![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
You can be both American and Hungarian simultaneously, I gather George would prefer to be listed as American. BTW Geore Soros is a great guy. --
Swissbanker44
01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ 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)
Done --
After Midnight
0001
15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll call for a decision here, since we must have exhausted all they we have to say by now. I think it's fair for me to make this call, since I pretty much opened it up with an invitation to disucss how to deal with what seems like a typical problem in this article How to deal with a non-factual criticism by a notable critic?
I see 1 clear rule that we have to follow (as well as standard Wikipedia policy): that here we have to have a strong consensus if we are to include this material. I also see 3 clear alternatives and will ask for a 4th from Crockspot
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree with Smallbones that there is no strong consensus to include the previously excluded material. I continue to oppose and will not "vote" in straw polls that could be interpreted as allowing inclusion of factual allegations concerning Soros that appear to be false. There should be no back door to that kind of material in Wikipedia.-- Samiharris 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I agree that it's unfair that O'Reilly's allegations and his quotes aren't being allowed on Soros's page. If I had my way, every major criticism O'Reilly has said about Soros would be on his page and it would also be sourced from Foxnews. That's certainly the equal treatment everyone else recieves on Wikipedia---ever seen Rudy Giuliani's page? However, I think I should reiterate that I'm no longer fighting for the inclusion of O'Reilly's quotes, and I also think that we all should. I only want the fact that he has criticized Soros to be listed. I think that fighting for O'Reilly's quotes is a lost cause. We're outnumbered. I know it isn't fair, but there's nothing we can do about it. However, I don't see why any reasonable person wouldn't go along with the proposed edit which is simple and very neutral and makes no allegations whatsoever. And let's not jump to conclusions that Sami is against that. Based on his last response, I really think he might not have known the exact sentence being proposed here. Let's give him a chance. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
<slanderous attack deleted>
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
You can be both American and Hungarian simultaneously, I gather George would prefer to be listed as American. BTW Geore Soros is a great guy. --
Swissbanker44
01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ 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)
Done --
After Midnight
0001
15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll call for a decision here, since we must have exhausted all they we have to say by now. I think it's fair for me to make this call, since I pretty much opened it up with an invitation to disucss how to deal with what seems like a typical problem in this article How to deal with a non-factual criticism by a notable critic?
I see 1 clear rule that we have to follow (as well as standard Wikipedia policy): that here we have to have a strong consensus if we are to include this material. I also see 3 clear alternatives and will ask for a 4th from Crockspot
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree with Smallbones that there is no strong consensus to include the previously excluded material. I continue to oppose and will not "vote" in straw polls that could be interpreted as allowing inclusion of factual allegations concerning Soros that appear to be false. There should be no back door to that kind of material in Wikipedia.-- Samiharris 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I agree that it's unfair that O'Reilly's allegations and his quotes aren't being allowed on Soros's page. If I had my way, every major criticism O'Reilly has said about Soros would be on his page and it would also be sourced from Foxnews. That's certainly the equal treatment everyone else recieves on Wikipedia---ever seen Rudy Giuliani's page? However, I think I should reiterate that I'm no longer fighting for the inclusion of O'Reilly's quotes, and I also think that we all should. I only want the fact that he has criticized Soros to be listed. I think that fighting for O'Reilly's quotes is a lost cause. We're outnumbered. I know it isn't fair, but there's nothing we can do about it. However, I don't see why any reasonable person wouldn't go along with the proposed edit which is simple and very neutral and makes no allegations whatsoever. And let's not jump to conclusions that Sami is against that. Based on his last response, I really think he might not have known the exact sentence being proposed here. Let's give him a chance. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
<slanderous attack deleted>