Talk:George Soros/Archive 5

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 (talk) 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."&#124;3 E &#124;_  &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be shocking, but Wikipedia has more than one policy. Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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... &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not afraid of anything or anyone on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia? 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &#124;3 E &#124;_  &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 02:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that editorial pieces are not reliable sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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?&#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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 Wikipedia 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? &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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?&#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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 Wikipedia articles subservient to the right-wing smear machine. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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 Wikipedia articles subservient to the right-wing smear machine. &mdash; 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia the only media outlet to discuss these non-notable remarks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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, &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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)
 * alternate link: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-12707589.html
 * - Actually useful as a general source in this article outside of the O'Reilly issue.
 * alternate link: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-12707589.html
 * - Actually useful as a general source in this article outside of the O'Reilly issue.
 * - Actually useful as a general source in this article outside of the O'Reilly issue.

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--&#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)









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. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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 Wikipedia, 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". &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 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. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)