Talk:George Soros/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Would this be acceptable?

Ok, this article is still locked and it would be good to come up with some agreement. Based on Eleemosynary's arguments on Matt Drudge, how about we include the criticism, but not have O'Reilly's name mentioned, just a source linked to him and a source reporting it. Does that seem reasonable? MrMurph101 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with basing something on the arguments of that editor is that it depends on which subject we are talking about. Check his arguments on Talk:Bill Moyers compared to Talk:Matt Drudge, and you may go crosseyed. What's that saying? Crosswired for our viewing pleasure? - Crockspot 04:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack (not to mention projection) by Crockspot noted. --Eleemosynary 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I almost like it. The problem I have is that the criticisms are a sort of opinion. And opinions should be attributed. If O'Reilly is the source of the opinion he should get the credit or blame. But I think your approach is a good compromise otherwise.--Blue Tie 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is a doubly bad idea, because it introduces weaselling. That the person making the attacks is a popular cable personality is the only possibly justifiable reason for including all this nonsense in the first place, so it is imperative that he's tied to directly if it to be included. Chris Cunningham 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered the fact that "Weasel words" might be brought up but that can be avoided by not using them. You can take O'Reilly's name out and still avoid them. I agree that criticism should be attributed but I'm just looking for a happy medium so we can move on. Eleemosynary's main objection seems to be with O'Reilly's name mentioned in the article so I proposed it being taken out. By the way, the use of the words "attacks" and "nonsense" are subjective and many editors here selectively apply them in regards to different subjects (I'm not accusing you of being that way) so I usually discount stuff like that. A prime example, going over Matt Drudge, includes an ad hominem from Keith Olbermann. Is that an attack or nonsense? I'm not crusading to eliminate that but those objecting to the O'Reilly criticism/attack/pontification/opinion/mean-spiritediness/whatever you want to call it over here are not making much of an effort in regards to that inclusion. I'm just looking for some consistency of application here. We should work toward that instead of fighting over these issues. MrMurph101 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you can see that Bellowed and I attempted to resolve this with civil debate, but we hit a brick wall, which then fell over on us. Whenever we thought we had come to an agreement in principle, a new voice would appear, or an old voice would dig in their heels, and we would be back to square one. One would think it was a waste of time, but having all the arguments by the various editors on record will prove useful in the end. - Crockspot 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We're all free to spend our free time editing whatever articles we like, and my apparent failure to spend my own protecting Matt Drudge is of no consequence to the integrity of this article. If consistency is to be applied, it should be applied the other way, by ensuring that untrue or otherwise damaging statements are kept off of other articles as they are this one.

I repeat that the only reason O'Reilly's crackpot conspiracy theories could possibly be held notable in light of the serious holes in logic and evidence contained within is that they're aired on a highly-watched cable TV channel, and therefore it is imperative that they are tied to this claim of notability in the article if included. Chris Cunningham 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that O'Reilly has written several best-selling books, which devote chapters to Soros. The fact that allegations have been published in books is being used on Drudge as a reason why it should be included. If we can hold an equal standard, I will change my stance here to one of exclusion, but not if the same editors here also wanting exclusion are pushing for inclusion on the Drudge article. - Crockspot 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for anything on the Drudge article. Were I actively saying one thing here and doing another there then yes, that should be brought up, but simple inactivity (and last I checked I was completely inactive on over a million Wikipedia pages) shouldn't be used to indicate I'm not trying hard enough to maintain NPOV, or whatever the idea was. Were I to consider the Drudge article worth my free time I'd hope I'd apply the same standards of fairness to it as I do to this article; nobody should be slandered on Wikipedia articles. Chris Cunningham 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to sound like I was hammering on you, but there are editors at both this article and the Drudge article who are pushing in opposite directions. Some may accuse me of doing just that, but I see a distinction between the notability and tone of this criticism, compared to the criticism that is being pushed there. I think the criticism here has been well enough sourced secondarily, comes from a very notable person, has been published in books, newspaper columns, and on TV, and can be presented neutrally enough, without any derogatory tone. At Drudge, we have a much less notable person calling Drudge a "nasty little faggot" in an op ed piece. Am I the only one who sees a disconnect here? - Crockspot 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem with other editors on Drudge is all very well, but it doesn't indicate that it's this article which is at fault. And the "criticism" in question on this article takes the form of a series of conspiracy theories and hyperbolic insults which are designed specifically to damage the man's reputation. I can't see how they can be repeated "neutrally enough". This isn't journalism, and we're under no obligation to repeat unfounded allegations or air a person's complaints simply because they enjoy some level of current popular interest. Chris Cunningham 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion that I wanted was simply: "Bill O'Reilly has been a frequent critic of Soros.", followed by several footnoted citations to secondary reporting on the dispute between them, and possibly one citation that went to an O'Reilly piece. No quotes, no characterization of the criticism, just a mention that there is criticism. What is so godawful wrong with that? - Crockspot 21:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Chris Cunningham's above comments again for a cogent explanation. --Eleemosynary 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask what was so necessary about it. To put it mildly, O'Reilly does not exactly wilt away from criticising those politically opposed to him. Were the fact it was coming from O'Reilly generally considered acceptable in itself to be notable enough, half the public figures in the United States would need such things tacked onto their biographies. Where such criticism lacks actual substance, I don't see why it warrants inclusion into the articles of those on the receiving end. To my knowledge it hasn't affected Soros to any extent which might be independently notable, and it therefore doesn't form an important part of Soros's life such that it would warrant inclusion in a standard-length Wikipedia biography. Chris Cunningham 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody brought to my attention the Drudge article, which I just looked at and commented. Though you can't really compare the two situations, I do think that the homosexual innuendo against Drudge is objectionable, not properly sourced and does not belong in the article. However, I was a bit hesitant to exclude an article that used an anti-homosexual expletive (faggot) to describe Drudge as that seemed more like trash talk, as in Anne Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot." It is not of the same caliber as the serious and denied factual allegations being made concerning Soros by O'Reilly. --Samiharris 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how any criticism that involves conspiracy theories belongs in an encylopedia (except in an article about conspiracy theories and the people who promote them). Anything that suggests Soros gets his money from anything but legitimate business activity is pure garbage and should be not mentioned in the article, unless it can be backed up with solid proof, as a opposed to accusations. I did not see the O'Reilly quote, but if that is what it says (the version I saw just called Soros Dr. Evil, which is stupid, but not so bad), it does not belong and O'Reilly does not deserve to be mentioned. However, the quotes that truly are irrelevant and should be stricken is the garbage from Hastert. If you include stuff like that, you might as well quote "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a reliable source as well. So, I vote remove Hastert and do not put in O'Reilly if there are accusations. Criticism of his politics is fine, but not any suggestion that he is part of some sort of conspiracy. I do not agree with his politics at all, but he is no more part of a conspiracy than the AEI or Brookings are. They all just back and promote their own slanted views.Sposer 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think O'Reilly accuses Soros of getting his money from illegitimate sources, I think the character of the criticism more involves who he gives his money to, ie., "left wing" groups, which is not really something that is in dispute. It is disputed that he gave money to Media Matters in particular, but there is no dispute that he gave money to MoveOn and many other left-leaning groups. - Crockspot 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, I do not think the O'Reilly quote is so bad, much as it pains me to say that, although people who make a business of criticism are not notable when they critcize.Sposer 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This ignores the substance of the accusations, though, which is that Soros is secretly funding a left-wing conspiracy. There's no need to source O'Reilly over the non-disputed claims when they're readily admitted to. Chris Cunningham 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a left-wing conspiracy? That he disagrees with the Bush administration? Personally, I cannot stand moveon.org et al, but this is America. If Soros is pushing a Liberal POV, and supporting it, that is his choice, and he certainly has not hidden it. Conspiracy theories do not belong here. They are fine for publicity seeking talk show hosts (both right and left), but not to be discussed in a place that attempts to produce NPOV information.Sposer 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think O'Reilly is advocating any conspiracy here, he's basically saying that Soros is the liberal version of Richard Mellon Scaife. That could still be intrepreted as a conspiracy but that is not what is being argued for inclusion. Just noting that O'Reilly has criticized Soros (which is one of his recurring themes) should be included in the article is all that is asked for. Only 1 editor is opposed to this at all costs. Others are opposed too but had reasons that seemed to have been addressed although have not accepted the compromise yet. The notion of a BLP violation is erroneous because O'Reilly is the one attributed to the criticisms however they would be presented. Actually a BLP violation would be if O'Reilly never made the accusations and it was presented as such. Soros would have no grounds to sue Wikipedia since wikipedia is not making any accusations or criticisms. The other point of contention was that there were no third party sources to verify this but those have been found. What it seems to come down to now for exclusion is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There seems to be more personal feelings toward O'Reilly to keep any mention of him out of this article. However, exculsion is just giving him too much credit. I'm sure that neutral readers without any prior knowledge of Soros will change their entire opinion because of the fact that O'Reilly has issues with this guy. A brief mention of this is not going to do any major harm to wikipedia, Soros, O'Reilly, or any editors involved. MrMurph101 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is spurious, but the compromise solution (saying that O'Reilly is a critic of his) is reasonable, though not really necessary. What I really think does not belong is the Hastert stuff. That is conspiracy garbage. Sposer 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree with you about the Hastert stuff. I wouldn't go out of my way to delete it but wouldn't argue keeping it either. I would think this inclusion would face more scrutiny due to BLP issues then what O'Reilly has said even in its most elaborate presentation. It does not seem like a bad idea to pare down Hastert stuff and maybe have an inclusion that both Hastert and O'Reilly have been critics of Soros and not go into too much detail. Just state the basic facts and be done with it. MrMurph101 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to see the criticism be included in some context, but I don't think, out of fairness, that we should hold O'Reilly to a whole different standard than Cindy Sheehan. That's frustrating. So no, I'm looking at the big picture--I think I'd be willing to take a loss on this battle to win the war.

And Crockspot noted Eleem's apparent double standard--I'd also like to point out that Goethean, the biggest opponent of inclusion of the O'Reilly material, stated that he didn't think O'Reilly was a notable source. Yet, a week later he cited something from the "University of Chicago Student Paper", saying that "If it's in the university paper, it must be notable!"|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the University of Chicago student newspaper is known to be a propaganda outlet or run by pathological liars. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It belongs in "Criticism of financial activities" rather than a section of it's own. I believe that Wikipedia is not about truth but about what is verifyable and certainly there is plenty of verification for O'Reilly being critical of Sorros. Like it or not, the opinions of O'Reilly are widespread and widely believed... to edit him out would be very much a POV problem... he deserves about two lines at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs)

OK, let's get this settled and take off the protection. I'm sure somebody has a better line or two, but how about something like "Bill O'Reilly has been a strident critic of Soros," with a reference/link. I'd also like to take off the POV tag. Why doesn't anybody who thinks the tag should be on, list the topic or section that is a problem and we all make a good faith effort to make it NPOV. I'm ready if everybody else is.Smallbones 13:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what citation will be used before it goes in. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had much time lately to keep up with everything here. Is the word "strident" ok? There must be a better word. Why doesn't Bellowed suggest first cite and Goethean suggest second in the following "Bill O'Reilly has been a strident (or pick a better word) critic of Soros (cite 1), but the accuracy of his criticism has been questioned.(cite 2)" Or maybe just leave off the last clause and have 2 cites in a row. I'm not married to any of this, but would like to see the article unlocked. One request - I'd like Bellowed to take back "I think I'd be willing to take a loss on this battle to win the war." or at least understand that this is suppose to be neither a battle or a war, but an article in an encyclopedia.

Maybe I'm pushing this too far, but let's just get this over, and everybody declare "victory" just in getting this unlocked. Thanks for any input. Smallbones 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pick any of the citations that Crockspot and I posted awhile back. I'm fine with any of them.

As for the comment about battles and wars, you totally misunderstood me. What I meant was that I'd prefer for the supporters of the O'Reilly addition not to keep watering-down the statement even though they don't believe that the polled version violated any policy. The best course of action would be to, say, get a RfC instead of further watering-down something that I don't believe violated policy in the first place. That's all I meant by that analogy. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't Bellowed suggest first cite and Goethean suggest second in the following "Bill O'Reilly has been a strident (or pick a better word) critic of Soros (cite 1), but the accuracy of his criticism has been questioned.(cite 2)"

I will not be contributing to the proposed text. I do not think that the text should be included. Should every target of O'Reilly's bile have a section devoted to that bile in their biography? If not, why Soros? I will tell you why: because of the strong desire on the part of members of the Republican Party to blacken his name. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

Why not, we have a section devoted to all of MMFA's targets (your edits on Nedra Pickler really stand out on this one guy). Is there a difference? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a similarity? — goethean ॐ 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The similarity is that they can both be interpreted as "attacks." Either these can be included in all cases or all be excluded. Personal feelings about the source of a criticism should not taken into consideration. Inclusion of any criticism in a NPOV presentation does not mean wikipedia advocates said criticism. It seems to be a stretch of the imagination that one little inclusion of a criticism by O'Reilly means that this article is a Republican attack piece. I would say the Hastert criticism, which is much less tame, would fit that accusation better. MrMurph101 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if Wikipedia was edited by robots. Human beings, on the other hand, have the ability to research, cite sources, and evaluate the truth of statements. There is no need to treat false claims on a par with true ones. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's "truth" is another man's bullshit. Actually you're acting as if wikipedia is read by robots. Human beings have the ability to interpret and decide for themselves what the "truth" is. You should give readers a little more credit. MrMurph101 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no member of the Republican party, and I don't really care for my motives to be questioned like that. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Bill O'Reilly has been a strident (or pick a better word) critic of Soros [1], but the accuracy of his criticism has been questioned.[2]" The first cite is a Washington Monthly Book Review (of O'Reilly's book) and the second is the Huffington (Ind) Post reprint of the LA Times article where the IU researchers deny O'Reilly's producer's comments (Maybe the original LA Times article would be better, but the Huffington headline makes no bones about "accuracy.")Smallbones 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think using the original LA Times article would be better. I'm also fine with using the Washington Monthly Book Review, although I also think that using a transcript from Foxnews or the reprint from Media Matters, either as the sole source or an additional one, would be a good idea. Two cites for that first statement definately wouldn't hurt and since we're not saying what O'Reilly is actually saying, only stating that he's been a critic, secondary sources are not nearly as good as primary sources. But I don't think a secondary source hurts if it's used in addition. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the Smallbones quote and see no reason not to include the O'Reilly stuff, much as I don't like him. More importantly, we need to get rid of the stupidity of the Hastert quote, except for an article on unbalanced members of Congress. Sposer 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the Smallbones quote. The O'Reilly stuff is clearly notable and belongs in the article, but I'd rather not see wikipedia propagate his attacks by repeating large sections of them uncritically (complete with loaded terminology like "propaganda", "wealthy radicals", and "funneling money"). Paraphrasing most of it would be nice. Also we need something to balance it, like sources that point out that the attacks are unsubstantiated/false.. Not just a denial from Media Matters, that's pretty weak. And the Dr. Evil thing is over the top and isn't a quote from O'Reilly, just some non-particularly-notable guest on his program. Pfalstad 05:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The attacks are indeed unsubstantiated and false, and should not be mentioned under WP:BLP.--Samiharris 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost there

"Bill O'Reilly has been a strident critic of Soros [3], but the accuracy of his criticism has been questioned." The first cite is a Washington Monthly Book Review (of O'Reilly's book) and the second is the origninal of the LA Times article where the IU researchers deny O'Reilly's producer's comments (per Bellowed)

• Conway, Mike (2007-05-16). "Bill O'Reilly and Krippendorff's Alpha". op ed. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

There's 4 in favor of this (by my count) and 1 against. If a couple more editors wanted to weight in, I'd be a bit more comfortable, but now I'm almost ready to ask for the lock up to be taken off. I'll also suggest that Sposer take care of the Hasert problem he mentioned and that anybody else with problems about NPOV air them here before making major changes. Then we can just all forget about arguing for a month about one sentence, that (to me) looks reasonably balanced (though it really doesn't NEED to be included - with that I agree with Goethean). Smallbones 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I support, it is not too much different than what I have been advocating for all along. - Crockspot 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It soft-pedals what have actually been attacks, not "criticism." The source cited says that O'Reilly has "lashed out" at Soros. That is accurate. I do not in any way concede that this commentator's lash-outs, which have been repudiated, warrant inclusion in the article.--Samiharris 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So should we change it to "O'Reilly has lashed out at Soros?" MrMurph101 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would omit. Again, this is not criticism, these are personal attacks that have been rebutted. --Samiharris 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe Smallbones proposal is reasonable and covers the scope of the whole issue. Whether it is an "attack" or "criticism" depends on one's perspective. BLP would be more of an issue if Soros was less notable so that issue is moot. A real "attack" would be allegations of criminal activity that have never been investigated. Alleging the funding of perceived ideological co-conspirators to influence politics is more an example of blow-hardism than an actual attack. Also, a denial still does not prove things one way or the other. If we went by the premise that if someone denies something it should not be included, then we would have to take out all the issues of steroids in the Barry Bonds article and there would be much more content on wikipedia we would need to remove. MrMurph101 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it is an objective reality that it was an attack, a factual allegation that was unsubstantiated, and the source you cite supports that ("lashed out"). It was denied by a third party, Media Matters, and I know of nothing that contradicts that denial. Do you? --Samiharris 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not an objective reality that it was an attack. Instead it is a subjective opinion. It should not say attacked. That is too laden a word. UNLESS we can find Bill O'Reilly admitting to having attacked Soros. THAT would be high value evidence. Otherwise its just the opinion of on-lookers. --Blue Tie 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Since O'Reilly is well known to be a habitual liar, his word saying so would actually be high value evidence against him having attacked someone. — goethean ॐ 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Habitual liar by whom? People who disagree with him do but there has yet to be a smoking gun to prove this point, just rants by ideologues. More people seem to consider him more reliable than ABC News according to an Adweek poll. I do not know the merits of the poll and I'm sure it will receive scrutiny. Sami, with all due respect, the "object reality" is utterly unconvincing. The proposal for inclusion does not go into the gory details, just acknowledging and verifying that O'Reilly has issues with Soros. Something that is a fact. Whether you want to call it an attack or criticism or think O'Reilly is a pathological liar is irrelevant. Please let go of the personal feelings and come to a resolution. MrMurph101 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One debating point I consider very persuasive is the fact that O'Reilly attacks (or "criticizes") pretty much anyone who isn't politically aligned with him, so mentioning his attacks/criticism of Soros is precedent for mentioning O'Reilly on thousands of pages. One way to address that complaint might be to require a certain level of O'Reilly disapproval before he's worth mentioning. If he happened to make a one-off remark on his show denouncing the Girl Scouts as evil pro-abortion activists (I don't know whether O'Reilly has said that himself, but some right-wing pundits have), that's not worth mention on the page for Girl Scouts. But if one of his books is titled George Soros Is Evil (an exaggeration, unless I've guessed a title by accident), that's fair grounds to mention him on the Soros page. If his opposition to Soros falls somewhere in between, it's a tough call. A page in a book? No way. A chapter in a book? Maybe, if they're big chapters (but I seem to remember from paging through one of his books that his chapters are very short). Ten percent of a book? That seems reasonable.

I think O'Reilly is a sufficiently high-profile figure that his criticism is worth mention, if only as a representative of the general dislike Soros faces from his political opponents. But it has to be a fairly substantial level of opposition, or else we might as well create a "Bill O'Reilly has criticized this person" template for the thousands of politically-active people O'Reilly has said or written about disapprovingly. -- Steve Schonberger 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't think that there is much question about the level of O'Reilly's criticism. Soros seems to be one of O'Reilly's favorite targets, and there have been several examples in print and in various broadcasting forms. To me it looks like O'Reilly has put the full force of his organization into criticizing Soros As an analogy, he's wound-up and taken a running start in order to punch Soros directly in the face. So is this notable? Well, it's a notable critic taking a notable shot at a notable public figure, so ....

But is it fair to Soros and in line with WP:BLP? I believe the above sentence is fair in that it does not side with O'Reilly and mentions that there is some controversy about the criticism (it's essentially been denied and can't be proven). Sometimes I'd like to say something about O'Reilly's criticisms being completely off base, but this gets pretty complicated, and might even be against BLP in regard to O'Reilly if we are not careful.

I sort of look at this as analogous to people accused in the red scare of the 1950's. Should Wikipedia NOT mention that they were accused by HUAC or McCarthy as a way to protect them? In general, I don't think so - the accusations are out there and Wikipedia should address them in some neutral way - otherwise it looks like a coverup.

I can deal with either including the suggested sentence OR not including anything, but I'd like to get the matter settled, and the lock up taken off. The locked article to me looks like a failure of Wikipedai and all of us as editors. Smallbones 13:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)