (if not the sort of thing I'd repeat to my daughter before bedtime) and give some insight into one side of an important current problem, and most of the quotes are sourced. As for POV: "Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual." (Neutral point of view) --Ubiquity 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that they are not reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual. They are an extremely slanted and misleading collection.  I could probably replace them with some of his rulings on obscure and technical points of jewish law, which would reflect what this man is about but be excruciatingly boring.--Cato 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at the conclusion that it's not an accurate reflection? If it's not his point-of-view, then why did he say those things (please answer this question? I'm curious) And what makes you think that you may replace accurate quotes? You're welcome to add other quotes, but I don't think that you may add "boring" quotes, as the quotes have to be noteworthy in some fashion. iddo999 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Yosef is not notable for being a Jewish Ayatollah. He's notable for being probably the greatest Sephardi halachist of the last 100 years.  To reflect this, we should have some of his halachic rulings.--Cato 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ubiquity. ~ UDScott 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless overhauled; it seems to be a hopelessly biased collection of out-of-context quotes.--Poetlister 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to provide us with an example, i.e. an expanded quote that includes the relevant omitted context, which makes it sound differently? Otherwise what makes you think that this is the case? --iddo999 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable. NPOV makes no sense with controversial figures.  Main reason they are notable for general public is often because of such quotes.  I agree that he might be notable regardless, but these quotes are the only ones we have.  Mhym 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not have articles on every notable person, only on those where we can produce sensible collections of quotes.--Cato 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but my point is different. Since these quotes make him notable, they are the ones that should be published.  To give you an easy to gasp illustration, clearly a huge majority of sentences George W. Bush says is in proper English.  Using your logic, should we then remove all those "Bushisms" as unrepresentative?  Obviously not.  Mhym 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mhym makes my case more lucidly than I did. He is not notable because of these quotes.  He is notable, as the article says, because he "is a former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel. He is highly revered in the religious world, especially in the Sephardi and Mizrahi communities for his erudition and Torah scholarship."  These quotes do not reflect that, and should all be deleted and replaced by quotes reflecting "his erudition and Torah scholarship."--Cato 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Read the "Controvercy" section in Ovadia_Yosef.  Unless you think that WP is biased, having these quotes is very helpful.  Of course, it would be also very helpful to have quotes supporting other reasons for notability - I personally would be happy if you find some (if not by him, than maybe about him). Mhym 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a Wikipedia policy that you can't cite one Wikipedia article in another one to prove anything.--Cato 21:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see how these quotes are remarkable in the sense of the mission and scope of this project. These are not pithy remarks or remarkable quotes that have stood the test of time. I do not see it as the mission of this project to collect controversial statements or unflattering remarks made by famous living people. We are not well equipped to verify the accuracy of the comments as we do not have fact checkers. We are not able to properly put them into context. I think this is best left to publications with the resources to ensure accuracy. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should be happy, it's published in the main Israeli newspapers. Do you also want to delete the G.W. Bush page? They put for him in the teleprompter stuff straight out of 1984 and Goebbels, I'd say that's unflattering too? --iddo999 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like people Arun Gandhi whom I have heard say "I religions are good...all relgious texts are the same and none exhort people to militancy...non-violence is the solution to everything,etc."—I have paraphrasing him. (Sometimes military force is necessary and quite commendable.)  That sounds like a spineless syncretic guy who wants to please everybody.  Albert Einstein is another example.  Ovadia Yosef doesn't have to say something along the lines of, "I like the Torah, but I just wish to invert the reasonable meaning of certain excerpts of it," in order for us to keep the article.--Inesculent 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to refute Ubiquity's argument; Inesculent likes this article because it supports his anti-religious POV (to which he is of course entitled).--Poetlister 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not against all religions. I judge them on a case-by-case basis.  Furthermore, even the Quran has good stuff.--Inesculent 00:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ubiquity and Inesculent's thoughts. As it has been expressed above, POV is in the very nature of an individual's opinion; hence, these quotes, from a notable person, and than can be sourced, thus fall by its very nature within the area of interest of our project. Phaed r i e l  - 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Phaedriel if this were a representative collection of quotes. I am trying to get some quotes to add if this article is kept.--Cato 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'll gladly help you, dear Cato :) Phaed r i e l  - 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Cato says it well enough above. --82.42.237.84 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is another of those borderline quote articles, where the rationale seems to be more for documenting positions (like for politicians) than for recording inherently memorable quotes. I'm not happy about these, but I also have a hard time arguing for the deletion of quotes from a prominent figure whose words are quoted in reliable sources (implying both notability and quotability, along with fulfilling sourcing requirements). Can we define some kind of quotability threshold for this kind of situation? I just don't know. As for POV, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are famous largely because of their extreme POVs (fairly opposite from each other, I'd point out), so even if they have more neutral aspects (and who doesn't?), these traits may not be evident in any quotes reliably sourceable. I'd suggest that Wikiquote is not in the business of explaining people through their quotes, only collecting their most notable and quotable ones. The problems of context should be addressed by checking the sources; after all, we all are fact-checkers. For polarizing people and subjects, it's a very good idea (one might argue it should be a policy) to try to get neutral sources, as many supposedly respectable (and therefore wiki-reliable) sources these days delight in citing controversial quotes in the most salacious manner possible to drive their circulation/ratings. In other words, don't assume that The Nation will accurately quote Coulter in context, or that National Review will quote Moore likewise. The anti-Arab quotes are admittedly challenging, as BBC News is not usually given to hyperbole, but given the caveat the BBC article quotes in the article, a more substantive, well-sourced copy of the quoted sermon would be desirable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone would pretend that the BBC is neutral on Middle East matters; their correspondent was criticised for hyperbole over the death of Yasser Arafat for example.--Poetlister 17:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. BTW, do you want me to translate more quotes from the he.wikiquote page? It will only make things worse:) iddo999 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon if I seem like a Jekyll-and-Hyde, given my position on sourcing translations, but… go ahead and "make things worse"! &#9786; One can argue that, even if unsourced translations aren't desirable, they're better than nothing, and that having something there from someone who knows the language gives an incremental boost for each quote. (For one thing, Hebrew-ignorant folks like myself could take a shot at searching for key phrases to find potential English sources.) Anyway, y'all know me — I like to come down firmly on both sides of many issues. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant worse in the sense of more 'extremist' quotes (as he.wikiquote.org only has this kind of quotes), not in the sense of more "unsourced translations". BTW the phrase "unsourced translation" is a little bit confusing (even if objectively accurate), because it refers to an online verifiable verbatim source of the original quote, which is the best kind of a source for verifying the full accuracy of a quote. But I guess we all agree that it's good to also have English sources. iddo999 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to get into a lengthy side discussion, but I'm not following you. An "online verifiable verbatim source of the original quote" would be in Hebrew, and that's not a translation. Anyone who knows two or more languages well should be very much aware of how differences of style and vocabulary in translations, even among professional translators, can have serious consequences. That's why I argue that the rationale that applies to sourcing facts (i.e., that they need to be backed up by professional reputations) applies to quote translations. The assumption that having the original well-sourced justifies any given non-wiki-reliable translation, if that's what you are suggesting, iddo999, strikes me as unwarranted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just said that the phrase seems a little bit confusing to me. Anyway we're repeating ourselves, we should have a policy/guideline discussion instead? My argument was that if the original untranslated text is available as a source, then in case the translation is inaccurate then people who speak the language that come across the wikiquote page would fix it, just like people generally improve wiki pages (therefore it deserves to be in the sourced section imho). --iddo999 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the subject is notable, and some quotes are memorable, well-sourced, and widely reported, I think we're past the usual grounds for deletion. There seems to be a potential to accomodate Cato's desire for quotes that represent other aspects of this prominent person's views, although I'm concerned that they might not be available in English (which itself might suggest this person is not known in the English-speaking world for anything but his controversial statements). In any case, like with the "Mel Gibson" VfD (ironically also dealing with extreme views about Judaism), this seems to be more of a content dispute that is practically resolvable. (On the other hand, a quick peek at the current Mel Gibson suggests that the community hasn't really addressed that content dispute very well even after a year.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is beyond need for proof, I believe. As to quotability, he has the "blind goat" saying which was quoted and commented upon in all Israeli papers for a week..."pithiness" is too POV to be a valid criterion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk)