Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:31, 9 July 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Moveon.org Should Move On (Undermining The Republic In The Name Of Democracy)". BushCountry.org. July 6, 2004.

Role in the Democratic Party

Why is there zero mention of his role in the Democratic Party? I mean, Democrats pretty much check with George before they cast any vote. He has 100% control over them, what George says goes!

Hello Kaihsu, it is not clear: what is the relationship with Soros to Project Syndicate? Thanks. -- Viajero 15:43, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's "partly" funded by his Open Society Institute. That's the only connection I see. A-giau 08:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would dispute that the following sentence is NPOV, which, given the lack of cited sources, is a bit of a worry: These (Soros' organisations) encourage political activity to focus on small-scale volunteer work, promote hierarchy and secret decision making, and discourage civil society from considering fundamental or systematic changes to the free market economic model. -- Pratyeka 13:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree. Although I had been watching this page, I missed that addition. I have moved the whole civil society from considering fundamental or systematic changes to the free market Pratyeka 00:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Two dates are given for the book The Bubble[[User:

Apart from the fact that some Americans consider it to be a derogatory term (!), I really can't see that it wouldand his views on capitalism as a way to empower the populac, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His name in Hungarian is Soros György . (In Hungarian the surname is mentioned first.) - Marcika 16:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reflexivity

The reflexivity link goes to "Reflexive relation" which is really nothing to do with the George Soros usage of reflexivity. At the moment it seems that Misplaced Pages has no definition of reflexivity as would apply to George Soros.

Who researched this guy?!?!?

How was George Soros 14 when Germany occupied Austria, 'at the end of the war?' Austria was one of the first occupied countries, and he was 9 when the war broke out. So, if this is all correct, he was trading foreign currency as a 'young man' at the age of 11ish? Someone needs to recheck their facts. 128.194.54.175 19:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Read carefully - Hint: Hungary is not the same as Austria (not since WWI, in any case). -- Marcika 22:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Birth Name Not Soros

Sorry I don't have the reference, but in his biography (book by former NY Times reporter and OSI employee) it was stated that the family changed its name to Soros only near the end of WWII.

make that 1936 (as in current text)

Quotations

Can anyone cite a source for the quotation, "As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions"?? Based on other things Soros has said, it seems likely that this has been taken out of context or is even totally made up. I can't find any sources for this statement that aren't either derived from this WikiPedia article or are just completely unsourced themselves. The reasons for skepticism -- the cognitive dissonance, if you will -- is so high here I don't even think this should be changed to Citation Needed; I advocate just pulling it altogether unless someone can source it and provide context. Mtiffany 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, all mentions of this quote stem from the New Statesman profile of Soros at http://www.newstatesman.com/200306020019. Nothing shows up in Lexis-Nexis, and the NS profile doesn't say where it came from, so I'm thinking they made it up. I'm removing it unless somebody can find the original source for this. --Sapphic 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi... isn't the second half of the quote from Victor Niederhoffer (in the "Philosophy" section) somewhat irrelevant? It is no longer about Soros but about Niederhoffer's personal views on the market. Thanks. -- md

I agree, and I've removed the second half. -Willmcw 03:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Role in Georgia's Rose revolution

Dear Fluterst, there are many many sources for Soros' involvement (not just financial) in the Georgian revolution. Just google for it or search on LexisNexis and you'll find a number of newspaper articles describing his involvement.

• "It's generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who planned Shevardnadze's overthrow" (Globe and Mail, Nov 26, 2003) mirror of the article
• "Former President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze has accused American financier George Soros of organising the events that led to the coup d'etat in that Caucasian republic." (Pravda.ru reports about Rossian TV interview, Dec 01, 2003, )
• "The foundation’s activities have included organizing training programs for new council members; building democratic relationships between representatives and constituents; encouraging transparency and accountability; raising public awareness about human rights; educating young people as leaders..." Soros Open Society website Georgia

Family Section

I edited the family section. Mr. Soros only has five children. Paul is his brother, not his son; nor does he have a child named Paul by Susan. He only has two children by Susan. Friend of the Family

Picky, picky

I think the new section on opposition to the Soviet Union is great, but it is obviously POV. Some of the facts should go in other sections, maybe a link to the New Stateman with the quote. In short something should be done in that section, but I don't know what.

There's a minor problem with pronounciation. Soros uses the Hungarian pronouciation in Hungary (show rosh), but (sore oss) elsewhere. BTW, the name means "beer" in Hungarian and is unique to his family.

I never heard him use "sore oss". Other people who do not know how to pronounce it use it that way. BTW, the name does not mean "beer" in Hungarian (that would be "sör" or "sörös", notice the umlauts). -- Marcika 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly the Schwartz spelling of his original name is correct when used in the US, but probably incorrect in Hungary. These all might be too complicated and minor to include in the article.

Since Schwartz is a Yiddish name, the spelling is probably correct. (It might be "Schwarz", but I couldn't verify it over the web either way...) -- Marcika 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would its Yiddish origin affect its spelling? In Hungary it would almost certainly be spelled "Svarc". Any reason I shouldn't change his birth name to "Svarc György"? Zsero 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We soar?

re last edit. In Hungary the family name is always first, so his birth name really is Schwartz Gyorgy. The derivation of his new family name as coming from the Esparanto "we soar" is undocumented and I think it's proper to remove it until it is documented. There are several possible sources where this might be discussed, e.g. in the 2 long biographies. I'm pretty sure it's not in one of them and there was a fairly long dicussion on the choice of the name. Smallbones 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about reversing the names...I assumed it was a typo. I had no idea that Hungarians put the family name first. Who'd've thunk it?

With respect to the Esperanto reference, I checked an on-line Esperanto dictionary (there are such things) and "soros" came up blank. I'll check this further.

Adam Holland 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Victor, are you writing this?

I've reverted this paragraph back to the paragraph about insider trading, even though... The French insider trading conviction looks pretty bogus to me (e.g. so many years after the fact, no jail time, "minor" fine, and who else have they ever convicted?) but it does need to be covered. The Famous partners stuff is interesting, but not well done yet, e.g. V.N. is probably one of the most interesting, most intelligent, and most modest traders of the century, but not one of the greatest! I don't think he was a partner. Smallbones 10:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Famous Partners Soros has had three main partners at Quantum fund during his career. The first Was Jim Rogers, the cofounder of the fund, the Second Victor Niederhoffer, one of the greatest traders in history, the third Stanley Druckenmiller, who ran both Quantum Fund and his own fund Duquense. Currently his two sons are in command at Quantum."

Jewish charities

Moved from top of the talk section

Since mention is made of Soros's Jewish origins, and his criticism of Jews and Israel, I thought it part of the story to mention his lack of involvement in the Jewish community and his failure to contribute to Jewish charities. Incorrect 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted the edit because it's unverifiable. (It's also, in my opinion, not notable, even if true.) If you have a reputable source for this, and think it's relevant, feel free to put it back in. dbtfz 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, the source is the opinion journal sectin of the wall street journal of 3/3/2004 as follows: No less pertinent in this connection is Mr. Soros's problematic relationship to his own Jewishness. Though he often claims authority for his views by invoking his experience under the Nazis--he confided to the Washington Post that some of the things President Bush says "remind . . . me of the Germans"--he is strikingly aloof from his Jewish origins. None of his vast philanthropy has been directed toward Israel, and his coldness toward the Jewish state has on occasion shaded into outright hostility: in a speech last May to the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research, Mr. Soros likened the behavior of Israel to that of the Nazis, invoking some psychological jargon about victims becoming victimizers.

It is not only Israel that Mr. Soros abjures but Jewish charities in general, an attitude he attributes to his observations of the Judenrat, or Jewish council, that the Nazis created in Budapest, for which he worked as a courier, and by a rather weird experience with the Jewish Board of Guardians during his years in London. If blaming Jewish organizations--or Israel--for the works of the Nazis is hard to fathom, his attitude toward the Board of Guardians is no more explicable. It seems he appealed to it for financial support after breaking a leg, but the board arranged instead for him to receive a British government stipend. When he wrote an aggrieved letter deploring this as a tawdry way for "one Jew treat . . . another in need," the board backed down and provided him with a cash allowance for the duration of his recovery. Later, he would confess insouciantly to his biographer the reason he had been so angry: He had already arranged to receive the government payment and had hidden this fact from the board in the hope of receiving duplicate benefits. It was, he said, "a double-dip," and one that "solved all my financial problems." "My Jewishness not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty," Mr. Soros explains. About this he is certainly correct. "I pride in being . . . an outsider who capable of seeing the other point of view." About this he is correct as well, if by "other" we understand "adversary." In any event, this flight from Jewish particularism into a willed universalism is itself a familiar reflex, if not a full-fledged syndrome, among many Jews in the modern era, one of whom, a Yiddish-speaking philologist, was sufficiently inspired by it to invent Esperanto. In Mr. Soros, it has been taken to a startling extreme.

I believe the above has now properly sourced the statement which I will, without objection, reinstate - if anyone wants to delete it again, feel free, I'm out of here, getting into editing wars is not my idea of fun. Incorrect 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of this seems POV, e.g. the word "abjure" which is something like "a solemn rejection." I haven't read the WSJ piece, but I'd think that plain old critisizm of Isreal wouldn't qualify as "abjuring." Also critisizing somebody for not giving charity to a specific group seems to me to be POV all in itself. Who should we mention this about and who would we leave out this information about. Everybody doesn't donate to some group. For instance, why aren't you donating to Inuit charities? I'll strip the current comment down to what seems like plain facts. Smallbones 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The passage now reads: "He does not provide philanthropy to the state of Isreal or to causes that are exclusively Jewish. (See his commentary in the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2004).". The piece cited is not by Soros; it is an anti-Soros opinion piece by Joshua Muravhcik of the American Enterprise Institute. Also, it is real wrong to spell it "Isreal". I'm not going to edit the passage myself because that would suggest endorsement of it being in the article at all. Personally, it strikes me as a weaselly way of calling Soros a self-hating Jew. dbtfz 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking that some of this could be taken at face value. Obviously not. Stripping it down to the bare facts, just showed that they raelly aren't facts at all. Smallbones 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think removing the edit was probably best. There is a fact here, namely that someone claimed in an opinion piece that Soros "abjures" Jewish charities. But if that were stated clearly, it would not seem particularly relevant or notable. It appears that Soros has written about this matter somewhere, and it could very well be worth noting in the article, but someone should take the time to do the actual research and cite Soros himself. dbtfz 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that he hates Israel and isolates himself from Jewish organizations. A man with great power, he is a total waste to Jews. Alexisrael

Here is a link to piece on George Soros's anti-semitic views, with source links below the article: http://judaism.about.com/library/2_americanjewry/bl_soros.htm Notintimidated 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Change of views?

Seems I once read somewhere, Soros was a Reagan supporter, but his views have cahnged over the years from Center-Right to Center-Left and some would argue "far Left", any documentation on this? Seems he became active due to his opposition of Bush?

- Soros has always been committed to open societies (as per Popper's concept), and this has been a hallmark of both his philosophy and his philanthropy. I don't think it's too difficult to see Soros as supporting Raegan (in a fight against closed societies in formerly communist countries) and opposing Bush due to seeing him as a fundamental threat to open society (e.g. the Patriot act in the US with increased surveillance of US citizens, increased police and government powers with no oversight, deliberately supporting the shredding of the geneva convention by instructing senior counsel to find ways around it, by advocating US use of torture, by setting up US torture facilities in Gauntanamo bay etc, by escalaating the use of extraordinary rendition and the use of torture in allied countries rather than on US soil, etc) in this light. It seems entrely consistent to me - Soros has been committed to the same principles in an ongoing fashion - an open society. Raegan was for it, Bush by his actions seems to be clearly against it. In short, Bush seems to advocating and doing exactly what Soros spent his life fighting, due to his former experiences in Europe. LMackinnon 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Possessive see Apostrophe

The possessive should be "Soros's" not "Soros' ", see Apostrophe. This is especially so, if the last s in the name is pronounced sh as is proper in the Hungarian. Occasionally some authorities allow Charles' instead of Charles's, but nobody would say goulash' instead of goulash's

The guide I use allows omission of the apostrophe only for Jesus and Moses. Maybe Soros supporters think he's as good a man as these biblical figures. --Wing Nut 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Soros

Conservatives oppose Soros for his liberal activism:

• From abortion rights groups to drug reform initiatives, Soros' domestic funding generally ends up in the hands of liberals.
• Soros ... has expressed outrage at the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially its decision to invade Iraq.
• The self-proclaimed atheist also created the Project on Death in America to generate debate about the dying process and "alleviate unnecessary suffering."
• Among the beneficiaries of Soros' largesse is the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group
• Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, an authority on Christian values, said Soros wants to destroy the values on which the United States was founded. Williams called Soros "morally bankrupt".

  "He hates God and his biblical principles. He hates everything that's godly," Williams said. "He's jumping up and down at the thought that same-sex marriages could happen in this country. It's a direct assault on the church, the institutions that restrain and restrict our behavior and remind us of the standard of morality and moral absolutes."

• "No one knows what demons drive Mr. Soros to consistently fund anti-family agendas," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America. "But he seems determined to turn the world upside down and replace morality with immorality."
• Robert McGinnis, a former vice president of the Family Research Council who researched Soros' philanthropy while working there, said

  "U.S. citizens need to be wary of the fact that he is embracing a pro-drug, anti-life agenda."

• The Capital Research Center, which tracks philanthropists like Soros, found that the Open Society Institute has a pattern of giving to liberal groups that support drug legalization, euthanasia, immigrant entitlements and feminism.

  "There is a consistent thread through everything he does," said John Carlisle, editor of the center's Organization Trends and Foundation Watch. "He's a devout secular ideologue."

Some of the above should go in the criticism section. --Wing Nut 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a strident attack on Soros by Michael Savage (commentator):

• "So this man compares the death of 3,000 Americans to radical Muslim hijackers and murders, to the humiliation of a number of Iraqi prisoners, by a very small number of American troops. This is called the big lie. And if you tell a big lie often enough it will become the truth. That's what Goebbels, Hitler's media man, said, and that's what Soros and the others at this Communist rally yesterday, call Take Back America or doing. It's unbelievable to me. And he keeps doing it, and doing it, and doing it. And this does remind me of a very dangerous time in the past. This man is a clear and present danger to America. He's declared war on America ..." --Wing Nut 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So are you a right wing nut or a left wing nut?? Smallbones

Who exactly made Armstrong Williams "an authority on Christian values"? Armstrong Williams, I'm guessing. More disturbingly, somebody put "Jewish" in front of "financial speculator" in the introductory statement about Soros' notability.

This isn't a matter of simply including the fact of Soros' ethnic Jewishness in the story. That fact already was where one would naturally expect it, under the heading "family"! The tactic of inserting "Jewish" as an adjective in front of "financial speculator" is a matter of playing to deadly stereotypes. --Christofurio 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish edits

I hate to revert back to my previous edits, but did so in this case because the edits by Eppeflesh strike me as being anti-Jewish. I know this is a sensitive issue, so I'll ask other editors to take a look and see if I'm missing something or reading something in that's not there. Personally, I'm a non-practicing Espiscopalian.(Is that redundant?) Smallbones 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And actually, I am Jewish. The edits are not anti-Jewish. They simply reflect the fact that Soros is, perhaps as a result of his background, disinclined to support Jewish causes. If I were to seek to put in his anti-Jewish quotes, I would put in the one about his view that Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism.

All in all, I appreciate your sensitivity, but would ask that you put back the language that you just took out. Thanks.

Epeefleche --Epeefleche 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So for example, that language about how a father's effort to save his family's life was a "charade" was necessary to show why that father's son doesn't support Jewish causes? No sale. --Christofurio 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase charade is not important. What is important is that he, from an early age, had to conceal the fact that he was Jewish to survive. Nothing anti-semitic about that. That sentence can be revised as follows if you think for some reason that it is anti-semitic (which I, frankly, do not see).

"The Soros family pretended to be Christian, splitting up with forged papers to protect them from discovery, to survive the Nazi search for Jews."

The complaint above was that the entry was anti-semitic. I hope this addresses those concerns.

BTW, this is a fact pointed out in many writings on Soros, including p. 27 of Robert Slater's biography of him. --Epeefleche 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "charade" is pretty important, in that it indicates bias. If Robert Slater's biography uses that word in this context, then shame on him. Also, to say that the Nazis were just "searching" for Jews rather understates the reason for the forgeries, doesn't it? What did they plan to do when they found a few? Pass out dreidels? There's much else that's wrong with this passage, and if you can't see it than I understand why you couldn't even see the problem with the word "charade." --Christofurio 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

=====================

How about helping me by "fixing" it then?

I believe that is what wilkipedia suggests.

I expect that the phrase "to survive the Nazi search for Jews" might, in the mind of some, suggest that the search was for a reason other than passing out dreidels. But feel free to amplify, if you believe that that, coupled with the other references to the Holocause earlier in the paragraph is not enough.

I don't have a quarrel with making sure that this is not anti-semitic. But it would perhaps be of some small assistance if you were to provide suggestions.

--Epeefleche 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And Smallbones, I would respectfully request that you undo your revert in accordance with the below Misplaced Pages policy:

"Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. "

I think I'm avoiding a problem by calling in other editors. The tone of this and a couple previous edits seemed to me to be somewhat aggressive, as if you are trying to prove some moral point. If it's just the 3 of us here to decide, I think your edit stays out. There are some facts that can be put in - without loaded language, maybe "To survive the Nazi hunt for Jews, the Soros family split up, used forged papers, and pretended to be Christian." I'll let others decide. Smallbones 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That works for me for that sentence. There certainly isnt any intent here to be anti-semitic. Just to point out the important points that he avoids supporting Jewish causes and Israel with his philanthropy, and an important part about his past that relates to how he had to distance himself from his Jewishness to survive. Shall we now revert? Thanks. --Epeefleche 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Whoops .. and oh ... the Misplaced Pages suggestion, unless I misread it, is to first take the approach I quoted above, rather than revert the language and then call in others. Thanks. --Epeefleche 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You might quote the pertinent language from the Robert Slater biography you've cited as your source. We can work from that -- without committing copyvio, of course. --Christofurio 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we shouldn't leap from the premise that someone doesn't contribute to a certain cause to the inference that this person avoids contributing to that cause. Maybe he just has other things that strike him as more pressing. That hardly requires psychoanalysis. There are more than a billion things that even a billionaire could contribute to, so inevitably there are some he doesn't. Until you quote the specific wording of the Slater passage you've referenced, I can't say that you've made any kind of a case for this sort of thing at all. I bet he hasn't contributed any money to, say, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. This doesn't mean he's anti-SETI or really ... anything. Doesn't warrant grubbing in his youth for traumas that he can supposedly "avoid" by not giving money to SETI. So at best this all still sounds irrelevant, and at worst it still sounds like, "Gee those sneaky people, look at what they did to avoid being murdered. What charades!" --Christofurio 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tied up for the moment, but will try to handle next week. As to whether that inference is any leap of faith, you might find this interesting. There is a lot of this stuff out there, from both the right and the left, the jews and the antisemites, if u take a glance at the web. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10781 --Epeefleche 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a "lot of stuff out there" in general that out to be kept out of encyclopedias. --Christofurio 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's compare

Here are two versions of a paragraph that has been undergoing much back and forth revision. Let's please compare them and see which best represents the facts as they can be documented. I believe that the only documentation relevent here is from George Soros's own writings. If he hadn't written on this, nobody would know anything about it. So it seems that a citation from one of Soros's books or interviews is required, in order to keep this at all. Smallbones 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A. One of the many false identities later reported by George, was the role as the son of a Hungarian official named Baumbach, who, according to George, delivered deportation notices to Jews and confiscated their property, while at the same time protecting George. This particular false identity is used by Soros's political opponents to critisize his current political beliefs.

B. To save his family, Tivadar gave his children false identities and bribed Hungarian Christians to present them as their own children. George took the role of the son of an official of Hungary’s fascist government named Baumbach. According to George, he went with Baumbach to deliver deportation notices to other Jews and helped him confiscate their property.

The main difference is the last sentence in B. Can you document that Soros said that he went with Baumbach in order to deliver the notices and to help him confiscate the property. This is quite different from accompanying Baumbach, while Baumbach did these thing. Time to cite your source! The last sentence in A. seems to be obviously true and is documented. Other differences relate to repetitions and emphasis. Is there any reason (or even documentation) to say that Baumbach was Christian? Any reason to repeat that Hungary's government was Fascist (any documentation that Baumbach was Fascist?)? I do believe that it is important (in A.) to state clearly that Baumbach "was at the same time protecting George" i.e. that the adult was in charge.

There is more than just a difference in the last sentence. The whole paragraph is different. For example, your paragraph says that there were many different identities. I can only find one. Where do you find a source that says he had many identities?

As for a cite here are the quotes:

Quote #1 

Question: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Soros: Yes. Yes.

Question: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Soros: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

(George Soros interviewed by Steve Kroft, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 December 1998)

Quote #2 

Soros said that Baumbach’s “job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity.” (Interview with George Soros, Adam Smith’s Money World, Public Broadcasting Service, 15 April 1993)

Quote #3

"He posed as the son of a Hungarian government official, sometimes accompanying the official as he delivered deportation notices to Jews, or took possession of property owned by them.” (Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros”, The New Yorker, 23 January 1995, p 58)

As for fascist issues, I do not know if Baumbach was fascist, but I did not write that he was. I wrote that he was an official of the fascist government. THAT is a statement of fact and it is not a repetition -- it had not been said before. Maybe you think that it being a puppet government of the Nazi's would be sufficient to append that label, but I would point out that Vichy France was a puppet government and sympathetic to Germany but it was not actually fascist. Moreover, mentioning that the Hungarian government was fascist explains how Baumbach would have an official duty and authority to mistreat some citizens. (Rather than it being an official sort of mob or criminal activity). As far as Baumbach being Christian, Soro's father in his biography, says Soros posed as his "godson". Godparenting is a Christian institution.

It is a redundancy to say that he is protecting Soros because, after all, it was already said that he was bribed by Tivadar to do just that. It would be noteable if after being bribed to protect the boy he did not do so, but it is redundant to say that he did so after being paid to do so.

So your revert was wrong --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been gone for awhile. Can't find those "quotes" of yours except in the clearly biased and disputed site . Clearly much of this is taken out of context, misquoting for political reasons. Smallbones 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.. you are not being fair. First you wanted sources so the facts could be determined. Then when three sources are given you reject them. That is not appropriate discourse. --Blue Tie 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked for the source so that I could evaluate it. The source cited is a right wing website called shadow party. It is clearly biased.Smallbones 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question MUST be removed. Not only do the quotes cited (see above) not support the claims in the paragraph (regarding intent), but it is clearly a biased, 3rd hand source (a promotional review of the book "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party") and is PLAGIARIZED directly from the website word-by-word.

From the website: "When the Nazis came in 1944, Soros’ father saved the family by splitting them up, providing them with false identities and bribing Hungarian Christians to take them in. Young Soros posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary’s fascist government."

By Misplaced Pages rules and US law, we MUST remove this paragraph. Smallbones 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no statement of intent. As for quotes, it can be fixed with a citation, although I believe it was not (and now is not) a word for word recitation. --Blue Tie 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

plagiarizing isn't illegal. Copyright violations are though. I reworded the paragraph. No plagiarism or copyright violation. --Tbeatty 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you plagiarize without a copyright violation? More seriously, I think you missed the point about intent and bias - the biased paragraph says that he intended to - based on disputed cites that just say that he was there. I think this is an important distinction when you are taking about a 14 year old kid. Smallbones 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism, in a nutshell, is using an idea of someone else without citing it. The only way facts can be plagiarized (i.e. things that are not "ideas") is in the presentation of the words (i.e. the "esxpression" of the facts). And even then there are only so many ways to present facts so it is questionable. Copyright is only exact reproductions of words or other works with0out permission of the copyright holder. Even if you cite the source, you can have a copyright violation if you don't have permission. So you can have plagiarism without a copyright violation simply by stealing the idea and you can have a copyright violation without plagiarism by not having permission. They are completely different things and it is important for you to know these if you are going to cite them as reasons for removing content. --Tbeatty 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And if the fact that the ideas are found elsewhere is plagiarism, then wikipedia needs to shut down. --Blue Tie 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages sources it's facts and writes articles in it's own NPOV voice. Rewriting factual content into Wikipeida's own voice is neither a copyright or plagiarism problem. I'd suggest you read the articles and policies regarding plagiarism and copyright so that you understand the differences and the implications. You talk about shutting Misplaced Pages down for plagiarism, but plagiarism is not illegal. It is frowned upon in academia and is itellectually dishonest but it is not against the law. Besides, wikipedia should cite all it's material. By definition, giving credit to the source of the idea is not plagiarism. --Tbeatty 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) Whoah! Settle down! I was agreeing with you, if you did not notice! --Blue Tie 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised by how many people are confused enough by plagiarism and copyright that would have written the exact same thing you did with the exact opposite conclusion.--Tbeatty 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have put a smiley face in there, huh? :-) (But www.despair.com has the copyright I think, so better not use it or be in violation of wikipedia policy!)--Blue Tie 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral Qualities

I would prefer to delete this sentence:

Soros's critics contend that this event is an indicator of the quality of Soros's morality.

It may be true that they say this, but it is a bit like innuendo smears by proxy. --Blue Tie 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the world now knows of this event solely because Soros has told the story himself might be an indication of a high level of candor, but somehow I don't think that whoever wrote the sentence you quote had that particular inference in mind. Furthermore, this stuff about "moral qualities" isn't really supported by the source to which we're linked, where Horowitz et al talk about how they AREN'T making a moral judgment of the choices Soros made as a child. And, indeed, they seem at one point to be praising him for his candor as an adult. --Christofurio 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete the repeat of all this under "critics" which is very badly sourced, pretending to be from 60 minutes, with the actual source being a clearly biased web-site. Frankly, the folks who are putting all this stuff in, seem to be acting in bad faith. Smallbones 13:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For several reasons the above sentence ought to be either modified or eliminated. In sum, the critics are inaccurate and extremely unfair. The link shows the critics in the most favorable light. Only when one goes to the Media Matters site, does one see what these people will say to influence an audience.

First, although Horowitz says Soros's "choice" indicates a dark moral tendency, on the 700 Club program he makes outrageous claims. He claims that Soros was a young man. Soros was not yet fourteen when he left the protection of Baufluss, who it turned out was not as good a protector as it had at first seemed to George's father. Baufluss had a Jewish wife. (page 117 Masquerade) Baufluss's daughter by his wife's first marriage was having to wear a star. The first Nazi concentration camp was built when George was three years old. When he was five, it was clear what was being done and what would be done to Jews. Tivadar, George's father, who had already survived Soviet concentration camp imprisonment, (Masquerade page 155) describes his method of survival as Mimicry. As the name suggests, Tivadar's method was to "hide" in the open. This could require looking like a Nazi or Nazi supporter.

Second, Horowitz says that Soros participated in sending Jews to death camps. Although Soros in his recollections does not make a distinction in this regard, it is apparent from the historical facts and his father's memoir (Masquerade, 1965) that when Soros went with Baufluss to the country estates of Jews, the owners had already been sent away or had fled. Tivadar Soros, George's father, even gives the name of the owner of the estate (Baron Moric Kornfeld) George visited with Baufluss. Baufluss was there to inventory property, not to evict or even take possession.

Third, having said that many others in Europe, who were the same age as George was, fought in the resistance, Horowitz ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews adult or child did not join resistance fighting groups. If Horowitz and Poe were at all even handed, 1300 Jews who worked for Oskar Schindler would be treated to the same smear as they do Soros. There were Jews who survived the Holocaust because they worked at pulling the gold out of the mouths of the victims of the Nazi crimes. Others, such as those who worked for Schindler, made munitions used to fight the liberating allies. Horowitz and Pat Robertson do not condemn the huge number of survivors who made the same choice, to survive as best they could. George followed his father's instructions concerning the Nazi threat, which arose when George was a baby.

According to Tivadar Soros (pages 17-18 Masquerade, 1965) George told people not to obey the summons of the Jewish Council to report to Rokk Szilard Street (for internment). Tivadar's account includes his observation that some of those who became Arrow Crossers to hide their Jewishness helped to save Jews from the Nazi machine. George Soros participated in dangerous schemes his father concocted to save lives of others threatened by the Nazis. The smearers, Horowitz and Poe, for what they have done to Soros, don't deserve the designation "critics".

I would appreciate suggestions concerning a fairer more accurate reference to this aspect of Soros' life. Wolfsehr 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Third marriage?

The October 2006 edition of Forbes Magazine lists George Soros as "Twice divorced, remarried" - I have been unable to confirm a third marriage, however.

This looks like a real mistake by Forbes (unless it is breaking news), or just an over-literal statement that has been misinterpreted. He has been divorced twice and remarried once, which if you do the math, means that he is not married now.

Smallbones

Quotes section too long

I think the "Quotes" section has grown out of hand... Misplaced Pages is not Wikiquotes (and we already have a link to the Wikiquotes page). Anyone else for transwiki-ing the bulk of quotations? -- Marcika 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok so far. It is not too big yet. But I would not want to see many more. --Blue Tie 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish American in the intro

I think that "Jewish-American financial speculator" in the intro has some very questionable overtones. There's no question that each of the 4 parts is correct, the only question is whether they are important enough to be put in the intro. It's something like a woman who would not want to be introduced as "Mrs. Thomas Smith." Is the fact that she's married to a guy named Thomas a defining characteristic? For Soros it's obvious that 'financial speculator' is a defining feature, American? probably not, Jewish - certainly not for me. Smallbones 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationality is required per wikipedia Manual of Style (biographies). Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. So "American" must be included. The question is: Should "Jewish" also be included? I do not know. --Blue Tie 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Shadow Party

I feel that a section in criticisms should be added about the book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, a book by far right authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe. The book outlines a near conspiracy theory about George Soros's plot to take over the world via the American Democratic party. Someone who has read the book should write a NPOV section about its points.

209.6.134.68 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Criticsm

There has been no mention of Soros circumventing the spirit of campaign finance reform through 527 groups. Should it be put in?Decato 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could put in an accusation to that effect. But probably shouldn't spend too much time on it, after all, there is no non-neutral view of what the "spirit" of the law is. The letters simply allow what they allow, and one either breaks a law or complies with it. The "spirit" is best left to exorcists. --Christofurio 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bank of England Crisis.

Can anyone elaborate on how Soros actually undermined the Bank of England in the 90s? Some info /research on this please.

Fascinating story. There are lots of good sources for it. Here's a link to a discussion at the BBC website, for example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2259648.stm Am I helping somebody with their homework here? Never mind. You might look up Soros' name in the index of the book Inside the House of Money a collection of interviews and connecting material. The interviewer is Steven Drobny, who heads a macroeconomic research and consulting firm. The interviewees are a variety of influential people within the hedge fund industry and related fields.

Soros is not one of the book's interviewees, but several of them have stories to tell about him that bear on your question.

Any way, the gist of it was this. The UK was at that time part of the European Rate Mechanism, the system that evolved into the single currency, the euro. In accord with the ERM, the Bank of England was committed to keeping the value of the pound within a certain fixed trading range vis-a-vis the other currencies in the same system -- in particular, the Deutschemark. The result was that if the pound was in danger of falling out the bottom side of the band of permissible values, the Bank was committed to buying pounds, thereby increasing demand for them and pushing the price back into the band. Or (what amounts to the same thing) to raising the overnight interest rate.

George Soros decided that the pound was over-valued, and the Bank of England couldn't keep supporting it. One important consideration was that about 90 percent of the country's mortgages were linked to the overnight rate. If the Bank of England raises the rates on Wednesday, homeowners would learn about it in a very non-theoretical context, by Friday. This persuaded Soros that it would be plitically impossible for the Bank to do what it had to do to keep within the ERM.

So he sold the pound short. The idea was apparently that of a Soros employee named Stanley Druckenmiller. Soros embraced it, and pressed Stan to take a really big position -- so big that if the Bank had won, if the pound had gone up in value toward the high side of the band and Soros had had to cover his position, it is unlikely he'd be notable enough for an encyclopedia article today.

But the Bank lost. It had to stop buying, and let the pound fall out of the ERM. This probably prolonged the recession the UK was in at the time, but there have been good effects, as the BBC page I've linked you to above explains. And most Brits to whom I've spoken about the matter are happy that the pound still exists, and they aren't doing business in euros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christofurio (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Chun marriage???

I just noticed this: "George Soros has been married three times, to Annaliese Witschak and to Susan Weber Soros. He is now married to violinist, Jennifer Chun." from a few days ago.

Does anybody know this is true?? It's not in his bio at http://www.georgesoros.com, but that might be out of date.

I googled "Jennifer Chun" and soros and got 5 or so mentions of them as a couple, but no marriage announcements. I'll delete this in a few days if there isn't any real confirmation. Smallbones 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also read an article in a Korean magazine about this. According to the article, they had a small private wedding at Seoul Hyatt Hotel in Korea in Nov 2006. For anyone who can read Korean: http://lady.khan.co.kr/khlady.html?mode=view&code=4&artid=8984

Moral qualities of a 14 year old hiding from the Nazis

The sentences on the 14 year old Soros pretending not to be jewish have always bothered me, and others as well (see above). I have removed them for 3 reasons: first it seems to be based on info directly from Soros himself, but reprocessed through some very questionable sources, second it seems to be more about his critics who are questioning the morality of a 14 year old kid who is hiding from the Nazis under his father's orders, and third I don't think it meets the standards set by WP:BLP. Smallbones 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Kaufmann biography and there is a fair telling of the story, which caused a sensation a few years ago, including a 60 minutes episode, and probably should be included. I think a fair discussion of Mr. Soros' wartime experiences should be included, as it is important. I added some sentences that I think are fair.--Samiharris

Looks fair to me on all 3 counts 1) reliable source, 2)not about critics, 3) meets WP:BLP Smallbones 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. On the issue of Mr. Soros' marriages, I also went to Google and could find no reference to the lady in question being his third wife. Obviously on something like that one would need solid documentation.--Samiharris 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is greatly improved, as is evidenced by the talk section's heading. Soros was 13 when he delivered some deportation notices and still 13 when the Jews outside Budapest were deported to camps. I would add the word "quickly" preceding "started exterminating" Jews and add "outside Budapest" to indicate that, by the time Soros accompanied Baufluss to the confiscated Baron Kornfeld property, the Baron was long gone. But the work is so well done that a donation is more appropriate. Wolfsehr 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It is unfair to besmirch Mr. Soros for actions taken as a child, no matter what they were and certainly the greatest care needs to be taken.

On the issue of the "internal memorandum" regarding his vowing to fight insider trading charges in France, can't a source be cited on that? He has certainly generally denied culpability but I cannot recall any specific source or citation.--Samiharris 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

In the first paragraph, shouldn't it be "Soros" and not "Sorosh"? While the latter may be correct in Hungarian it is not the way the name is commonly pronounced elsewhere.--Samiharris 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See . Marcika seems to be a real Hungarian-American Brit, so is probably correct: "Shorosh." I've spent some time in Hungary, and this is the only way they pronounce it. On the other hand, I've only heard "Soros" in the US, but I guess I've never heard Soros say "Soros."

BTW, I'm about to start a complete re-structuring of the end matter (SB "done" in an hour). It's a complete mess as far as I'm concerned, any suggestion would be appreciated.

Smallbones 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, Americans mostly say "sore-oss", but that doesn't mean it is right. Just like Budapest is invariably pronounced with a "ss" instead of a "sh" in English-speaking countries, or the German stuka etc... In my opinion, at least with proper names we should take the prescriptive rather than the descriptive approach, even if only to show respect. (And yeah, I would like for people to pronounce my name properly, too, although I have given up on it here in the UK...) -- Marcika 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yr clarification. Perhaps it needs to be said that the pronounciation is the Hungarian one?--Samiharris 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Nazi collaboration

It is very important that the word "false" not be removed from the sentence describing the "Nazi collaboration" charges. Those charges were never sustained and were contradicted by the authoritative Kauffman biography. Please do not remove that word when writing about this person, as this is a living person and extra care must be taken.--Samiharris 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and reading the above discussions on "Moral Qualities" above indicates a basic consensus on this. The other main reason to include "false" is that without it it violates WP:BLP. Smallbones 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Misplaced Pages should not be a judge of these charges. This is very clear per WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental rule on wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether the charges were sustained, only that they were made. Note that wikipedia is not declaring the charges to be true either. It is simply saying that they were made. Misplaced Pages does not need to prove or disprove the charges (and should not), but may objectively report that they were made.

As a note, if it were a matter that required proof, I believe that Soros admitted to working with the Nazi's in two ways (or twice) in order to save his life as a teenager. This is collaboration even if it is forced upon pain of death. Volition is not necessary for collaboration.

Finally, so that my personal opinions toward him might be known and my own personal point of view may be evaluated: I really do not have much of an opinion about Soros. I have seen him in interviews and he seems like a smart and reasonable man who has done some good things for people. That's about all I can detect from having seen interviews with him. I have no problem with him collaborating with the Nazis to save his life. Most survivors did. They had to. It's probably a point of some shame for them, but I do not know what else they could do. (The works of Victor Frankl come from questions such as these.) I suspect Soros is alot like many other people I have met who are rich, in that he has both very good and very bad aspects to his history and character, but I do not know anything, personally of myself and I do not really care either. Finally, I know he dedicated much of his personal wealth to unseating Bush and failed. I do not care that he did this or that he failed. I think it is noteable though that he did it. That's about it. I feel that I have a pretty objective perspective. I also feel that most other people editing here may have a strong feeling about the subject. I don't. --Blue Tie 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No legal authority has ever "charged" Soros with being a Nazi collaborator. If he had been it would be different. What you are talking about is chatter picked up by the news media, concerning his behavior as a child in Nazi-occupied Hungary. The very term "collaboration" in such a context is not only unfair, it is libelous. When one deals with a living person it is essential that care be taken so as to not propagate slander. In Wiki policies, replicated at the top of this talk page I believe, there is a warning against "potentially libelous" material and this falls in under that rubric.--Samiharris 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed quote. It is cited from a questionable political source and ultimately doesn't say much of anything. It is just used to justify a non-standard use of the word "collaberation" (see above) and seems against the WP:BLP standard of "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.... The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject " Smallbones 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the authority was legal or not. A person may be charged or accused anyway. It does not matter if I picking up chatter. The fact is that this is verfiable matter. He has been charged. What is not verifiable is that these are FALSE charges. It is not libelous to say that a person has been accused, because it does not say the person did something. Because it is a verifiable matter of fact that such charges or accusations exist, it is ok to put them in here, particularly since Soros is a public figure. However, if Soros has claimed that the accusations are false that should be also asserted and cited. This is per WP:NPOV --Blue Tie 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is simply irrelevant to say "a person has been charged." Of anything. If we're trying to paint a fair and honest picture of someone, a list of things he "has been charged with" is a list of facts that are of no use to us. Any well-known person "has been charged" with just about anything. Soros had somebody murdered just yesterday! There. I said that only for the purpose of a ridiculous example, but it is now a fact that Christofurio once typed a sentence "charging" Soros with murder. An utterly irrelevant fact, which doesn't belong in any serious encyclopedia article. --Christofurio 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be irrelevant to you. It is not irrelevant to others. To some it is extremely important. So this is a matter of judgment ... or perhaps original research. However, wikipedia is pretty clear that it is not about fairness or truth. (In fact it explicitly says it is not about truth). Instead it is about verifiability and neutral point of view. Neutral point of view means that various views are given position, as long as they meet requirements of verifiability. I realize that for things that one feels strongly about this can be frustrating. But that is how wikipedia is. --Blue Tie 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "neutral point of view" doesn't mean that everything defamatory that has ever been said about somebody should be listed. That sounds rather non-neutral to me. And I'm hardly alone in that understanding of NPOV. To record a "charge" in the sense you give a word is to make the "judgment" (as you say) that it is relevant enough to be worth mentioning. That judgment entails a POV, and not a neutral one. This isn't about truth. It is about credibility and what does or doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That is precisely what I "feel strongly about" -- defending wikipedia from what amounts to the systematic vandalism you in effect are proposing. I don't give a crap about Soros, but I care very much about this issue. And what counts for me matters as much as what counts for you. That is how wikipedia is. --Christofurio 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)I agree that every defamatory thing said about a person should not be listed, but I am not sure that there is a clear wikipedia standard against it, if it is verified and noteable. If there is such a standard, I would appreciate it if you would reference it. What I suspect however, is that you are lumping noteable things with non-noteable things when you say "everything". And that isn't the case here. In this case, it is not a matter of "every" defamatory thing that was ever said. Instead, it is a matter of Soros's father, and Soros himself, making certain statements about their past which others have said illustrate a point about their morality. And not a trivial point. I have indeed made a judgment about the recording of a charge. Here it is: Someone placed it there. They found it important. Upon a review, I agree that it is an important aspect of why some people might be suspicious of him. I also agree that this isn't about truth. I agree it is about the credibility and what belongs or does not belong in an encyclopedia. But, I consider it vandalism to remove such sourced statements. Note: I did not originally propose these things, but I have defended them, even though I do not consider Soros to be necessarily responsible for something he did as a Jewish teen, at the behest of his father, to survive a Nazi holocaust. But that is my personal view and has no place here. There are people who find Soros deeply troubling. And this could well be one of the reasons. I can understand that. --Blue Tie 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"I agree that every defamatory thing said about a person should not be listed." Okay, then let's proceed from that. You had been talking as if the mere fact that some "charge" has been made by someone is enough reason to discuss it in the article. Now you seem to agree that isn't the case. That's been my point. When you discuss a particular "charge" (and I put that word in quotations because you're using it in an unusual way, to include anything anywhere) you should be willing to give a reason why it is notable. That it is about a notable person isn't a reason. Anybody can say anything. Furthermore, anybody can say anythingand then add "I think this is important." So that isn't enough either. If you include something without giving sufficient reason why it belongs, it will and should be deleted by other editors.

I've just made a slight edit which mught settle the matter. Where an earlier editor had written "false allegations," and you apparently just wanted to say "allegations" without any adjective, I've rendered it "unfounded allegations." Why? Because the allegations mentioned go beyond (I think any reasonable reader will say they twist and distort) what Soros actually said in the materials generally cited. Whetehr you like the words "twist or distort" isn't really the point here. What is the point is that the allegation, in going beyond the source material, are by definition without foundation, so they are as a matter of fact "unfounded." If we're going to mention them at all, we should say that. --Christofurio 20:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "charges" seems to be a problem to you. What about "accusations"? Or "allegations"? --Blue Tie 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the "questionable political source" of the Soros quote is an article DEFENDING SOROS against the charge of collaboration -- hence my decision to use it rather than one of the many anti-Soros sources that use one form or another of the quotes in question. By referring to a source that defends Soros against the accusation and gives an unedited excerpt of the Soros interview, I believe that a competent reader would have sufficient information to judge the claim for him/herself. It would appear that some of those doing the revisions and other edits don't believe that users of Misplaced Pages are nearly so competent -- or they are so partisan as to be willing to SUPPRESS SOROS' OWN WORDS when they are relevant to the discussion. As for the semantic difference between "charges" and "accusations". I believe that the issue is a red herring -- especially when the version of the sentence before I changed it referred to "false charges" of collaboration. Also, Smallbones, who disputed the quote -- there appears to be no dispute over the quote until you pulled it as "disputed".168.171.60.254 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)GSA

Halliburton investments

I'm surprised that recent highlighting of his investing in this controversial military contract company hasn't been placed into the article. Meh. I haven't the time this week, sorry. If I wrote a quick one-liner it would probably seem terribly biased.

Why is that? A quick line or two does not have to be biased, if not written in a biased fashion.--Samiharris 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wartime accusations

Another editor beat me to the punch and correctly removed an unfair reference to Soros's supposed participation in "atrocities" during World War II. It is essential that such libelous accusations not be permitted in the encyclopedia, in accordance with wiki policies on biographies of living persons, BLP. This all took place when Soros was a child and are grossly unfair.--Samiharris 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That other editor takes his humble bow. ;-) --Christofurio 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I asked what the neutrality tag was all about and got the following answer. I'll follow that with quotes from the article showing that the concerns are taken care of and remove the tag. It's a big article and it can be hard to find what you're looking for. Anybody who doesn't agree is welcome to put the tag back on and explain. Smallbones 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was meaning to add an explanation, but ran out of time. Anyways, as you probably know he is a big donor ($$$) to many organizations. He defended a lawyer who was convicted of a crime. The lawyer had been running messages between the terrorist and al-Qaeda. This particular terrorist preached that Muslims should kill all Jews. Soros is Jew. In fact, he took the role of a gentile during the time of Hitler because he lived in Hungary. I was going to add this in a more encyclopedic way, but I ran out of time. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From the article

According to the National Review the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart. She is a controversial lawyer who has defended terrorists in court and was sentenced to 2⅓ years in prison for "providing material support for a terrorist conspiracy" via a press conference for a client. An OSI spokeswoman said "it appeared to us at that time that there was a right-to-counsel issue worthy of our support."

Soros worked briefly for the Jewish Council, which had been established by the Nazis, to deliver messages to Jewish lawyers being called for deportation. Soros was not aware of the consequence of the messages. To avoid his son being apprehended by the Nazis, his father had Soros spend the summer of 1944 living with a non-Jewish Ministry of Agriculture employee, posing as his godson.

There is a problem with this paragraph because elsewhere, I believe, Soros said that he WAS aware of the consequence of the message. There are other problems with it as well. Repeatedly this paragraph has had balancing views removed. Hence the NPOV tag should remain. --Blue Tie 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms..first source

George Soros, Soros on Soros, Staying Ahead of the Curve (New York: John Wiley, 1995) Does anyone have this book, so they can check the quote used.. "When you speculate in the financial markets you are free of most of the moral concerns that confront an ordinary businessman.." All sources are one article by Heather Cotin and contain personal attacks " Soros has a schizophrenic craving for unlimited personal wealth". Cheers Dmanning 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News statement

Seems like someone was feeling very political when they posted that Fox News constantly attacks Soros due to his dumping of millions of dollars to beat Bush. I'm not a fan of FNC, but comon....thats just blantantly out of place. Sources? While true that Soros did put in millions in an attempt to stop a Bush re-election, this Fox News comment doesn't belong anywhere on this page, at least while it has no sources to prove a "constant" attack by FNC on Soros. And even if sources were found to prove this, a more correct placing for it might be on FNC's Wiki page. Eryk13 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Eryk13

Fox?

If ABC runs a story on Mother Teresa, should it go on the ABC page?

Fox is alleging that George Soros is the mastermind behind a huge political apparatus to effect US elections. If true, is this a news story? Is his background inconsistent with building political organizations to control national governments? George Soros is not Mother Teresa. Raggz 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly correct. While Foxnews might be slanted to the right, most other news sources tend to be slanted to the left. Yet anytime some news story from Foxnews is used as a source, it is shot down. People say, "Oh it's Foxnews, where's the journalistic integrity? They're biased." Then they go on and post article after article supported by Foxnews. You know what, I think that Foxnews is biased as well. Alot of people do. But I also think that as long as people know that it comes from Foxnews then there should be no problem. People can make up their own minds. All we should do is add the stories to the articles as they become newsworthy, all the while making sure that it is big enough to matter. And I think a story that Soros is masterminding a huge political apparatus is very, very newsworthy. Let people make of the source whatever they will. 64.185.4.7 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We also have to be careful about WP:BLP. But Foxnews isn't some tabloid reporting that Tom Cruise is gay, it's a major news source that is reporting something very newsworthy. 64.185.4.7 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

End of the Soros Network

Many currency speculators see the comming end of the Euro, and as a result many believe that will then break the back of his influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etom (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Uncited quote

Can anybody find a citation for this?

• On the subprime housing meltdown: "Anyone who purchased a home during the housing boom that was a victim of predatory lending deserves a tax payer funded bail-out.

removed from article by Smallbones 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Goggling the phrase "Anyone who purchased a home during the housing boom" got me only ONE result -- sending me back to this page! There could be some nowhere-on-line source for this statement: he could have said it to Tibetan monks who recorded it on a stone tablet and buried it at the foot of Mount Everest, I suppose. But until somebody produces the tablet, this just looks like a smear. --Christofurio 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote is definitely a hoax and should be removed from the encyclopedia if that has not happened already.--Samiharris 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrestricted Warfare (book) section removed

the following diff may be controversial, and people may want to revisit my 90% removal of a new section. It seemed to be more about the book than Soros, and even then not NPOV. Since I haven't read the book, I only left in what seems knowable, but others may be better able to edit the section. Smallbones 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is POV, that's why it is cited as "Unrestricted Warfare"'s POV AND gives quotations from the book, as well as an excerpt from the article about the Crisis in en:wikipedia.

The reason for this paragraph was not Soros-bashing; Unrestricted Warfare (which you can read online in FBIS' translation) merely cites Soros as the first one to do it. It is more about the dangers of individuals (corporate or natural) who can destabilise economies in a short time.

I will revert your lawnmower-reduction; as I cited the reasons of my edit, it will now be possible to edit it more carefully to an NPOV approach. As I am neither a Soros fan nor enemy and only do see the implications of the 1997's crisis, I don't deem myself as a valid judge what could be seen as POV by Soros enthusiasts. --85.181.35.144 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm neither a Soros fan nor an enemy, but it was a clear WP:BLP violation. I encourage you to read WP:BLP; if I see this kind of stuff in the article again, I'll protect it. Jayjg 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I have the time to do that. An interesting fact is how one-sided Soros is depicted in the book; it looks like the authors also "get back" at him for his political funding of Eastern-European anti-communist activists.

Perhaps you might want to give a short excerpt which facts are no clear violation of WP:BP, what WP:BPL is, and why a single-sided comment in a influential textbook that is used, among other NATO agencies, by the US Naval School, has no part in a person's article. I have seen that people involved in Soros object to the book; that may be, but that should be eMailed to the authors. Right now, no controversial discussion of the accusations of the authors of UR are available; that Soros' speculations were the trigger of the Financial Crisis are no discussion. The consequences of the crisis are no discussion, neither; and it can well be argued that Soros' deathstroke fell the system before necessary reforms could be taken, thereby preserving the economies of SEA (South-East Asia) and avoiding the economical backlash on other countries as the USA. The accusations in B:UR (Book: Unrestricted Warefare) that he intentionally started the crisis should however be discussed controversially in light of China as a communist state and Soros' political activities. As I still think that triggering a crisis such as the 1997 SEA Crisis has to be addressed in an article about a person, living or dead, in more than a subordinate clause of "criticism", and as I see that others may also share this reasoning, it is perhaps indeed better to protect the page against other violations of long WP rule codices with non-mnemonic abbreviation titles. --85.181.35.144 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops - the 'financial terrorist' charge was put into the intro - which I think is totally inappropriate, and I missed it when I did the "lawn mower" edit to the new section. As far as leaving in a mention that "the book x written by a and b says y" I don't see this as controversial at all - the only caveat being that maybe there are already too many of these. Under the currency speculation section there are 2. One (properly referenced) of a former Prime Minister calling Soros an "idiot" and another (please check reference) of somebody calling Soros a "bloodsucker." The fact that might be included fairly (if properly referenced) is that people call Soros these things, not that Soros is these things. Smallbones 10:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I question whether the book should be mentioned at all, given the nature of its authorship not to mention the degree to which its irresponsible contents conflict with BLP. I am surprised there is an article on a book such as this. Is it really notable?--Samiharris 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the "irresponsible contents" part of the book?--Purpleslog 16:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Section on "extreme" or "irrational" attacks???

Given the above and the back and forth on whether what O'Reilly says is notable (even if it seems absurd), would it be better to have a section labeled "extreme criticisms"? I know this seems extreme and POV, but when a Prime Minister calls Soros a moron, other people say he "sucks blood", the New Republic suggests that he's a Nazi collaberator, two Chinese colonels say that he is a "financial terrorist" and now O'Reilly says he controls major US media... How can we put these things in at all under WP:BLP? But how can we leave them out if somebody notable says such irrational things? Opinions welcome (here not in the article).

Smallbones 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And now the Republican National Committee spokeman says the Soros "has purchased the Democratic Party." Smallbones 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the nonsense section about O'Reilly's nonsense attack (labeled "Influencing the Media"). There wasn't a single fact quoted that said Soros influences the media. NYTimes article didn't mention Soros. WPost article quotes a Republican spokesperson saying the Soros "purchased the Democratic Party." O'Reilly adds 0 + 1 and gets 37, saying Soros is "one of the most feared men in the world," and suggests calling him "Dr. Evil." There's no news here, no informed opinion, except perhaps to show that O'Reilly is not in anyway limited by journalistic ethics (but is that really news?).

Smallbones 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I read those edits and saw that O'Reilly actually says that and more. The Washington Post article says quite a bit. Why did you take out that quote from the Post article?

The New York Times doesn't mention Soros by name, though. You're right about that. However, it does mention Moveon.org, which is what was mentioned in the edit. Soros wasn't mentioned in the edit, but he funds moveon.org and that's why O'Reilly is always making a big deal about all this stuff.

Plus, I don't buy your argument which is basically: "If it's from OReilly, it's thrown out because it's riduculous." Why don't you let the reader be the judge of that? OReilly has his own reputation, he's very well known. Nobody's hiding the fact that something is coming from O'Reilly. It's stated in the footnotes PLUS the article itself. People can make of it what they want to.

I'm putting the WPost thing back up because that's a legit criticism and it's obvious that it's sourced well. You should have never removed that. Meanwhile, we'll argue about the other criticisms.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the WPost quote to a section that already says almost the same thing. The quote in itself is reasonable (but perhaps redundant), a new section that says Soros controls the US media, owns the Democratic Party, etc. is not reasonable. Politics are already extensively covered, so a new section on "Political Influence" is not needed. What factual content did O'Reilly actually give? As I read it, his arguement is something like this 1) Soros donated to MoveOn.org, 2) MoveOn.org talks on a regular basis to media and to Domocratic Representatives and Senators, thus 37) Soros controls the US media and the Democratic Party. 1) + 2) = 37) does not follow.

It might be included that O'Reilly makes a rediculous criticism as above, but how would that line up with WP:BLP for BOTH Soros and O'Reilly?

Smallbones 08:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your placement of the WPost criticism. It is, indeed, much more appropriate where you placed it.

As for O"reilly's argument, you left a few critical elements out. On 1) Soros didn't merely make a donation to Moveon.org, he donates millions and millions to Moveon.org, Media Matters, etc. And after 2) Moveon.org talks regularly with Democratic leaders, there's also a 3) Moveon.org told them that they would no longer support any particular person in the Democratic party is they were against a timetable for withdrawal of troops. O'Reilly's point is that Soros, being the major donor of this organization (other organizations he sponsors use similar tactics, but that's beside the point) is implicated in its actions. OReilly characterizes these actions as bullying.

Now, of course, Soros does not own Moveon.org. So why don't we compromise with this? Let's put the statement back in, in full. Because it was a criticism (and a major, well refrenced criticism as well that should not be hidden). Then let's add an additional sentence, saying something like: "However, Soros does not control Moveon.org's day-to-day operations and is simply a major donor."

This way we're not hiding the fact that there was a major criticism that was made, yet also we're pointing out the weakness in O'Reilly's argument. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage Quote

"Despite his hand in the fall of the Soviet Union, this has not dissuaded conservative critics in the United States from repeatedly calling him a "communist". "

Does Michael Savage, arguably the most extreme of all populist American political commentators, really represent the overall view of "conservative critics" that Soros is a Communist? Savage would call his own mother a communist, but that doesn't mean that conservatives criticize Mrs. Savage (or whatever her real name is) of being a communist. It would probably make a lot more sense to read that "Despite his hand in the fall of the Soviet Union, critics like Michael Savage have referred to Soros as a Communist." To draw an analogy, Iran criticized Soros of being a Zionist this morning... would it be fair to say "Despite his ideological opposition to Israeli militarism, this has not dissuaded Muslim critics in the Middle East from repeatedly calling him a "Zionist". I'd hope that everybody would understand the problem with both of these remarks in the article. 192.80.61.168 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (MichaelBrazell on Public computer)

"Far Left Influence: 'Hurricane Soros' Is Getting Stronger" from the O'Reilly/Fox newscast discussed above. which goes on to describe Soros as "one of the most feared people on eath" and suggests calling him "Dr. Evil."

I think it's quite fair to say that conservatives give Soros a hard time calling him "far left" on a regular basis, and there are undoubtedly several quotes of conservatives calling him a communist.

Then there are the people from the far left, e.g. Neil Clark in the paragraph above the Savage cite. In the article, Clark suggests calling Soros a "Paid-up operative of the CIA." How should wikipedia editors deal with extremes like this?? - except for the most notable, I think we better ignore, or condense, and to a certain extent - show the range of the extreme critics.

For what its worth, I think the sentence with "conservative" included "Despite his hand in the fall of the Soviet Union, conservative critics like Michael Savage have referred to Soros as a Communist" might be fair. Although, then the problem might come up about other consevative critics - maybe we'll go back after 3 more conservative quotes come in. Smallbones 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Communist" is a defamatory term and I don't believe that repeating such smear tactics is permitted under WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid.--Samiharris 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but the way the sentence in the article is currently written seems to be equally bad. Maybe you should take the whole sentence out. But actually I think that the sentence was originally put in by somebody who seems to be a Soros fan.

I think I'll withdraw for a while from editing this article (except for removing some of the most outrageous smears that come through from time to time). I've been trying to figure out how to allow the inclusion of the facts that notable people make some outrageous statements about Soros, without implying that these statements are true. I've made a major mess of this - everybody gets offended . Sorry. I might notify the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN that I think there is a potential problem here, but I think they probably already know that. Smallbones 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have taken out "communist" and replaced with "attacking him." It is absurd to accuse this lifelong trader of such a thing, apart from being defamatory. Generally I have a problem the section for the reasons pointed out earlier. Savage is an extreme commentator and I question this section appearing in the first place.--Samiharris 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with Soros is that so few people actually know anything about him. Very little gets said about him anymore aside from what O'Reilly says. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Look at all the references here. Smallbones 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'Buying political influence' section

Adding a section accusing Soros of "buying" political influence, on the say-so of one commentator, is grossly unfair to Soros as well as being defamatory. The charge has been denied, and I question whether this segment should be there at all. I have reduced it substantially in size and placed a more neutral section headline on it. Under WP:BLP, such accusations against a public figure require better sourcing. I am frankly not happy with this section even though reduced, and believe it needs to go entirely.--Samiharris 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your reduction is perfect. Short, sweet, and sourced. I would object to its entire removal. Regardless of how people feel about O'Reilly or Fox, it is notable criticism, is sourced reliably, and should be in the article. It's current form gives it the right amount of weight. The long run-on quotes before were a little over the top. - Crockspot 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the praise, but I concur in the removal of the section, which was just effectuated by another editor. This accusation is along the lines of a smear tactic and I don't believe it belongs in an encyclopedia. I think that an accusation of this kind must be backed up by multiple reliable sources under WP:BLP.--Samiharris 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm glad that others agree with me. If this criticism is really notable then surely we can produce multiple reputable sources that report on it, for us to cite. Simply repeating what Bill O'Reilly (the modern Father Coughlin)is not going to cut it, and amounts to giving undue weight to his opinion, not to mention it being a smear accusation typical of that loud mouth right wing %$#@. Again, if its a notable, real criticism, then we would have no trouble coming up with multiple sources that content the identical point. If not, it should really go.Giovanni33 09:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section of WP:BLP that I believe applies in this situation:

"Biased or malicious content"

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

--Samiharris 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a bit of an expert on WP:BLP, I can tell you that the "agenda pusher" being referred to in that passage is the wiki editor, not the journalist. I believe I have met the criteria that the policy encourages you to insist upon. The source cited is a reliable third party published source, O'Reilly is a notable commentator, and his comments should be reported as they are relevant to the subject of this article. Nothing in the text commits Misplaced Pages's voice to verifying the truth of O'Reilly's claims. Rather, rebuttal evidence is also presented. They are his comments, and we are simply reporting them as such. BLP articles should not be libellous, nor should they be a whitewash. I think that we can all agree on at least that much. - Crockspot 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"sourced reliably"?!? To Bill O'Reilly?!? It is a lie, perpetrated by the host of a fact-free info-tainment show. It must be removed per BLP, or else the policy is meaningless or toothless. If this is allowed to stand, there are no standards for what counts as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Any fool can say anything about anyone, and it must be enshrined here, or else opponents of the subject of the article will call the removal "partisan", as they are here. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it goes against your political beliefs doesn't make it malicious. It's sourced, it's a MAJOR criticism by a MAJOR personality. "Clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability?" ---Well, it's Bill O'Reilly. Whatever you might think of him, he gets millions of viewers every night. In fact, he has the top rated news program on cable television--including MSNBC and CNN. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, how can I assume good faith when you dismiss anything and everything that comes from Bill O'Reilly as a lie? It is obvious that your politics are blinding you from these simple facts: 1) Bill O'Reilly is a major public figure, and alot of people listen to what he says 2) This is a major criticism that is also fair; the Media Matters refutation was added in. Therefore WP:BLP won't work. It doesn't mean that criticism can't EVER be expressed. It simply means that there are certain guidelines that have to be followed.

By the way, since you're such a champion for WP:BLP, why don't you go over to George W. Bush's page and take off all of the criticisms sourced by Michael Moore? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a very novel interpretation of WP:BLP would require the removal of this info. Fox News is a reliable source, and O'Reilly has the highest-rated show on cable news, so his opinion is notable. As long as there is proper attribution that this is O'Reilly's opinion, there is no valid reason to exclude it. I am restoring it, but I'll re-check the wording before saving. See the content defended by User:Gamaliel in the Jeff Gannon article for a similar sourcing situation. - Crockspot 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. If Fox News is a reliable source, then all sorts of other things must be true -- Saddam Hussein must have nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq must be a stunning success, and Anna Nicole Smith must be the most important item in world news. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't have the luxury of dismissing mainstream media cable news organizations as unreliable. - Crockspot 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are saying that their unreliability is not a sufficient reason to not consider them reliable. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of singling out a particular O'Reilly rant, wouldn't it be better to have a section detailing overall criticism of Soros and the peculiar effect he has on right-wingers? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is already a subsection of the larger "Critics" section, so are you suggesting adding more criticism from Limbaugh, Hannity, whoever? I wasn't thinking of expansion, but maybe we could end up with an even briefer statement that just lists the critics, with cites of their criticism. Maybe a one sentence summary of the criticism. The "peculiar effect" you mention, I hoping that can be sourced too, because it sounds a little ORish. - Crockspot 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of less specific criticism from Hannity, et al, substituting it with a general summary of their thoughts. And it isn't OR to point out the obvious fact that Soros makes these guys foam at the mouth, though I'm sure we can find a sourced equivalent. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, we're on the same page about the specificity. Something like: Soros has been criticized by O'Reilly (cite), Ann Malkin (cite), Rush Hannity (cite) for what they claim is an undue influence on blah blah blah. Others have reported foaming at conservatives' mouths at the mere mention of his name (cite). I can work with that. I actually found some RS sources for that last claim, except they might not be quite what you had in mind, as the foaming being reported on isn't at the mouths of conservatives. :) - Crockspot 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll still refrain from editing, but allow myself to comment. 1) I personally don't think that Fox is a reliable news source. Just because it is big? Pravda and Izvestia were quite big. I'll quote Mike Royko about the Murdoch news organization "No self-respecting dead fish would consent to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper." 2) I like the cut down version of "Political Influence" - that was just facts fact a) O'Reilly said... fact b) Media Matters said O'Reilly was wrong. But just 'cause a well known commentator make a fool of himself, it doesn't mean that it has to be in an article, however. Smallbones 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So do you consider Fox News to be less reliable than, say, Counterpunch.org, The Raw Story, MediaMatters.org, or Salon.com, all of which are currently used to source negative information in blp articles, and are defended as RS by editors who may be participating in this discussion here? - Crockspot 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly consider Salon or Media Matters more reliable than Fox. Most of what MMFA produces is articles saying "Hannity said this ridiculous thing", and it's hard to be unreliable when you are essentially just transcribing. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the question was asked of me, I'll answer it. I don't follow those other sources, so I have no opinion on them. I do however every once in a while turn the dial to Fox and none of it looks remotely like serious journalism to me, certainly not O'Rielly. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many people in the world of journalism, e.g. Murdoch owns the Times and Sunday Times of London. Before the owner would sell, they put in strict restricitons limiting Murdoch's ability to affect editorial policy,i.e. they didn't trust him to report the news fairly and accurately. The same thing is going on now with Dow Jones, Murdoch wants to buy it but the owners (as capitalist as they come) don't trust Murdoch to report the news fairly, so they are insisting on limiting his ability to affect editorial policy.Smallbones 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You know that MMFA does more than "just transcribe". So a Media Matters transcription of what Hannity said to Colmes (with their editorial spin on it) is more reliable than the transcript of the broadcast that is posted on the Fox News website? Just wow. (Tell me you're just having fun with me, please.) - Crockspot 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a Fox transcript would be a reliable source for citing what was said on Fox News. However, Fox News itself has proven to be more akin to editorial-opinion articles (i.e., unreliable) in its depiction of external reality. MMFA does transcriptions of TV shows, and those transcriptions are reliable accounts of what occured on those shows. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not what I said at all. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, right now the O'Reilly quote is sourced from Foxnews. However, I am looking at the identical quote by O'Reilly over on Media Matters website. If you want to keep at this, we can just source the identical O'Reilly quote directly from Media Matters (a more reliable source, since it's transcriptions, in your words) and the issue will be resolved.

Even still, though, the opinion issue is irrelevant. Opinions do matter and, as long as they are made by a notable personality so as to not effect weight (as in views held only my a tiny minority) then it can and should stick. Just like Michael Moore's controversial opinions of George W. Bush. And by the way, last I heard, Bush was still a living person.

Yet even still, it isn't an editorial-opinion that was quoted by O'Reilly. If you go back and re-read it, it is not editorial-opinionism but reporting-journalism, although O'Reilly does also do editorials as well. Any conclusion that O'Reilly forms on this matter, has it's basis in the facts that he and his team uncovered. Whether or not all of what he said happens to be true when it's all said and done, it is too major of a statement by too notable of a personality to merely be shoved under the WP:BLP rug. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and re-read it, it is not editorial-opinionism but reporting-journalism, although O'Reilly does also do editorials as well.

I read it. It's garbage. It's not journalism. It's low-brow entertainment. "PHIL KENT, MEDIA CONSULTANT: George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations." Maybe we should put that in the article! After all, it's on FOX NEWS, so it must be reliable! After all, tens of millions of Americans receive their news from FOX NEWS! George SOros must be the Doctor Evil of "the whole world of left-wing foundations." What a joke. — goethean ॐ 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. O'Reilly is not a reliable source, and not notable for serious journalism worthy of relying upon to cite, esp. as a single source. If anything O'Reilly is notable for his unreliablity, and as a major clown, infotainment, along the lines of Rush Limbauh, et al. They are NOT serious journalism and not reliable unless its about themselves.Giovanni33 09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so first WP:BLP is cited, then O'Reilly is cited as being an unreliable source? This is according to your opinions, just like many people feel that Michael Moore is an unreliable source that Counterpunch.org, that the Raw Story, that MediaMatters.org, or that Salon.com are also unreliable because they have an overwhelming bias.

If you want to know who's unreliable here, it's not O'Reilly, it's Goethean. I already said that I lost good faith in Goethean's edits on political matters. He posted on my page that, basically, everything that comes from Michael Moore must be fact and everything that comes from O'Reilly must be lies. This bias disturbs me.

Further when he said: "Ok, thanks for clearing that up. If Fox News is a reliable source, then all sorts of other things must be true -- Saddam Hussein must have nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq must be a stunning success, and Anna Nicole Smith must be the most important item in world news." This is obviously a very distorted view of Foxnews. Like I said, I have reason to have lost good faith in Goethean and I will be reporting any future vandalism. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on the article rather than on the presumed bias of fellow editors. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your words speak for themselves. We'll let other editors presume bias, but I've already cast my vote.

Perhaps calling you a vandal was a bit strong, but you are blanking edits that others would like to see stick; not just me. No consensus has been achieved here. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to return to the topic at hand: no, I do not believe that Bill O'Reilly is a reliable source for a factual accusation against George Soros, one that has been denied. Whether you agree with him or not, O'Reilly has an agenda. BLP states that Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia and we are under no obligation to repeat smears that are defamatory and harmful to subjects of biographies. "Do no harm" is the rule in doubtful cases.--Samiharris 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, just like Michael Moore whose criticisms have been noted on other pages. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's not a valid argument. You don't like that article? Go change it. You don't ilke policy? Go change it. This discussion page is for this article. Additionally, your constant harping on my presumed bias is becoming personal. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the Media Matters response, but still believe that a third party reliable source is required on this. I do not believe that this section is fair or should remain in the encyclopedia.--Samiharris 14:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way; I don't know that much about Soros, O'Reilly, or this controversy, but WP:BLP#Criticism and WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material make it clear that for broad allegations like this you would need multiple top-notch sources. What little I do know about Soros is that he is a billionaire, and can afford to hire the best litigators in the world if he so chooses, so we're going to be very, very cautious here about protecting the Wikimedia Foundation. This kind of material needs a strong consensus to be included, not excluded. And WP:BLP is also quite explicit that unless there is a very strong rationale and agreement for including the material, I can revert the material out as many times as I want, lock the article, or even block editors who keep inserting it. And the latter especially goes for editors who have under 200 edits, most of them devoted four articles. Is that clear enough? Jayjg 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sami, I like your edit and commend you on expanding Media Matter's comment. This is the right way to edit.

Can someone find some sort of policy or a precedent set in some similar case? Because that's what matters, not fear of litigation. If we open that door then Misplaced Pages is going to become chaos and anything could be interpreted as libelous and Misplaced Pages's policies will be thrown out the window.

Back to the policies, if we find a policy or precedent that would not allow for comments by an O'Reilly, then we've also got to go through Misplaced Pages and remove criticisms by the Michael Moore's and alot of other notables who have agendas. This would be bad because these things deserve to be in the encyclopedia, but since there might be an agenda, we'll have to remove it. We also will have to call into question alot of biased news-sources, like counterpunch, which have been accepted thus far. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch is a strongly partisan source which should rarely be used, if at all, and particularly when it comes to BLP issues. That said, it's not relevant to this article. Jayjg 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and appreciate your clarifying BLP.--Samiharris 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't have alot of experience on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. |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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages- 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 Misplaced Pages article about him. But not everything that he says is notable. And it all doesn't have to be enshrined at Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

<Removing Personal Attack.>Willie Peter 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Because of the edit-war, and the appearance of a new one-issue editor, I've protected the page. Looking over the history of this article, I'm extremely disappointed to see that people have been inserting the potentially BLP-violating material without a consensus. I thought I was quite clear that a strong consensus was required before this material could be re-inserted. Fortunately for those inserting it, the page protection means that there is no point in my blocking those responsible. However, before I unlock the page, I will be instituting a poll, and if there is no clear consensus in that poll for inserting the material, then I will start blocking anyone who inserts it, for increasing periods of time. Are there any questions? Jayjg 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good decision.--Samiharris 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll apologize to the extent that I kept on inviting comment on the border-line issue that I don't understand (notable critic makes non-factual criticism). To some extent I think that egged people on. To the extent that I still don't understand that particular situation - I'll follow the required strong consensus rule, and hope others will as well. I'll suggest that in a couple of days the protection might be removed. Smallbones 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

and no I don't see any compelling reason to insert the material again. Smallbones 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones, as you can see, was an editor on the fence, and stated that the O'Reilly criticism might ought to be included because O'Reilly is notable and his criticism matters. However, he believed Foxnews to be an unreliable source. He checked on the policy and said that we needed a secondary source to allow the edit to work. Then I used Media Matters as such a secondary source. For a while, nobody made any complaints, and Goethean even made an edit to improve the addition I made. Then, for some reason, Goethean "flip-flopped" and began reverting and using a whole new argument, not WP:BLP. This is no longer a WP:BLP issue to those who dissent. The issue has become "Media Matters is not a news source."|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be shocking, but Misplaced Pages has more than one policy. Misplaced Pages's content must meet the requirements of all policies, not just one. The fact that your content violated more than one policy shouldn't really be a commentary on my character, but I guess that's sophistry for you. In the future, myself or someone else may discover that this content violates a different Misplaced Pages policy. In response, you can accuse editors of bad faith or of trying to get you blocked, or you can refactor the content so that it abides by policy. Or you can revisit your own reasons for attempting to put the content in the article.

Not every comment that falls from a TV personality's lips is notable. Thus it must be shown, through coverage by third-party sources, that O'Reilly's comments are notable. It is probably debatable (and it probably has been debated extensively) whether, according to Misplaced Pages policy, a posting on Media Matters for America's website qualifies. Additionally, reproducing his comments should not make the article run afoul of WP:BLP or any other Misplaced Pages policies. — goethean ॐ 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, please take a look at this inclusion in the Bill Moyers article, and tell me if something like that would be acceptable. It simply mentions that O'Reilly is a frequent critic, (with four secondary news sources that are not O'Reilly or Fox), and briefly mentions a full-page ad that Moyers took out in response to "personal attacks" by O'Reilly (reusing one of the secondary sources cited in the sentence before). Eleemosnary seems to have a big problem with this inclusion, but can't cite any violation other than it being "unencyclopedic". That editor has also urged consensus building on the talk page, but now that consensus is building against his wishes (without any participation by him), he accuses me of "consensus engineering" and reverts, gaming 3RR by minutes. I would like your honest opinion of that inclusion. I think it fits all of the requirements that you have been asking for. - Crockspot 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure. As long as you're no longer afraid that I'm just trying to get you blocked... — goethean ॐ 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything or anyone on Misplaced Pages. I am attempting to be productive here before a certain block expires, and the accusations of puppetry and personal attacks start up again. - Crockspot 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean like "flip-flopping"?

Regarding Bill Moyers, this guy brings up a pretty good point, which is: are we including all of O'Reilly's attacks (we are a bit kind in calling them criticism) in Misplaced Pages? Is that undue weight? If we are not including all of them, which ones are we including, and why these and not others? But apart from these questions, which I guess accompany all content, the addition looks ok in its attenuated form. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the flipflop remark was appropriate at the time, but I will apologize for it now. So if we construct something similar, keeping it to just mentioning that he has been a frequent critic without going into the character of the criticism, or any quoted ranting, supply a few secondary non-fox sources to show that there has been reporting on their disputes, and maybe one direct citation of a recent O'Reilly piece (like is in the Moyers article), then you would be satisfied as to notability, undue weight, BLP, and relevance, and would no longer object? If we can come to an agreement on such a neutral and sourced passage, I would pledge to keep an eye on it and try to keep it under control, and not let it turn into a rant-fest. Now, as far as secondary sources go, there are some that we cannot seem to access directly for free, but by massaging the Google news archive search keywords, I can get google to spit out relevant sentences in the hits, enough at least to verify that the mentions are not trivial. As you know, a url is not a prerequisite for a valid citation. (I might be able to find equivalent reprints of the articles, but they might not be on citable websites.) If I can provide the search links here in talk that give us the right returns in the google hits, or maybe a copyvio reprint on some goof's website, just for readable access, are we going to have a problem with citations that do not include a url to a full free non-copyvio copy of the source that doesn't require payment? - Crockspot 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find this information on the web, you should be asking yourself how notable it really is. But barring that, it seems appropriate that we have the news coverage of the attack quoted for us. If it's not on the web, give me the citation and I will head over to the library and read it. That should be good enough.

and maybe one direct citation of a recent O'Reilly piece (like is in the Moyers article)

I don't think that quoting O'Reilly is necessary. — goethean ॐ 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a quote, just a citation/footnote to support the statement "Bill O'Reilly has been a frequent critic of Soros." How I handled it in Moyers was just the one sentence, with five footnotes. Four of them were AP/WaPo etc., and the last one was the most recent O'Reilly piece. For Soros, since he didn't respond by taking out a full paged ad like Moyers did, I don't see really anything necessary beyond the single sentence. Two of the articles I'm thinking of were from the New Yorker. Some publishers are very strict about making people pay for their archived stories. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not notable. BTW, do you have a library card? And are you in the US? You might be able to access the articles through AccessMyLibrary.com for free, and not even have to leave your mom's basement. :) Sorry, cheap shot, I know. - Crockspot 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. — goethean ॐ 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Allrighty then. I think we have made some headway. I'll start compiling sources over the next few days, and post them below. Bellowed mentioned that he was working on something himself, so perhaps he can lend some sources too. We appear to have agreement on a simple statement, we just need to agree on which sources to use to support it. Thanks. I feel much better now. - Crockspot 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I've got stuff that perhaps Crockspot doesn't know about where Soros criticizes O'Reilly. Soros went on Neil Cavuto's show and criticized O'Reilly for a good deal of time, and I wanted to add that in to the edit as a brief response to O'Reilly.

And I do think that we need to address what it is that O'Reilly says, to some degree, about Soros, rather than merely mentioning that he's criticized him. Now, I'm willing to compromise and not run the edit with O'Reilly's quote (even though I found ALOT of other secondary sources for it). What I would like to do, however, is run a general statement, briefly mentioning what O'Reilly criticizes Soros for. There are tons and tons of very good second party sources to support statements like "O'Reilly has frequently alleged crimes, political misconduct, media influence, and criticized Soros's organizations" for which I have sources from the WPost, the WTimes, several from the LA Times, The Nation, MSNBC, many times from Cindy Sheehan (if her statements are actually usable on Wiki), several books, Salon.com, Media Matters (if usable), the SF Chronicle, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Financial Times, Christian Science Monitor, Variety, the New Yorker, and alot of others. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that editorial pieces are not reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this and it's interesting Goethena's standards of WP:NPOV. I will begin to compile evidence to justify this statement. But for now, in reading the arguments, I would say there's an agenda afoot.Willie Peter 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Willie, I think it would be more productive if you addressed content rather than the contributors. I really don't want to see proof of Goethean's bias on this page. We all have biases. Let's just try to work around those biases and come to a compromise. - Crockspot 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just wondering, what rulez are we to follow and who decides on the application of said rulez? Me? YOU?, or HIM? or a neutral admin?.Willie Peter 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to build a consensus. Goethean and I have already come to a tentative agreement on a framework for how an inclusion will look, and how it will be sourced. I would prefer to move forward from here rather than backward. By the way, there is no "a" in Crockspot. - Crockspot 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be dumb for a moment, and place this thought on the paper - If I should get enough people to agree, with me that 2+2=5, then I have consensus and we further the greater good? Now, not to be accused of being disruptive, I would say that logic needs to be explained to be where and when we should apply "consensus" vers "absolute truth". Please feel free to make a deal with Mr G, but I will look it over, with the concepts of WP:BLP WP:NPOV and see if they fit. Thanks.Willie Peter 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a legitimate criticism of Misplaced Pages that has been observed by notable people. See Wikiality. - Crockspot 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a proper criticism in this situation. What Jayjg stated, in protecting this page, was that a consensus must be reached as to the inclusion of certain derogatory information. This was done under the rubric of Misplaced Pages policies designed to protect the reputations of living people. The aim is to provide safeguards against slander and presumably also to protect the encyclopedia from legal liability. I think it is a responsible thing to do. --Samiharris 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was citing Wikiality more in the general sense of Willy's "2+2=5 by consensus" comment, not comparing it directly to this situation. It is fair to say that "Wikiality" is a little bit of a problem at Misplaced Pages. But that's a discussion for another page. I've learned to accept a certain amount of wikiality, and try to work with it. - Crockspot 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if sufficient reliable sources can be found, it would be OK to say that Soros has come under criticism from X, Y and Z. However, this should not be used as an excuse to repeat and perpetuate smear accusations.--Samiharris 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Goethean- I agree that editorials are unreliable as primary sources. However, as a second-party source it is completely allowable.

Sami- I definately don't think the article should say anything like 'According to Bill O'Reilly, Soros is masterminding a plot to infiltrate the media which will then brainwash all Americans into believing his left-wing propoganda, blah blah blah..' I think instead we could somehow come up with a general statement of what O'Reilly's opinion of him happens to be, just stripped of O'Reilly's venom. I'm thinking along the lines of, "O'Reilly is a frequent critic of George Soros, criticizing everything from his financial activites, his alleged involvement with the media, and political activism." Certainly we could all agree to something along those lines?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be as bare bones as possible. I think a certain amount of summarizing would be ok, as long as it doesn't get into a laundry list of O'Reilly's complaints. But as I have agreed to above, I would even accept just the statement that he has been a critic, with multiple citations that people can look into themselves if they are really interested in what that criticism is all about. - Crockspot 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Moyers page I agree that the simple statement that O'Reilly has criticized Moyers in the past works okay. Going any more than that and you get into questions of weight. But as notorious as O'Reilly is for criticizing Soros, I think we have to at least mention a couple of bare bones things that he criticized him about and list the sources. Weight isn't the same issue here as it is on Moyers's page. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moyers actually goes on to mention the ad Moyers took out in response to O'Reilly. You mentioned that there was some Soros reaction reported, so maybe a similar bit here. I would emphasize the "bare bones" nature, and keep it very neutrally worded. I think that, in general, too little said is better than too much. As long as you have reliable sources that people can investigate on their own further, you don't really need to say a whole lot. And in my mind, that is what Misplaced Pages is really for, and can do well: Guide readers to reliable sources that they can investigate for themselves, and even cite in their term paper or whatever. - Crockspot 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about bare bones but I would be careful about putting inflammatory accusations, which have been denied, with an "alleged." I would feel differently if this was alleged in a court proceeding or was otherwise an accusation in an official body. Otherwise it is just to McCarthyite for me, as in "alleged Communist" because so-and-so said so even though it was denied.--Samiharris 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Sami, that's do-able with me. Then I'm assuming that a statement like "Bill O'Reilly has criticized Soros for everything from his financial affairs to his political activism." would then work since Soros obviously does both of those things. Then we can quote it with alot of sources. How does everyone else feel about a sentence like that? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Or here's a variation I like better since it contains more info and sounds more encyclopediacical: "Bill O'Reilly, perhaps George Soros's most outspoken critic, has criticized Soros for everything from his financial activities to his political activism." I kind of like that one better. What does everyone else think?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Bill O'Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Soros for everything from his financial activities to his political activism.". ? This assumes that we have a range of sources to cite that shows this range of criticism. - Crockspot 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, that sounds good. I like the flow of that better. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, the for everything part sounds a little over the top. But we can refine that when we review the proposed sources. - Crockspot 20:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let's try to source that statement. I'll be offline most of sunday and monday though. It would be nice to have around three secondaries that are not O'Reilly directly. Then maybe one cite directly of O'Reilly. I think there was a Cavuto interview with Soros, so I would object to something like that being excluded simply because it comes from Fox News. No one seems to object to Fox being cited in SiCKO, because it's a positive review. Let's be fair about it, they are a major news organization, and a visible part of our popular culture. But I would like to see the majority of cites to be non-Fox. So like three or more things like the New Yorker, NY Times or other mainstream reporting, something like the Cavuto interview, and one of the more representative pieces by O'Reilly, either a transcript from Fox, or one of his syndicated newspaper columns. So we will end up with the short statement above, followed by hopefully five or six footnotes. If there are objections, let's get them on the table. I'll be busy for a couple of days, so no urgency on my end here. - Crockspot 20:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a little...incestuous to you to cite Neil Cavuto in order to buttress an allegation made by Bill O'Reilly? What about Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck? Tony Snow? — goethean ॐ 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If Cavuto and Soros discuss the situation with O'Reilly on Cavuto's show, I think it's possible that it might be relevant. I don't know, I'd have to see the source. If it's just Cavuto peppering Soros with questions, and Soros isn't really responding, then maybe it's not relevant. - Crockspot 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean that, as I suspected, you have no qualms in making Misplaced Pages articles subservient to the right-wing smear machine. — goethean ॐ 01:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that George Soros being interviewed on a TV show may be a usable source, no matter which one of the major cable news networks it appeared on. But again, we have to see the source. Let's just compile a list here, and examine them all carefully, and we can hash out which ones we should actually use. OK? There's no point in being snarky about it. - Crockspot 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean that, as I suspected, you have no qualms in making Misplaced Pages articles subservient to the right-wing smear machine. — goethean One could say that and change "right" to "left" when disapproving a Media Matters, FAIR, or other left-wing criticisms on a conservative's article. Why is one side any better? I think it is fine to acknowledge one's criticism of something or someone as long as it is not used authoritatively and presented in a NPOV way so that readers can make up their own minds. I stumbled across this edit war after basically adding the same info to the Bill O'Reilly political beliefs and points of view article so the content is there if someone really needs to know this information. The only argument against this information in this article would be the notability of O'Reilly. Whether you love him or hate him, he's still notable. It almost smacks of a type of censorship not to include it. I say this content should stay. MrMurph101 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said last week, the fact that O'Reilly is famous doesn't mean that every remark of his needs to be enshrined in Misplaced Pages. This is especially true when the remark is part of a smear campaign against a living person. If there was no coverage of O'Reilly's remark in the media --- and I have seen no evidence to indicate otherwise --- then the proponents of including the comments are trying to make Misplaced Pages the only media outlet to discuss these non-notable remarks. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One could say that and change "right" to "left" when disapproving a Media Matters, FAIR, or other left-wing criticisms on a conservative's article. Why is one side any better?

The unstated assumption here being that the methods of the American political left and right are identical. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everything that O'Reilly says shouldn't be "enshrined" in wikipedia but what I am noticing is a possible double standard. I think it is a good point to say that no one outside of O'Reilly is making these accusations or reporting him making them so therefore this info should not be included.. The thing is this very same argument is put up in the O'Reilly article about whether or not to include Media Matters' criticisms and some editors try to point out that no one but Media Matters is covering this. You are really proving my "assumption" with your statements. You say that O'Reilly is engaging in a smear campaign against Soros. Well, O'Reilly alleges that Media Matters is engaging against a smear campaign against him. So should any references from MM be taken out of his article also to satisfy BLP? Any criticism content should be consistent across the board. There needs to be some sort of uniformity about how to handle criticisms of polarizing subjects. That's mainly my issue. MrMurph101 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are assuming that there are no reliable sources reporting on O'Reilly's criticism. In fact, there are. They just aren't available free online. I will get to work this week citing them, and Goethean has agreed to either use his library card at AccessMyLibrayr.com, or go to the library, to look up these secondary sources, and see exactly what they say. Bellowed, if you have some to cite, get on it. Let's make a new section below and start listing them. I will do some tonight. - Crockspot 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

MrMurph- Thanks for your input, but I also have to say that I disagree. Take a look at all the sources Crockspot and I have added below, |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're on different wavelengths here. I was addressing a certain situation about how some editors accuse wikipedia of some biased agenda when something is included that possibly makes their view of the world look bad or at least when the included information comes from someone they don't like. I've noticed this from some editors with both liberal and conservative philosophies. The issue of sourcing was not really what I was going after and not what I brought up which is now a moot issue with all the secondary sources brougth up below. MrMurph101 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources for discussion

I can find more, but I'm tired and hungry, and this is a decent start. If there is an access date set, there's a full free copy at the link, otherwise it needs to be looked up at the library for verification. - Crockspot 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alterman, Eric (2004-06-17). "The Soros Slander Campaign Continues". The Nation. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Alterman, Eric (2004-06-30). "Pot Calling the Kettle Atheist". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Criticism as treason II.(Bill O'Reilly's outburst)". The Progressive. 2006-02-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) alternate link: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-12707589.html
• "A wealth of criticism; Philanthropist Soros writes that the Bush camp reminds him of the Nazi regime". book review. Los Angeles Times. 2006-07-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Your World with Neil Cavuto: Interview With George Soros". Fox News. 2006-10-11. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Actually useful as a general source in this article outside of the O'Reilly issue.
• Waldman, Paul (December 2006). "Boor war: the latest stage of Bill O'Reilly's self-parody". book review. Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Mitchell, Ron (2007-05-10). "Stop calling O'Reilly names". op ed. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• 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)
• Young, Steve (2007-05-17). "Indiana "Name-Calling" Researchers Respond To O'Reilly Lies". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Sorry, I've been out for a few days and I'm still pretty busy till later this week. Crockspot, you took all my good ones! Oh, well, here's some others that are very strong--|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Garofoli, Joe (2003-11-23). "MoveOn, a political force online, receives $5 million matching gift". op ed. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Text "Soros' pledge moves right wing to slam the progressive group" ignored (help)

• Rosin, Hanna (2004-09-29). "Billionaire Against Bush". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Amann, Joseph Minton (2006-03-01). "Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly". Nonfiction. Nation Books. pp. 163–164. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Garofoli, Joe (2003-11-25). "'We're doing something right' MoveOn.org sees Soros donation, rip from O'Reilly as validation". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 2007-06-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I should also mention that you can watch the Cavuto interview w/ Soros that Crockspot cited on Youtube. In case anyone's interested: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4moR4NFTd8 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-C-GT-iNeU

Part 2 is the best, though, because Soros gets very angry at Cavuto..practically doing a Clinton on Foxnews. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Part 2 is the best, though, because Soros gets very angry at Cavuto..practically doing a Clinton on Foxnews.

Pathetic. — goethean ॐ 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we ALL keep focused on the task at hand, and dispense with taking shots back and forth? (I know I have not been a saint in this regard in the past, but let's try to be productive.) Goethean, I really want to hear your opinions specifically on these sources. I think that there are enough here to be able to say that O'Reilly has criticized Soros a lot, and that reliable sources have noticed it, and reported on it. Many of these sources are written by left-leaning authors, or appear in left-leaning publications, and most are critical of O'Reilly, which I would suspect would make them a little more agreeable to some of the left-leaning editors here. What we need to do is narrow them down to three or five of the "best" ones, and be sure that they support the statement that we have more or less agreed upon (or readjust the statement). - Crockspot 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are enough here to be able to say that O'Reilly has criticized Soros a lot, and that reliable sources have noticed it, and reported on it.

Which of these references do you claim is a reliable source? — goethean ॐ 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think are NOT reliable? The Nation? The Progressive? MSNBC? LA Times? Believe me, if you want to declare The Nation, The Progressive, and MSNBC as unreliable sources, I would be happy to apply that standard across Misplaced Pages, and cite you here as the authority. Can we forget that this article is about a liberal for a minute, and apply an objective standard of reliability here? Let's not kid ourselves. These standards shift, depending on whether the subject is a liberal or a conservative. I'm sick of it, and want a non-biased standard of reliability applied. - Crockspot 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose the WaPo article, the Nation article, MSNBC, Washington Monthly book review, and maybe the Huffington Post piece for starters. I would also like to see the full article on the Soros book review before discarding it. - Crockspot 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you accept The Nation as a reliable source, how about the following?

According to Eric Alterman, writing in the progressive magazine The Nation, there is a "conservative crusade to destroy the reputation of financier and philanthropist George Soros". — goethean ॐ 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed that we weren't doing quotes? Do you actually think that Alterman is more notable than O'Reilly, and therefore should be quoted instead of O'Reilly? After all, Alterman is voicing his opinion. Just like O'Reilly. - Crockspot 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly is the source of the criticism. Alterman was describing the criticism. So O'Reilly is a primary source, and other reporters writing on the subject are secondary sources, which, in cases like this, are preferable in order to avoid original research. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think that anybody disagrees at this point that we could find reliable sources saying that they think that O'Reilly is conducting a smear campaign against Soros, and write that up in an NPOV style. But would that satisfy everybody? After all, we have to come up with a strong consensus to include this material. Is that going to satisfy everybody or does somebody want to include material directly from O'Reilly (which I wouldn't go for - it might indicate that we think he is a reliable source, and therefore validate the smear in a small way)? Smallbones 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Crockspot's reccomendations, but I would like to see one of the many LA TImes sources be used as well. I also think that we need to be open about using a source from Foxnews as well. I'd be willing to allow a far-left source in, like the Huffington Post source, to balance the more conservative Foxnews in order to include it. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages---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 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, 3 against, and 1 (Goethean) waiting to see what cites you wish to use before making a decision. 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 on Misplaced Pages---ever seen Rudy Giuliani's page?" At best, this is mere hyperbole. At worst, it's yet another example of the tiresome "Misplaced Pages 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. Eleemosynary 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press