Talk:George Soros/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

American??

Why does the introduction says he is american? Why not hungarian??... Has he lost hungarian citzenship, or something??... Even so... -- NIC1138 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's clear the he's an American citizen and lives most of his time in or near New York City. So he is American. As far as his Hungarian citizenship, I don't know, but suspect that it has never been taken away from him. I have known a Hungarian-American and a Hungarian-Canadian, and both consider themselves to have dual citizenship. Whether there is a treaty or not, I don't know. I do know that when a person takes the oath of citizenship in the US that he renounces "all other alliegences" but that this is generally not taken at face value in the case of dual citizenship (at least when there is a treaty involved). In the intro saying "Hungarian American" might seem redundant since it also says that he was born in Budapest. If you have better info (and documentation)...

Smallbones 07:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can be both American and Hungarian simultaneously, I gather George would prefer to be listed as American. BTW Geore Soros is a great guy. --Swissbanker44 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please change the link in the second paragraph of the Biography section from Hungarian to Hungarian. Thanks! --Milton 07:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the second looks the same, but it is actually a link to Hungarian language. Sorry if that caused any confusion. Milton 07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Milton 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrap up this mess? Let's try a straw poll

I'll call for a decision here, since we must have exhausted all they we have to say by now. I think it's fair for me to make this call, since I pretty much opened it up with an invitation to disucss how to deal with what seems like a typical problem in this article How to deal with a non-factual criticism by a notable critic?

I see 1 clear rule that we have to follow (as well as standard Wikipedia policy): that here we have to have a strong consensus if we are to include this material. I also see 3 clear alternatives and will ask for a 4th from Crockspot

1. We include a very brief statement of O'Reilly's criticism and a very brief denial from mediamatters. This is essentially the bit that was inserted and reverted several times.
2. We include a brief statement of the critics of O'Rielly's criticisms This essentially would quote reliable sources saying that they think O'Reilly is smearing Soros. Quoting O'Reilly or Fox as if it were reliable, would not be allowed.
3. We don't include anything that O'Reilly says about Soros, until we can be sure that it is factual and that O'Reilly is reliable.

I personally would go along with number 1, but understand that others don't agree, since some readers might take O'Reilly's criticisms at face value without looking further. I'd go along with number 2, but doubt that we could get a consensus there. So that seems to leave number 3, or whatever Crockspot comes up with. Let's settle this with a straw poll and move on. Smallbones 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that all viable alternatives have been presented. I would go with, concerning O'Reilly, mentioning that he has criticized Soros but not mentioning his unproven and denied assertions concerning Soros and Media Matters.--Samiharris 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I still favor the tentatively agreed upon insertion, which is basically: Bill O'Reilly has been a frequent critic of Soros., followed by several footnotes of mutually acceptable reliable sources, showing that there has indeed been frequent criticism by O'Reilly. This is a single sentence, makes no judgments about the truth or falseness of O'Reilly's claims, nor even goes into what those claims actually are. I do object to the characterization that O'Reilly's claims are not factual. He has published "investigative reports" laying out his facts, in books, on TV (and transcripts on Fox website), and in his weekly syndicated column that is published nationally in newspapers. (Again, no judgement as to whether they are valid or false here), but we seem to be outright disallowing anything directly by O'Reilly, so we apparently cannot source that. But that does not mean we can make the "non-factual" assumption out of hand. Are there any reliable sources that report that his claims are non-factual? - Crockspot 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) additional Since the tentatively agreed-upon bit I mention above seems to have gone under the bus, I will go with #1 - Crockspot 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There haven't even been any reliable sources to report on the matter. Your Nation articles are from 2004. The Washington Post did cover it, but only in one paragraph in a 2004 article on the '04 election, a topic which this article has already covered, and most of the rest are editorial pieces. Here is the entire excerpt from The Progressive article that is available to me through accessmylibrary.com:

From The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: "Where does George Soros have all his money? Do you know? Do you know where George Soros, the big leftwing loon who's financing all these smear [web]sites, do you know where his money is? Curacao. Curacao. They ought to hang this Soros guy."

Given the low level of this discourse, maybe it unsurprising that nobody is covering it. — goethean ॐ 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the google link you provide is to the current google news search, which only reports hits in the past month or so. Try a google archive search, you get many more hits from before last month. But I'm sure you already know that. - Crockspot 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Option #3, for reasons I've already stated above.Giovanni33 19:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with option #1. As long as the material states it is O'Reilly's opinion and not presented as fact makes it fine to include. I have seen this precedent in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly with the same issues. Another good reason to include it is for purposes of presentation. It would be better to have it in and worded properly within the right context (NPOV) rather than keep on reverting random POV loaded entries from anon editors. MrMurph101 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Option #3. Criticism has not been shown to be notable. — goethean ॐ 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I can't vote until this option is covered: A brief mention of the fact that O'Reilly has criticized Soros and also listing a couple of watered down criticisms, followed by several second party sources like the WPost and the LA Times. This is the option I will vote for, even though I obviously want option number 1. But I'm willing to compromise in order to get something done here. And keep in mind, there is a NPOV tag that won't go away until several of us are satisfied. So please keep that in mind.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And what I mean by "watered down" criticism is something like "O'Reilly has criticized Soros for a range of things: from his financial affairs to his political activism." No mention of funding media matters or funding U. of Indiana studies or anything like that. I think that this is a fair option, it has many legit sources, and I don't see why everyone can't agree on it. Let's make it an option and re-vote. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that option 1 is right. I think that the criticisms should be mentioned, and given weight or prominence in to the degree that O'Reilly makes them important. I also think that the responses by Soros or related agencies should be presented immediately after. I do not think that the criticisms nor the rebuttals should take up a huge amount of room. One paragraph for each side (that is two paragraphs) would probably be too much. I do NOT think that the criticisms must be proven beyond some shadow of a doubt. O'Reilly probably makes his case and offers evidence in some degree. That's enough. The rebuttals also do not have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. One caveat: if there is no rebuttal, the criticism should not be listed unless it is widely attested to by reliable sources. Otherwise the article uses criticisms as a kind of supporting propaganda. --Blue Tie 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my previous comment, it seems that Option #3 covers my position on this. To correct what some others have said: what O'Reilly says is not "opinion" at all. He is making factual allegations concerning Soros that have not been substantiated and have been denied.--Samiharris 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This may just be semantics here but a factual allegation that has not been substantiated is, by default, an opinion and should be addressed as such until it is confirmed or disproven. Right now it is just word against word and the content in this situation should be presented as such. When you allege something it is your belief about it. In other words, I disagree with the correction. MrMurph101 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like we've got 5 votes for option number 1 (myself, Crockspot, MrMurph, Smallbones?, and Blue Tie) and 3 votes for number 3? (Sami, goethean, giovani)

What does everyone want to do from here? Should we re-insert the Bill O'Reilly edit, or should we re-vote with another option?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! We just had an edit-conflict. (What else can happen?) I'll reinsert the text that I was trying to insert, with no contradiction intended toward Bellowed.

By my count that is 4 for number 1 and (leaving out my vote) 3 for number 3 (do not include O'Reilly's comment in the article). Since this is not a clear consensus for including the material I'll cast my vote for number 3, making it an exact tie.

May I suggest leaving it out for at least a month? If anybody (after calming down) wants to come back and suggest (on this page) a short, calm, NPOV version of the single paragraph, I'd personally not be against seeing if there was a consensus to include at that time. In the meantime, let's ask to have the page unprotected, and remember that one borderline paragraph (one way or the other) is not the end of the world. And my apologies to all for my role in helping to get this debate started. Smallbones 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But I was rather starting to enjoy this endless, semi-civil discussion that goes nowhere. :) - Crockspot 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones- Realistically, do you think that as soon as this page is unprotected that we're not going to have insertions? Fact is, we're going to have all kinds of people come by and make edits, maybe even ones that are far worse than the one we've debated.

Why don't we revote with better options? I think we can all agree on the option that I laid out. Let's make that an option and re-vote so we can get something done here. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a stalemate here. Maybe a third opinion and we'll all accept whatever decision is made. MrMurph101 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about leaving it in for at least a month instead of taking it out and otherwise doing that same process that smallbones discusses? --Blue Tie 02:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote "This kind of material needs a strong consensus to be included, not excluded." (from Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)). I think this has been said a couple more times in equally direct terms, and I think everybody has agreed with it. BTW, I've said a couple of times at the beginning of this dispute, that there would be situations where I'd go along with #1, but now I'll repeat to be clear. I'll only go along with inclusion if there is a strong concensus to include. Smallbones 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New vote poll with new options

Several editors, including myself, have expressed that what we really need to vote on is a compromised inclusion, not the old debate of inclusion vs. non-inclusion. Crockspot and I had been working on an inclusion and here's something that we talked about that I personally liked alot:

Bill O'Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Soros for everything from his financial activities to his political activism.

Then we quote a bunch of sources. We can vote on those later. First thing is voting on this sentence. Please vote Yes or No. If no, please express why and what possibly you would like to change. Because, look, we have to include SOMETHING we can all mostly agree on. Otherwise, the article will always have a NPOV tag on it. But I don't see why we can't all, for the most part, be able to agree on this sentence. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, look, we have to include SOMETHING we can all mostly agree on. Otherwise, the article will always have a NPOV tag on it.

I don't participate in votes polls that are based on idle threats. Please see Smallbones' bolded comment above. — goethean ॐ 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by that statement, goethean, is that if you don't like the compromise that I offered and vote no, then please make a suggestion because something must get done here. And the bolded comment above has to do with BLP issues. This is a compromise that clearly has no BLP violation since it's very neutrally worded. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Votes

My Vote: YES. I believe that while it leaves out important details of what O'Reilly says about Soros it does reflect the fact that O'Reilly, a major cultural figure, has criticized Soros numerous times for numerous things. And, to me, that's what is most important. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll say YES also. Presented neutrally and concise. MrMurph101 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. YES. --Christofurio 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say yes or no to this, because part of the proposal is "quote the sources." What does that mean? Inserting in the article quotes that contain smears? Then I say "no."--Samiharris 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I say yes, with one modification to the wording: Bill O'Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Soros on issues such as his financial activities and his political activism. I also think "cite the sources" is what was meant, rather than "quote the sources". We were trying to avoid a lot of quotes, but we do need to cite several sources. - Crockspot 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cite the sources is definately what I meant, not quote the sources. Thanks for that Crockspot. And I also like your wording better. Thanks. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you plan to cite? — goethean ॐ 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking about just as neutral of sources as possible. At first, I wanted just one citation from Foxnews and the rest to be WPost, La Times, Chicago Sun Times...but, honestly, I really think that we ought to just make this thing work and quote stuff that everyone agrees on. So no Foxnews. I'm thinking along the lines of WPost, LA Times, MSNBC, Washington Monthly, etc...But like I say, we can iron those details out later. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No we can't, as far as I'm concerned. The sources are an integral part of the proposal. — goethean ॐ 14:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking MSNBC, The Nation, Washington Monthly, LA Times, and the Huffington Post, all pretty moderate to pretty left sources.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't believe that your links have established notability, I won't be participating in this poll until the proposal's sources are cited. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the failure or refusal to cite specific sources, I'm tenatively voting no. — goethean ॐ 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unequivocal no. O'Reilly's campaign to deflect all criticism of himself by linking it to Soros (even going as far to falsely claim Soros finances organizations such as Media Matters) does not merit mention in an encyclopedia article. The idea that O'Reilly is "a major cultural figure" is laughable. Eleemosynary 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See "Sources for discussion" section above. We have already established that A)there is a dispute, and b)the dispute has been noted by reliable secondary sources, including, but not limited to George Soros himself in an interview with Neil Cavuto. - Crockspot 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I say yes, it meets the standards of WP:NPOV. --Blue Tie 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think many people are missing the point: There is not a strong consensus to include the O'Reilly material. Given that there is no way we can include the material. O'Reilly's claims are simply not factual, e.g. the claim that Soros funded Media Matters - as far as anyone can tell, he didn't; e.g. 2 O'Reilly's producer claims that Soros funded the Indiana U. study, as far as anybody can tell, he didn't - These claims are not facts and can't be included. What might be included is simply that O'Reilly is making a bunch of non-factual claims - this would need to be documented from Non-O'Reilly sources. And the only question is whether the notability of the critic, makes the criticism noteworthy and that this is more important than whether some (possibly just a few) readers will mistake this inclusion for factual material from O'Reilly. This is where the strong consensus rule comes in - it looks like a judgement call to me, wiki biggies say strong consensus needed for inclusion, no strong consensus here (count the "votes" again - nobody is changing there viewpoint) - to me this is the end of the story and time to move on. Smallbones 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Smallbones, I think there is strong consensus to include this material. Did you read the most recent statement that we're voting on here? It reads: Bill O'Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Soros on issues such as his financial activities and his political activism. Goethean hasn't voted and Samiharris said no under the belief that we would be quoting O'Reilly (which it is not) So I've counted 5-1. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly Bellowed. You forgot to count the dimpled chads. :) - Crockspot 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA, very very funny. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones that there is no strong consensus to include the previously excluded material. I continue to oppose and will not "vote" in straw polls that could be interpreted as allowing inclusion of factual allegations concerning Soros that appear to be false. There should be no back door to that kind of material in Wikipedia.--Samiharris 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sami, by your last edit it seems as though you may not have seen what the proposed new edit was. It is:Bill O'Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Soros on issues such as his financial activities and his political activism.

Let me point out that there are no allegations in the proposed edit that aren't widely known. Soros engages in financial activities--this is widely known. And Soros engages in political activism--also widely known. We're simply stating that O'Reilly is criticizing him for these very well known activities, and everything else is being left unsaid. We're not dropping any bombshells here, nobody's saying anything here about a connection to Media Matters or the Indiana study--all we're trying to do now is note that O'Reilly is a critic of Soros--and when the most famous critic happens to not even have his name in a criticism section...something's wrong. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is no strong consensus to exclude the O'Reilly material either. I think that the fact that O'Reilly is a critic is appropriate and I agree with what Bellow has said as a minimum entry. The details of O'Reilly's criticisms should also be included though I would not want to see too much detail. Incidentally, it is not necessary that O'Reilly's criticisms be correct, only that they exist and can be documented. I have noticed that there are some editors here who will remove any mention of well cited and appropriate information about soros -- when it is critical. This is not appropriate per Npov. --Blue Tie 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sami, do you think that the allegations about O'Reilly's childhood home which turned out to be false should not be included in the O'Reilly article? If the O'Reilly criticism (or mention that he criticizes Soros) should not be mentioned because of a denial, even though not confirmed either way, then neither should the childhood home issue. I think they should both be included as long as they are presented in a neutral way. It seems better to put the content in then to "sweep things under the rug" so to speak. If there is no "strong" consensus to include these things, then it should apply consistently across the board no matter who or what we are talking about regardless of personal feelings. MrMurph101 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I agree that it's unfair that O'Reilly's allegations and his quotes aren't being allowed on Soros's page. If I had my way, every major criticism O'Reilly has said about Soros would be on his page and it would also be sourced from Foxnews. That's certainly the equal treatment everyone else recieves on Wikipedia---ever seen Rudy Giuliani's page? However, I think I should reiterate that I'm no longer fighting for the inclusion of O'Reilly's quotes, and I also think that we all should. I only want the fact that he has criticized Soros to be listed. I think that fighting for O'Reilly's quotes is a lost cause. We're outnumbered. I know it isn't fair, but there's nothing we can do about it. However, I don't see why any reasonable person wouldn't go along with the proposed edit which is simple and very neutral and makes no allegations whatsoever. And let's not jump to conclusions that Sami is against that. Based on his last response, I really think he might not have known the exact sentence being proposed here. Let's give him a chance.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no strong consensus to include anything about O'Reilly on the Soros page. Nor has it been established that there is any sort of encyclopedic-worthly "dispute" between Soros and O'Reilly. O'Reilly's invective does not a "dispute" make. Eleemosynary 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So far I've counted 5-1, with the sole opponent being you. And several very major secondary sources are what make the fact that O'Reilly constantly criticizes Soros encyclopedic-worthy. Read MONGO's reasoning to your revert on the Bill Moyers page. It's practically the same issue, only with Soros, O'Reilly's criticisms are even better documented.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to re-count; your math is incorrect. Both Smallbones and Samiharris agree there is no strong consensus to include the O'Reilly info. And Goethean is holding off until you specifically indicate the cites. You also seem to be engaging in a bit of disingenuous, rather patronizing behavior by claiming (to no one in particular) that Samiharris needs to be "give[n] a chance" before he arrives at what you feel is the correct conclusion. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts, nor your own math. The current numbers are 5 for, 4 against (with Goethean tentative as you have not indicated which cites you wish to use). And that's hardly consensus. As for the Moyers page... no, the O'Reilly quotes don't belong there either. And that will be addressed soon, once more editors weigh in.

And I'd like to call your (and other editors') attention to your above statement: "If I had my way, every major criticism O'Reilly has said about Soros would be on his page and it would also be sourced from Foxnews. That's certainly the equal treatment everyone else recieves [sic] on Wikipedia---ever seen Rudy Giuliani's page?" At best, this is mere hyperbole. At worst, it's yet another example of the tiresome "Wikipedia is UNFAIR to conservatives!!!" meme which seems to fester in certain chat rooms, assert itself on Talk Pages with bluster (but no evidence), and evaporate upon exposure to editors of wildly disparate political stripe, or no stripe at all. Why, after reading your statement, should any editor assume your quest to add O'Reilly's comments to Soros's page comes from a sincere desire to make a well-wrought encyclopedia, rather than to settle a partisan score? Why, in short, should anyone assume good faith with you? After all, you've made it clear you're not assuming it. [1] Eleemosynary 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not in favor of including that material.--Samiharris 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then, it is 5-2, still strong consensus. I'm not sure about Smallbones, but even 5-3 is pretty strong consensus. I'm going to request that the page be unprotected so that the edit can be made.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, it will be reverted, as the vote is 5 for, 4 against (with Goethean today having updated his vote to a tentative no as you have, despite several requests, refused to indicate which cites you wish to use). Please re-read my above comments. Please stop ignoring the above comments by other users, and engaging in disruptive edits. Please also stop posting untruths on the request for unblock page, as you did here:[2] Eleemosynary 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Bellowed, please stop misstating the facts.--Samiharris 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also request that you please do not ask for unprotection until there is indeed a strong consensus. Your protection request was declined. At this point, given the intent on the part of some editors to insert objectionable material, it would seem that protection is needed more than ever.--Samiharris 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong consensus was what was required to insert the old O'Reilly material since it contained a charge that you guys said violated WP:BLP, but now that this new material does not violate WP:BLP, I guess we're entitled to add it, especially since the vote was 5 to a weak 4 with Goethean tenative and Smallbones more on the non-commital side. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still stating untruths, and fooling no one. Your above comment could be characterized as trolling[3], and the frequency with which you are misstating facts is bordering on vandalism. No consensus to include. --Eleemosynary 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, as evidenced by the refusal of administrators to unprotect the page.--Samiharris 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<slanderous attack deleted>

I strongly object to the slanderous comments from FireBird1138. They should be deleted. The Talk page of this article should not be used as a venting forum for people who dislike Soros.--Samiharris 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've deleted it. Those interested can check the diff. Eleemosynary 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)