Talk:George Soros/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Take a break for the weekend??

I'd guess that Jayj is closest to wikipedia policy and to the center (I won't say consensus) view, and therefore it should be excluded (and perhaps a few other things in the article as well). I personally see it as a close call, if the minimum version is included (just the facts of who said what) I don't think that it's really makes Soros look bad - it just makes O'Reilly look like a fool - and it offers some perspective on some of the other criticism that are included in the article.

In short, I'm firmly on the fence, but will ask people to calm down for the weekend. Smallbones 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Soros or O'Reilly to be certain that it is a BLP violation. However, I am familiar enough with BLP to know that it is questionable material at best, and therefore I'm going to insist that there be a strong consensus on this Talk: page for its inclusion before it is restored to the page, and in particular I'm not going to allow its unilateral insertion by an editor with all of 200 edits under his belt. I personally won't be taking part in the discussion regarding its appropriateness; please work it out amongst yourselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't have alot of experience on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that I lack reason. Nor is it a unilateral insertion. Crockspot, a very experienced and reasonable editor, was in favor of its insertion.

What does everyone think about amending it like what Smallbones was talking about? As in the particular effect Soros has on right-wingers, and the things they say about him? Perhaps we can create an edit on the talk pages and insert it once we come to a reasonable consensus on it? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source reports that Soros was under attack by X, Y, and Z, I can see possibly a brief mention of that, without repeating the slanderous charges. --Samiharris 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But they're not slanderous. No court of law has ruled that they are; O'Reilly has not been sued for saying what he said. Any amendment should include something of what was said, perhaps a brief summary, or else it's not worth putting it. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Smear" is probably a better term. No newspaper has covered this, and I don't see why Wikipedia should help O'Reilly smear Soros. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, I am really trying to understand your argument here in good faith, and how it would apply to other situations. What I am getting is that if Media Matters reports and comments on something that Rush Limbaugh says, and no other reliable source reports on Media Matters' report, then that Media Matters report should be removed from any BLP article. Is that right? Or, if Howard Kurtz publishes a story in the New York Times that is critical of someone, and no other newspaper picks up and reports secondarily on the Kurtz story, then the Kurtz story cannot be used in a BLP article negatively, is that also right? The problem with this argument is that you are treating O'Reilly as a primary source. The O'Reilly Factor is a notable commentary show (highest rated on cable as a matter of fact), and Fox News itself is considered a reliable secondary source. If you contest Fox as a reliable secondary source, then I am assuming you would support the removal of all Fox News cites from wikipedia. Is that what you are suggesting? I'm off to visit the in-laws, will look for your reply to these questions when I return tonight or tomorrow. - Crockspot 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We're simply reporting that there was a major criticism made by a major individual. Newspapers don't print what Michael Moore says either; nonetheless, what Moore says is worthy of being on Wikipedia. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was a major criticism made by a major individual, why didn't any newspapers cover it? — goethean ॐ 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this with you Goethean; if you don't think O'Reilly is a major individual then you are blind. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean that it was a smear, that it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to perpetuate such accusations, and that doing so would be contrary to BLP as previously discussed.--Samiharris 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have reverted. This is NOT a blp violation. Take it up on the noticeboard if you disagree. I will state a brief case if you do, then recuse myself from further discussion at the noticeboard as a patroller. I would also point out that Gamaliel did not state an opinion that this was a blp violation, nor remove it himself. Having worked with him quite a bit, that tells me that he does not find it to be a blp violation, so he is keeping out of this particular aspect of the dispute. - Crockspot 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed it. This accusation is patently absurd on its face - O'Reilly's political agenda is blatantly clear. Uncounted billions of dollars are pumped into the political system every year by wealthy individuals and major corporations, through campaign donations and lobbying efforts. The argument that Soros alone is exerting "excessive influence" is thus utterly ludicrous. I suggest that if O'Reilly wants to be seen as a crusader for clean politics, he start closer to home - with some big Republican donors, perhaps? FCYTravis 19:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Travis, I might remind you that it is not about your opinion of what O'Reilly is reporting. Not is it about O'Reilly's hypocrisy for not going after Republican donors. You are diverting from the issue when you say these things.

You are also diverting when you say that the accusation is absurd on it's face, that "O'Reilly's political agenda is clear." Because another thing you should be reminded of is that this is in a "Criticism" section. It has not been stated as fact in the encyclopedia. Nobody is trying to mislead Wikipedia's resders. What IS being attempted is to report that a major and well known critic, Bill O'Reilly, criticized Soros. And, in fact, this is not the only instance that he's criticized him. He has done it several times on his program, and has even devoted an entire section of his book to Soros in "Culture Warrior." In fact, the whole premise of the book is based on the alleged manipulation of the media from Soros and others like him.

O'Reilly has even gone on Oprah and slammed Soros.

So it is indisputable that O'Reilly is the biggest critic of Soros. Yet, after your edit, the name Bill O'Reilly happens to be missing from the "Criticism" section. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BLPN case reopened

I have reopened Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#George Soros for further review in light of what I believe is a misuse of WP:BLP to force a whitewash of this subject. - Crockspot 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I would suggest that if anyone is showing an ideological bias and agenda on this issue it is yourself. I asked for the intervention of an administrator who had already intervened on this page, and he made his determination and removed the material. You appear to be hell-bent on including material that appears to be false, given the denial by Media Matters, and also highly damaging to the subject matter. Removing of such contentious materials is mandated by BLP. Bill O'Reilly is an opinion commentator on Fox News and his allegations concerning Soros as some kind of one-man Politburo are unsubstantiated and reflect his well-known political views. Smears of this kind have no place in the encyclopedia, and repeating them here would be harmful. In BLP it states that the rule is to "do no harm" but you appear hell-bent to do so.--Samiharris 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please roll your tone back a notch. Gamaliel is also an admin that was called here, and he did not see a violation, or he would have removed it. I am asking for more opinions from the BLP crew, because until there is a clear consensus there that I am wrong, I am operating under the assumption that I am clearly right. I don't take such stands idly. And I would encourage you not to personally attack me with accusations of tenditious editing in a forum where I have already recused myself. - Crockspot 16:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC) PS, I am going to be off-wiki for the rest of the day. - Crockspot 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

MEDIA MATTERS? MEDIA MATTERS? Media Matters is an objective NPOV source, but O'Rielly is an "opinion commentator" that "smears" poor George Soros. This is a great difficulty with Wikipedia- editors that would not know NPOV if it jumped up and smacked them in the face. The Daily Kos, Salon, Media Matters are all reliable, unbiased sources but Fox News is just unacceptable as a citation. PULEEZE! Ursasapien (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to using Media Matters to source O'Reilly's comments as well. See this diff of discussion in another article about how MM and other blogs slightly twist their quoting of obscure, hard-to-locate articles in order to smear someone like Fred Thompson. When then can't find anything else to smear him with, they put something ambiguous out there to intentionally give the wrong impression. This tactic, which was backed up by another blog, gave several Wiki editors the impression that they were adding a sourced quote of Thompson's to that article. It was not until another editor ponied up three dollars to purchase the article before it was clear that he never uttered those words. - Crockspot 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So your stance is that we should include O'Reilly's smears but not Media Matters'. — goethean ॐ 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My stance is that we should source the Fox News transcript for quotes of Bill O'Reilly, and not Media Matters, who has just proven that they are not above using obfuscation in order to put words into someone;s mouth. Media Matters should only be used to source what Media Matters says, not anyone else. - Crockspot 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And afterall, isn't it ironic how the whole point of O'Reilly's argument is that Media Matters is unreliable, yet, in order for this very argument to appear in WP, it can't come from O'Reilly, but instead must come from Media Matters? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Bizarropedia, where reliable is unreliable, and vice versa. - Crockspot 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bellows' revert

Sorry Goethean, you lost that one as it is clearly notable and covered in the news.

Citation, please. Media Matters is not "the news". — goethean ॐ 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it for awhile and see what others have to say. Smallbones 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, Goethean, I don't believe it has to be in an actual newspaper for it to be notable. It is notable because O'Reilly is notable and O'Reilly is Soros's number one critic, and this is perhaps, his number one criticism.

But just since you asked here's the link to the Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-conway16may16,0,3767872.story?coll=la-opinion-center |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a short op-ed piece (not a reliable source) on a different topic, which contains a single, off-hand reference to Soros. The linked article does not constitute evidence that O'Reilly's criticism is notable. — goethean ॐ 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It talks about O'Reilly mentioning the Soros/ Media Matters connection--you convienently forgot to mention that. But like I said, Goethean, it's a moot point anyways. Nobody's going to agree with your criteria here for insertion, as O'Reilly is clearly notable. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly he is, and that's why there is a Wikipedia article about him. But not everything that he says is notable. And it all doesn't have to be enshrined at Wikipedia. We can judge the notability of his accusations based on the (lack of) coverage of them. — goethean ॐ 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Bellowed and general comment by R. Baley:

The latimes link is the best you've got as far as press coverage conveying notability? Sure O'Reilly himself is notable, as the fact that we have an article on him would indicate, but (agreeing with goethean here) not every accusation he makes is notable. The LATimes link itself is evidence as to the unreliability of the substance to his accusations. There is no way that a peer-reviewed (anonymously 2-times) paper could hide the source of their funding if it had been affiliated with a $5 million dollar Soros grant. For a paper to be peer reviewed, they would have to declare sources of funding/support, and to hide or obfuscate that would bring their paper and indeed their academic integrity into question (not that Bill worries about this while insinuating otherwise). By his insinuation concerning the two professors and grad student being funded by Soros and the peer reviewed paper indicating differently, O'Reilly has demonstrated that his claims are unreliable in this area, and that he will make them without any underlying or supporting proof (disclaimer: I haven't read the paper, I'm just assuming Conway, Grabe, and Grieves couldn't get away with a blatently false claim, regarding funding, in a paper as major as the LATimes).

In summary: (1) O'Reilly himself is notable, but (2) not every claim/accusation he makes is notable (this particular claim wrt Soros' biography isn't) (3) regarding Soros (given the LATimes oped just submitted) O'Reilly's claims seem unreliable, or lacking evidence, in this area as well, and (4) all of this (O'Reilly himself is notable but has an unreliable record in this area, dubious notability of the claim, and lack of underlying evidence) has to be considered within the context of our BLP policies (which I thought this addition probably violated before I read the LATimes piece) and therefore I think the paragraph should be removed.

R. Baley 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly has critized Soros in books, on television constantly, on other programs: in short any chance he gets. And this is the statement that pretty much sums up all other criticisms; namely, that O'Reilly believes that Soros is controlling the media to further his agenda. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Did a few google news searches: Sixteen hits at Media Matters, two good hits at the NewYorker, And all the way from down under, and a daily in Israel, and tons of Fox and Factor hits. I guess it's a big secret that O'Reilly said some things about Soros. I think it's ironic that more people probably watched O'Reilly trash Soros at one time or another on TV (without the benefit of a rebuttal MediaMatters link), than will ever read this article for as long as it still qualifies as a biography of a living person. - Crockspot 00:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then cite one of them rather than the FOX NEWS transcript. — goethean ॐ 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was told unequivocally by an admin and former arbitrator that if the material went back in without "strong consensus" that "stern action" would be taken. I will take that warning literally, and do not intend to sully my perfect block log over this. Your flip-flopping does not give me a warm enough fuzzy about the consensus here. - Crockspot 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Flip-flopping

What is wrong with you? — goethean ॐ 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're being inconsistent in your stances now, and I'm not betting a block on your consistency. As for what is the matter with me, I ask WTF is the matter with you? Who are you calling a "right-winger" in your last edit summary to the article? Is that supposed to be a personal attack? - Crockspot 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I am being perfectly consistent. I said that the criticism should not be included because there was no independant coverage of it. You linked to independant coverage of it, so I said that you should cite those links in the text if you think that it establishes notability. For that, you --- engaging in blatant incivility --- say that I am "flip-flopping", which to a Republican is probably the worst insult imaginable, what with the connection to the very successful smearing of John Kerry by Republicans in 2004. I am not going to add your links to the article, because I don't believe that Wikipedia should assist O'Reilly in smearing Soros. But you have made it clear that you do. — goethean ॐ 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You make several faulty assumptions here, the first being that I am a Republican. I don't belong to any political party. And as I already explained to you, I am barred from reinserting that information, under penalty of block, without a "clear consensus". Your fighting it tooth and nail, then making a minor concession is not what I call clear consensus, and could be viewed as you attemting to bait me into getting myself blocked. Nice try. I WAS born at night, but not LAST night. - Crockspot 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Media Matters is what's currently cited. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be. A real news source should be. And the FOX NEWS transcript should not be cited for the significance of the remarks, but can be cited for the text of the remarks themselves. — goethean ॐ 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right wingers? Where did you get that idea?

And Goethean, I could be wrong, but it looks to me like you're trying to exclude this on the basis of whatever argument you can conjure from nothing at the time. First, it was WP:BLP...the it was a sourcing issue because you claim Fox News is not reliable, when the source came from Media Matters, you're argument became O'Reilly's not notable...when that was shown to be wrong, your argument became "the story's not newsworthy, there's no coverage"...once you saw the extensive news coverage, your argument became..you youhave to source it from this other coverage because Media Matters is not a news org..

Well, Goethean, let's try a new path here. Instead of continuing to argue about this, why don't you show us 1) That WIKIPEDIA does not consider Foxnews to be a reliable source (because I'd like to source it from Foxnews still) 2) That WIKIPEDIA does not consider Media Matters to be a valid source. I say WP in caps to emphasize that it's not your opinion of what's valid source material, it's WIKIPEDIA's. I want to see some sort of precedent set from an arbitration ruling.

Until you do, I think it's only fair to put the edit back into the article. Other editors want to see it in, and, at this point, the burden of proof rests on just you. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that someone is either trying to make a point with me, or I owe a big apology to Blaxthos. Crockspot 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Crockspot's links) the Australian article is behind a firewall, as are the New Yorker articles. The israelinsider link is to an op-ed pieces, not a reliable source. MediaMatters (which responds to lots of non-notable things) and Fox's marketing of their own shows don't strike me as establishing notability. As far as I can see there has not been any reporting on O'Reilly's comments that would show them to be notable. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than have an edit war...

let's leave it out, for the time being. Smallbones 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Goethean is policy shopping and is consistently ignoring our arguments? He's no longer engaging in discussion and is simply trying to impose his will on the page.

However, I'll take the high road here and leave it out for now. Perhaps Goethean will meanwhile rejoin the civilized world and engage in discussion. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bellowed, on the other hand, is being a model Wikipedia editor. He does not edit war. He has no agenda but to show the truth that Bill O'Reilly has proclaimed on the eminently trustworthy FOXNEWS about the dirty commie Jew George Soros. — goethean ॐ 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the second time you've used the "dirty commie Jew" comment. Exactly what the hell are you trying to imply with that remark? I think your head is starting to explode. And are you aware that O'Reilly has a syndicated column that is printed in dozens of major newspapers every week? Apparently it isn't only Fox News that sees fit to publish his words. I could cite quite a few of those columns that criticize Soros, but why would I bother to take the time to format them up when you would just invent a new reason to exclude them. - Crockspot 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess our respective perceptions of the tone of Soros' critics differ. — goethean ॐ 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by engaging in discussion. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed that I was characterizing your actions with the same amount of good faith with which you characterized mine. Too subtle, I guess. — goethean ॐ 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, you stated that you believed, on principal, that it was a WP:BLP violation. Yet the same thing existed on Bush's page from Moore, to which you responded: "I'll remove LIES from Soros's page but not FACTS that come from Michael Moore." This proved to me that you have an agenda and didn't actually care about the policy that you claimed to defend. I don't need to assume good faith when there's evidence that shows me you clearly have an agenda here.

And since you call my motives into question, let me just say that I don't even have a problem with Soros. I don't hate the guy and I definately don't think he's evil. I think Soros believes he's doing a good thing, but he also does cause Black Wednesdays, he does move on to other countries and attempt to do the same thing, he does fund many far-left orgs that do, in turn, fund MMFA. And there is alot of evidence, even his own personal admission, that he will do whatever it takes to further his agenda. I think criticisms that come from major public figures need to be addressed, I think the hypocrisy of not allowing a criticism from O'Reilly on Soros's page yet allowing anything and everything on O'Reilly's page needs to be addressed, I think Goethean's constant change of argument needs to be addressed, I think Goethean's refusal to acknowledge the criticism as notable needs to be addressed, and, if we address all this and still have a problem, we need to take this to arbitration. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then take it to arbitration. My guess is that they'll not take kindly to your constant prating about my bias rather than discussing the content of the article. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Prating about bias works two ways; and don't you want to discuss this and try to work it out? I still think there's hope here and we could find some sort of common ground and make some sort of compromise.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there should be no edit war. This material is simply unacceptable and should be left out under the principle of "do no harm" set forth in BLP.--Samiharris 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But not if it is a notable criticism and results in whitewashing.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A claim which has not been proven. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Willie Peter" = sockpuppet of banned user "Joehazelton

Banned user "Joehazelton" [1] has created a sockpuppet account[2] to attempt to get around 3RR on this page. "Willie Peter" has been created on 6/21 solely to revert edits on the Soros page.

Please keep an eye out for any future disruptions by him on this page. -- Eleemosynary 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)