Talk:George Soros/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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[15] 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.[7] 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 [1] 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 ^(talk) 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". [18] "

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia is going to become chaos and anything could be interpreted as libelous and Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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