Talk:Shepard Smith

Please find

Please find actual quotes clearly reported in reliable sources, and without the absurd bolding and the like. Collect (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this comment by Collect (talk · contributions), above. Choosing which part to bold and which not to bold also violates WQ:NPOV. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A video from a major news organization is not a reliable source? Also, if you don't like the bolding, you can easily remove the formatting rather than just mass deleting content. As for bolding, there is nothing on NPOV regarding boldface. Illegitimate Barrister 01:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's inherently an editorial decision and violates the integrity of the original quote, for an individual user to choose on their own what they feel should be bolded. -- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why delete the entire quote? It's sourced. If one objected to bolding, they could easily just remove the bolding. That's like deleting an entire page just because of one typo, it doesn't make much sense, if any at all. Regardless, I added the quotes back, without the contentious bolding this time. Illegitimate Barrister 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much! Now, about the quotes themselves, if they're challenged, perhaps it might help to see if the quotes have themselves each been re-quoted in other secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll search for them. In regards to the boldface, the Wikiquote layout guide states that there is no consensus one way or the other regarding them, so that's why I added it. I wasn't aware it was such a sensitive topic of contention here. Regardless, I've removed it for the time being, as a few don't like it, and added some more sources to the page. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 01:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what about the 2nd quote? -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just added a source for that one as well. Check the page and refresh it. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 02:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
No problem, take care! Illegitimate Barrister 02:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to bold the part(s) of the quotation that you came here to add, but for which additional contextual content is necessary. If the good bit stands on its own, then there's no need to bold it. If it doesn't, then it seems reasonable to bold it so that it stands out from the contextual stuff. I suppose one could argue that it's "editorializing" to decide what the "good bits" are, but we all do that when we decide to excerpt a quotation and add it here; and the alternative is that the reader scratches her head and wonders what's so interesting about those contextual leading sentences. DigitalBluster (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Good points, DigitalBluster. I really don't see all the ranting and fussing about bolding. Many articles have them and there is no clear-cut Wikiquote rule explicitly forbidding them. It seems that some people like them and some don't, for whatever reason that may be, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I encountered a similar phenomena over on the English Wikipedia, where one guy went around removing icons from every article he could, regardless of validity. Illegitimate Barrister 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(BTW, when I say "here" I mean Wikiquote, not this article, which I haven't added to. I just stumbled across this conversation somehow and figured I'd stick my nose in.) DigitalBluster (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or a large number of substantially the same quote sourced to a single source? I fear that looks more like "let's find every place he said 'torture' and add it here" but all from a single source. Most pages on Wikiquote are used for "notable quotes" which, to me, suggests that the quote must be fairly widely known.

We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work.

I suggest these "quotes" are not "notable" and not of "enduring relevance to many people." The criterion used for these is "a webzine made an article about Smith's on-air statements". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Added two quite notable quotes. Collect (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘

"Is it my imagination, or a large number of substantially the same quote sourced to a single source?"

As long as the said source in question is trustworthy and reliable, there is no problem with the amount of quotes that are derived from it. P.S. Thanks for adding the two new quotes. Illegitimate Barrister 23:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Demur. The "gamecocks" bit is not apparently widely used anywhere and is trivial, the one about torture should have the stronger quote uses where the same exact source is used for both - else we could end up using the same source for several pages of quotes. We do not do that - the nature of the two quotes is the same. We stick to the notable one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)