Talk:William Napoli

Untitled
This article reads much better than previously. However it still does not appear to me to be encyclopedic. The neologism definition in 2), particularly, means that the article as a whole appears biased (this neologism is likely insufficiently notable for its own article). As a result I have replaced tags that have been removed. Hynca-Hooley 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, since I started writing this we have lost the neologism, which is good. Hynca-Hooley 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Author's response: It's true that the entry is motivated by ideology, but I worked hard to keep the exposition value-neutral. After all, the man did say those things, and people did have this response. It's similar to what happened to Rick Santorum, which is included. Would it be more acceptable to include that information under a different heading (such as "The Napoli controversey")? theotherjay
 * I'm not sure that's a good idea in this case, as there will need to be even more care taken to present a balanced view in an article entitled "The Napoli controversy". The Rick Santorum article is a much more general biographical overview of the senator, of which controversial quotes are only a small part. This is what Bill Napoli must aspire to. Hynca-Hooley 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If the only thing the man is famous for is an extremely callous statement, then the only thing the man is famous for is an extremely callous statement. Whether or not Bill Napoli had a childhood love of ducks has so little to do with his statements that to include it just to include positive information about a man would do violence simple honesty. He said it, it's a quote, it's his most famous statement. That's the long and short of it. There's no argument about whether he said it. There's no argument whether that's the only reason we know his name.

I agree that these are the statements he made and that they are what he is famous for, so they should be included. As much as I disagree with his statements and with the law, there is clearly still a bias in the article. I'm especially concerned with the language "largely eliminated abortion rights." I don't really know a great way to fix it, perhaps because I'm so biased myself. Also, does anyone have the name of the law? It should probably be included in the article. Alberrosidus 05:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its currently called the 529M0546  HOUSE BILL   NO.     1215

Ah I see a republicrat is defending this idiot.

Any way you look at it, this article does need to be improved and expanded upon. Whether or not he is best known for comments, he *is* a Senator, and his biography should be established. Gila m0bster 23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a *state* senator. They are generally minor politicians, so I wouldn't expect an article at all unless they were somehow noteworthy. The only reason Napoli is noteworthy is because of his comments. The "neologism" probably shouldn't be in the article, but other than that, I think it's NPOV. --128.205.218.25 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After editing the article to include the neologism in full (it seemed quite bizarre to me that any reference to it was missing, but the other google bomb was mentioned), I caught this discussion and took it out, in order to defer to the collective's judgement. However, I do believe that the neologism is at the very least noteworthy; it is a legitimate "Reaction to Napoli's comments", because by definition, a google bomb requires the active participation of many people, and is therefor at least an indication of a subsection of the public's response to it. Reporting its existance is not biased; as someone already noted, there's a link in Rick Santorum's page to his neologism, defined in the subsection of the Savage Love entry. I would recommend including any positive public reactions to his comments anyone can find; that would obviously help the article's perceived neutrality. The sad truth, though, is that I can't find any, likely because I don't know where to look.

Bill Napoli retired in 2008. He WAS a state senator from the 35th district South Dakota. http://legis.state.sd.us/historical/LegislatorDetail.aspx?MemberID=3050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.82.65 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)