Talk:George Soros/Archive 4

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: So your stance is that we should include O'Reilly's smears but not Media Matters'. — goethean ॐ 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Welcome to Bizarropedia, where reliable is unreliable, and vice versa. - Crockspot 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLPN case reopened 

message: Banned user "Joehazelton"  has created a sockpuppet account to attempt to get around 3RR on this page. "Willie Peter" has been created on 6/21 solely to revert edits on the Soros page. 
Please keep an eye out for any future disruptions by him on this page.   -- Eleemosynary 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Willie Peter" = sockpuppet of banned user "Joehazelton