Talk:George Soros/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Is George Soros an American citizen? Not, "he considers himself a US citizen", but according to the US State Department. Officially. If he is, when was he naturalized? If he is not, what country is he a citizen of?

An answer to a question on Wikiquestions says George Soros is not a US citizen.

71.53.194.2 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)George Hardy, Palmyra, VA; georgeh@ankerstein.org

Criticism Section

The whole financial criticism section is inane. Including the statements by Hastert make no sense. There is already good critcism of his speculations (Malaysia, etc.) properly placed elsewhere in the article. Certainly, D'Souza's National Review criticism [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dsouza200410190831.asp] is notable and could easily be added to the section regarding Bush's re-election. Also, discussion of his work regarding drug legalization, which is where Hastert seems to have dreamed up his craziness, should be noted. Drug legalization is a highly charged topic that is not even covered in the article I don't think, outside of mentioning that he has been involved in the drug prohibition discussion. See [1] and [2]. I am personally far more favorable to Soros than not, but this article is woefully missing that kind of criticism.

Instead, everyone is fighting about including stuff from a guy who criticizes everybody and everything to the left of (fill in the most right-wing person you can think of), in O'Reilly. If there is any mention of him, it should be really brief. And the article includes attacks with no basis from Hastert. Let's get this thing right. No O'Reilly. No Hastert. Real, well thought out intelligent criticism is fine. Make this a no garbage zone. Sposer 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Hastert's criticisms aren't particularly good ones, I think we should at least mention them briefly, because his position at the time as Speaker of the House, and the media coverage they received, makes them a notable part of the historical record. --Delirium 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since this has been discussed. Can you please refresh our memories by specifying exactly what you would like to add? --Samiharris 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I had argued that there was no reason for having Hastert's comments in the article. They are baseless conspiracy theory garbage. Just because he was Speaker of the House does not make it notable. If there is an article on baseless allegations by politicians, then this belongs. It does not belong in an article on George Soros. Sposer 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're simply wrong on that point. If the Pope attacked George Soros as the devil incarnate, that would be a notable criticism, even if the Pope had no good reason for his criticism: the fact that George Soros was attacked by the Pope would itself be news. Similarly, I think drawing fire from the head of a national legislature is generally newsworthy. Similar standards apply to other countries: when Fidel Castro makes baseless attacks on people, if that turns into a controversy and gets reported we report it as well. We're supposed to document notable events, regardless of how silly they are. --Delirium 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is neither right nor wrong. I am stating an opinion, and it would be nice if you didn't speak in black and white terms, because this is not a black and white issue. First of all, in an article about George Bush for example, I would not include criticisms of him by Fidel Castro. It would be pointless and ridiculous. Second of all, there is no place for conspiracy theories in any article here, except an article on conspiracy theories. If there was to be any mention at all of Hastert's statements, the only way it should be stated is that George Soros, due to his generally Liberal agenda, is often the target of baseless conspiracy theories. If you are worried about POV, it can be made more neutral by pointing out the same is true for right-wing vis-a-vis left-wing theorists. Personally, I would not mention any of them at all. The separate article is the model used in the September 11 article. Feel free to create an article called "George Soros Conspiracy Theories" and link it to his bio. Wiki is not an outlet for furthering fringe statements. This becomes even more ridiculous since Hastert backed away from the smear statement by saying that he had a problem with non-profit organizations that Soros gives to. Sposer 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What is being proposed is unencyclopedic and has no place in Wikipedia.--Samiharris 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by titling this subhead "Criticism Section"? There is none, and the little criticism that can be dug up here and there is immediately dismissed as ridiculous. As it stands, this article is so pro-Soros, it's not even funny. Go no further than the introductory paragraph: if a sentence akin to "He peacefully promotes democracy in Eastern Europe" (throughout, we are treated to sentences like "He has peacefully promoted democracy in many countries") were to be found in an article about a conservative, it would readily get deleted or edited down, and rightfully so. I think a piece like the Investor's Business Daily editorial, The Soros Threat To Democracy, would help balance the article, but I'm so sure it will get deleted within a couple of hours, I wonder whether it's worth the effort. Asteriks 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. If you have a problem with fawning phrases, fix the phrases in question. It'd be nice if more people did this to the article, instead of inserting random wingnut conspiracy theory garbage in the interest of being fair and balanced, which just gets reverted. Chris Cunningham 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that went even better than I thought it would. I tried adding a couple of sentences derived from the information in the article in question ('Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news. That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them. Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. … The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.'); and when I looked for the 'edit this page' button, it turns out that the article — in its entirely pro-Soros form — is protected, so not a whole hell of a lot of criticism, rightful or otherwise, stands much of a chance of appearing in this "encyclopedia". Asteriks 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Asteriks. 68.229.201.181 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Section-Market Cornering

Immediately after the section discussing the Soros funds position in the lb sterling , should there be a discussion or cross reference to the wiki on market corning ?

Market cornering is where such larger positions are so large they in fact become a control of the market (versus normal market action) and that control is used to defraud the other market players.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.111.69 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure he really cornered the market. He had huge positions and others followed him as I recall. He could not have pulled off the move if the ECU was fundamentally sound at its prescribed levels. He did not do anything illegal, which cornering the market is. Nor was it fraudulent. I seem to recall most people knowing exactly who was doing what at the time, but I am not 100% sure. That said, I need to look a bit more deeply, as I hope will others. Sposer 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Present writer has no knowledge of these larger trades, but does note that a fraud done in public, because the regulatory authorities dont understand the situation or have the staff to do anything about it, is not made ok or legal because it is being done in public in front of everyone. AND a fundamental weakness (e.g. as in today's dollar) does not EITHER make a massive manipulation OK. E.g. if someone had 100 trillion to short the presently weak dollar and did so to smash it so its present value became only a few mills of its present value ... the fact it is prsently not so strong would not make that massive manipulation and smashing LEGAL; the cornering of a market is where one or a group of investors have positions so large THEY CONTROl that pricing ... and so use that ability to control in manipulation that market up OR down. And they fact that market doodes sit and watch or that it all began with a weakness one way or the other, or that trader doodes applaud in no way means it was NOT illegal. /s/ t booon amaranth, madras india-grate markit mogool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.166.216 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Market cornering is a very serious accusation, and words like that should not be thrown around lightly. His trades in the Sterling were perfectly legal, and at the time no questions were raised concerning the propriety of them. Wikipedia cannot and should not characterize those trades in such a perjorative fashion.--Samiharris 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the words above say he did or did not corner, they make the point it IS an issue. Esp see Indonesia and Thai objection to Soros slamming the Thai baht & Indonesian rupee; same as as done with the UK lb sterling. And again, having some psycophant say it was not corning avoids considering if it was. As many market pros can see what it was and what it was not even if you cannot. /s/Dimentre Komenos Jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.21 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no market corner - certainly from a pure technical viewpoint. Getting a corner means buying so much of a good that all short sellers need to buy back (usually from the cornerer) at artificially high prices. Soros during the pound crisis sold the pound, and bought D-marks, or maybe $s and other currencies. It is impossible to buy enough Dmarks or dollars so as to control the market - e.g. if the Bundesbank thought that the Dmark was being cornered, they could simply issue more Dmarks (as many as they wished, see Money creation). BTW our Cornering the market article is pretty bad and needs some work and references.

Also, to say anything about a corner, we'd need to find a reference that somebody has accused him of this. Soros, I believe, has denied trading baht, ringit, or Indonesian rupiah during the Asian crisis, and I haven't seen any reliable info that contradicts him. It's not good enough, under WP:BLP just to say that there is no evidence that somebody didn't do something, in order to suggest that he did do something. In short, let's leave it out until somebody knows what they are writing about. Smallbones 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to add essentially what Smallbones said above. Central Banks, which have greater resources than George Soros (they can print money), plus the ability to marshall banks and brokerages through arm-twisting, have far greater power over exchange rates. No one central bank, especially a small one, might have been able to fight Soros, but Soros did not cause the collapse of the ECU, the fundamentals did. The Central Banks were creating an artificial equilibrium, which could not hold up. Soros and others took the market to where it belonged.

I am not familiar with 1997/1998 regarding Soros alleged involvement. But if he says he was not involved, barring proof that he was, there is no justification for mentioning it in the article.

Bottom line is that he did not, nor could he have, cornered the FX market or any part of the FX market. It has no place in the article.Sposer 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IBD series

• Interesting series from Investors Business Daily, related to Soros and MoveOn.org.[3] I'm sure it will be a battle getting any of this info included. - Crockspot 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd save yourself the effort of bothering: it's a distilled version of O'Reilly's unhinged flow-chart, which is pretty conclusively not getting in. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I only skimmed the article, but it struck me at first blush, without a detailed read, as a dispassionate critique of Soros and from an WP:RS source. So my first impression is that yes, it is includable. But I want to give the series a detailed read.--Samiharris 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Dispassionate? It hits every base from "funding illegal immigrants" to "left wing judges siding with the terrorists" and back again. Boilerplate right-wing email fodder. Chris Cunningham 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that was my initial reaction. But IBD is a respected newspaper and I want to give it fair consideration. Obviously if there is nonsense it mustn't be included.--Samiharris 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I only read the first article, but the paying 3/4 of a million to a NASA official to become a whistleblower is news to me. I don't even think O'Reilly has ever mentioned that one. Since you so graciously are forbidding me from even attempting to source any of this in the article, you can be quite certain that I now have a new little pet project, so clear your schedule. - Crockspot 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that was meant in jest, for the sake of my own faith in humanity. Chris Cunningham 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part. I'm also assuming your first reply was not completely serious as well, which is an easy assumption for me to make when the comments come from someone who dresses like a pirate. AArrrrrrghhhh. - Crockspot 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are one the losing side of this one Thumperward.. if the source meets the criteria for inlcusion into a WP:BLP, then that the bar to pass. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't, so it won't. See also: almost every other biography that Wikipedia's right-wingers spend their free time hijacking. It is literally a rewritten version of the last screed which didn't get in here. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am firmly middle of the road. The IBD series is well written and done by a respectable organization. While I wouldn't think it makes sense to put in the wildest accusations, some distillation of the series, discussing his connections to moveon, ACORN, etc. makes sense. The first article seems a bit over the top, but the others appear worth noting in here. I have always admired Soros as a businessman, but the article, overall, is mostly written with a pro-Soros POV. Sposer 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sposer. --Samiharris 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the article is written in a pro-Soros pov. I am troubled that a WP:RS valid source like IBD would be dismissed out of hand and rejected without any discussion. I am not saying this must be included yet.. I want to read it. But to reject it so fast is a red flag of pov problems. --Blue Tie 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an editorial. Editorials may contain facts. When they do, they MIGHT be reasonable sources of "factual" information. But they are also sources of opinion. And actually opinion is their main purpose. Normally I am opposed to editorials for these reasons. But I note that this one is not identified as the opinion of one person but it is the opinion of the whole IBD organization -- presumably the editorial staff, because it is headlined "Investors Business Daily" instead of the name of a person. When the organization puts its weight behind the opinion and not just a lone gunman editorializer, that gains some weight in my view. I would be much more trusting of the factual information contained in it. BUT... anytime that it moves into opinion we MUST NOT just quote it as though that opinion is wikipedia's opinion. We must attribute the opinion (to IBD in this case). We do not, however, need to attribute factual information (not expression of opinion) that is included.--Blue Tie 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Attribution, rather than using Wikipedia's voice, is always a good idea in my book. - Crockspot 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that we also have a primary source from Soros’s website: page 123

Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

this discussion is not going to accomplish much, by itself

...until we figure how to get the protection taken off. I take it as a failure of myself and most other wikipedia editors associated with this article that we can't figure out how to get the protection taken off.

The fact is that Soros has some pretty extreme critics who say some pretty extreme things. Some of these extreme critics are very notable people or instiutions, e.g. the former (then current) Speaker of the House, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Bill O'Reilly, IBD. We need to agree (as gentlemen and gentlewomen!) how to deal with this or nobody is going to take off the protection, as far as I can tell (I'm not an adminstrator and it's their business - anybody can ask for the protection to be removed)

Please note that we have short sections on both Hasert and the Prime Minister. Re-reading them, they still sound pretty extreme - and not really backed up by facts (other than the documented facts that they said it)- but I think something has to be in there, otherwise it looks like a cover-up. Can we decide to keep these in - either where they are or in the criticism section? Perhaps in a form that states more clearly that this is their opinion, not Wikipedia's.

Then there is Bill O'Reilly and IBD. I certainly recognize that criticism such as IBD's should be recognized here - but again showing that this is their opinion (their "facts" to my view come in with a few weasel words attached, fitted in sideways to support their opinions). O'Reilly is a bit more extreme - put him in (while making it very clear that that is his opinion, not documented fact)- or leave him out entirely - it's all the same to me.

Having promenent critics and having their views stated in Wikipedia (as opinions) is not against wp:blp, nor should it be a source of shame for Soros. But there are some thing said by some very emotional, or unreasonable, or uneducated non-notable people (see above re 'left out example' - don't bite the newbies) that shouldn't be in here.

How do we deal with it???

Smallbones 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and notability is not transferable. Given the current situation (where User:Crockspot, amongst others, has half-jokingly made it a project to insert further contentious information) I'm happy for it to remain protected for now. Wikipedia's tendency to be used as a platform for slander has yet to be truly addressed by the community as a whole, and unfortunately at this stage I don't think the community is capable of addressing such issues in the way it is of dealing with childish vandalism. The correct way to deal with it is to tighten WP:BLP and pay closer attention to those janitors who already support contentious BLP edits. I don't see a quick solution concerning this article, given Soros's current status as an email talking point. Chris Cunningham 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This email talking point should become transparent in some fashion then. It's pretty strange this article has been locked for so long. I propose an RfC. Maybe that is what is needed to finally resolve these issues and get the article out of being protected. MrMurph101 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one compromise may be to allow some of the IBD material, as it comes from a reputable newspaper, without delving into specifics that are defamatory. As a major public figure it is expended and understandable that Soros would come under criticism. The objection to O'Reilly is that he made factual allegations that appear to be false.--Samiharris 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This article has been locked for months and editors can not come to an agreement on how to include critical material, mainly from Bill O'Reilly (commentator), or whether the critical material warrants inclusion.02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thinking of withdrawing this. The article isn't locked anymore which was the main reason I did this at the time. There hasn't been any response anyway so maybe they're backlogged or something else. I believe editors involved can discuss on this talk page and can go from there. If someone totally objects to this then I won't withdraw it but I don't think this RfC seems necessary anymore. I'm also not sure how I should go about withdrawing it. Should I just delete this section or do some sort of special thing? MrMurph101 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wrapped the RFC template in nowiki, which has the same effect, for the time being. Just delete the RFC template, but leave the related section, discussion etc here so that in future people can see that an RFC was requested and why - then if the issue comes up again the editors then will at least be aware that it's been raised before (even if there was no comments). DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He peacefully promotes democracy in Eastern Europe

I suspect the author meant to say, "He supports peaceful promotion of democracy in Eastern Europe." I will make this change in the next day or so, if it doesn't raise major objections. It also will help lessen the POV here, since only fringe elements would question that statement. The other statement was somewhat gratuitous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. George Soros collapsed the Soviet Union!

Wild claims in a biased article on wikipedia. It is no wonder wikipedia is a terrible resource for REAL information. I came here to get a little understanding of this guy, and seem to get something more like he's a left-wing Super-Jew who crushed the soviet union and is a hero to mankind. No thanks. One can't count on Bill O'Reilly's opinion of George Soros, but it certainly isn't better than the article here promoting him and reducing criticism to practically nothing. I doubt other rich men on wikipedia have such luxuries. 76.250.168.149Blah —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The "reference" here was Soros's own website, which did not make such claims, so I removed it. Walkerma 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the reference to "Super-Jew" is hate speech and has no place in this forum. Secondly, Soros has played a huge role in both opposing the Soviets and their satellite states, and in supporting democracy in formerly communist countries. If that doesn't fit your political needs, that's too bad. Why not try looking at the facts instead of promoting your ideology?

Adam Holland 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That kind of language does not belong on this page, and some of the recent edits since unprotection have been unproductive.--Samiharris 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, and it's a shame to see such bald-faced political correctness on Wikipedia. The man is a Jew, to describe him as such is not hate, simply a statement of fact. --71.104.18.213 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed what was considered wrong with my edit quoting TIME Magazine. (BTW it is "TIME" not "Time"). The previous editor's claim (see above and edit summaries), was that saying Soros helped to bring down Communist regimnes was going overboard. I think most people would say that's fairly obvious from the preceding sentence where it says he supported (with money) Solidarity. Or from the quote later in the article from the socialist New Statesman. Perhaps then it is overkill to include the TIME quote (see below). In any case, if there is any question about his anti-communist credentials, I think the TIME quote should be included. (And it is proper to include a reason for a revert). I don't want to inflame the situation, but when somebody asks for documentation, then documentation they should get! Smallbones 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He supported the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, as well as the Czechoslovakian human rights organization Charter 77. "helping to topple totalitarian regimes in those countries," according to TIME Magazine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-soros-cover_x.htm

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_120747.html

" Soros had begun his philanthropy in 1979 by giving financial support to black students challenging South Africa's apartheid system by enrolling in the University of Cape Town. In 1984, he formed foundations to assist dissident groups in Warsaw Pact countries, including Poland's pro-democracy Solidarity movement. By the mid-1990s, Soros had become a powerful figure in Eastern European politics." http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aVPlVg8vm8wg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Holland (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As if Time magazine is worth the paper it's printed on...Only someone who's not lived his or her fair share in the real world could believe a word the Soros hagiographers are saying. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

IBD stuff

This should be fleshed out. The IBD material strikes me as well-reasoned criticism, and certainly are not comparable to the personal attacks and O'Reilly stuff that was discussed earlier. The article should not become reflective of smears, but by the same token it should contain notable criticism of this major public figure.--Samiharris 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

CO's criticism sandbox

FWIW User:CO has come up with user:CO/Criticism of George Soros. It's pretty organized and slick, but most of it (e.g. on taxes and Meida Matters) is way off base. Smallbones 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem isn't with the writing style as much as it is with the substance. While I'm less concerned with the writing style of a hit-piece sub-article (which isn't likely to go away given current BLP policy enforcement levels), I wouldn't exactly call that an improvement. Chris Cunningham 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a real problem with that as a possible subarticle. --Samiharris 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's in user space, and there are no blatant BLP violations, there's no point in handwringing over it. - Crockspot 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} I'm open to others editing it. Carbon Monoxide 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New Sections Should be taken out

The new criticism sections are very POV and I think they should be taken out.

1. They are inaccurate, e.g. "George Soros is a Hungarian-born Jew who escaped the Holocaust by going to London as a child. "

2. They repeat material given in the article already (while making some obvious mistakes - see 1. above) or just putting in a POV spin, e.g. Hasert and Stewart sections)

3. They repeat O'Reilly sections which were previously removed because they were inaccurate and violated WP:BLP. Some of this is not clearly labelled "O'Reilly" this time around.

4. There are straight-forward BLP violations, e.g. the suggestions of violations of tax laws. This was noted in the sandbox version. It's also OR.

I don't think we should start a revert war here - like the last time nonsense like this was put in - but I really don't know what to do other than revert it. Maybe list it on WP:BLPN or requests for page protection?

I'll revert and then self revert just to mark my objections. If somebody else wants to revert to pre-CO, or take the measures suggested above that's fine with me.

Smallbones 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the version that went in was less bad than the sub-page work, but I agree with the specific points raised. In particular, the "highlight the controversy" angle taken with the Hastert stuff doesn't belong here. Thoroughly-debunked personal criticism is only notable in situations where it personally affects the person in question; WP:NOT the New York Times, keen to circulate "controversy" wherever it's found. Chris Cunningham 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If criticism has been debunked then it would be better to include the criticism and the subsequent debunking of it and would be more likely to prevent edit wars. That is really the best way to settle the issue. Why don't you put an {{accuracy}} tag on this section which would note objections to this? MrMurph101 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine; it exists to present facts, not air unfounded accusations. It's ludicrous to suggest that tagging the section is an alternative to removing the bad parts; tags are there to remind people to clean things up, which in the case of an unfounded accusation would be to - remove it. Chris Cunningham 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

An alternative if you're not going to revert it so the idea is not so ludicrous but yet more intelligent. I disagree with the notion of not airing "unfounded accusations." That's one's POV. If it really is unfounded it should be noted and shown how it is not true. (See James Randi's million dollar challenge for an example of how to approach it. MrMurph101 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's policy, and I tired long ago of putting up with people who treat Wikipedia like a gossip magazine. Were these people to have their way, every article on a liberal figure in US history would contain huge laundry lists of stupid allegations, along with tedious lists of "this was also denied" statements. This is already happening in places. The million dollar challenge section is the key focus of the Randi article. This is a WP:BLP, and has different rules for notability. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are people on both sides who want to make "stupid allegations" on figures they have philosophical differences with and push their POV. It's not limited to one side of thinking I hope you know. By the way, BLP does not provide different rules for notability, just promotes better enforcement of them. I'm just saying it would cause less headaches and revert wars to acknowledge these assertions, accurate or not, and show how they're not true instead of always having to revert them when someone else comes around to put in bad stuff. If it's too tedious for you so be it. I realize the ideal would be not to have it in but that's impossible the way wikipedia operates. The best thing to do is come up with more consistent guidelines in how to deal with this matter. BLP is too interpretive on the subject as it stands and consensus from subject to subject is much too inconsistent on the standards of including controversial material. MrMurph101 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith discussion

Please note that User:CO has self-reverted following my request, and I have promised him a good faith discussion of his edit point-by-point. Given limited time this week, I'll do individual points as time permits(would anybody prefer that we do it on our individual talk-pages?)

There is a discussion on Soros supposedly blaming anti-Semitism on Jews. I think this is an important public controversy that should be included - but it is probably based on a misreading of what Soros said. It would be unfair of us to leave out his published response to the controversy which CO removed, i.e.

- In a subsequent article for the New York Review of Books, Soros emphasized that

- I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views.

-

I hope all will respond as CO has, in good faith.

Smallbones 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the version as it currently reads. Allegations such as that he "blames anti-Semitism on Jews" need to be handled carefully. The quote above obviously deals with this directly. This is not to say that notable criticism of his position should not be included.--Samiharris 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SUCKS!

It is not informative, encyclopedic, or even readable. It just seems to be a list of nasty things various people have said about him. Everyone involved in this travesty of an article should be ashamed of themselves. the entire thing should be deleted and restarted from scratch. --70.171.187.183 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article could stand some improvement. Why not make specific suggestions?--Samiharris 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorosites

There alsou should be included some article about Soros's network like structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

John Magnier, Dermot Desmond

These folks were listed as "partners" along with Niederhaoffer, and Druckenmiller. "Partners" might be an overstatement even for D and N, but here I think it is way overdone. This is not to say that they might not have some type of partnership dealing ith Soros, along with about 500 other people, but I think that "partners" in this article should be limited to 4 or 5. Please correct me if I'm wrong, there are obviously questions of both fact and interpretation here. Smallbones (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Soros's last name

I thought his last name was Greek (ex: John Stamos or Maria Menounos), until I realized that the S's in his last name are pronounced /ʃ/ not /s/ . Strange that in the Hungarian alphabet, sz represents /s/ and s represents /ʃ/. A few years ago at a bookstore, I picked up some Hungarian phrasebook and it said that "s is pronounced sh" and "sz is pronounced s." I thought it was a misprint.

The IPO was just changed, and I can't say that I'm entirely against the current format. On the other hand, a person's name should in general be pronounced the way that he or she pronounces it and he probably pronounces it Shorosh. This is at least the third time through on this so I retrieved the following from the archive: Smallbones (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See [4]. Marcika seems to be a real Hungarian-American Brit, so is probably correct: "Shorosh." I've spent some time in Hungary, and this is the only way they pronounce it. On the other hand, I've only heard "Soros" in the US, but I guess I've never heard Soros say "Soros."

...

Smallbones 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm the one who 'corrected' the IPA. A lot of people change the pronunciation of their names when they emmigrate. I know I do. As for "correct" pronunciation, that's a matter of opinion. We should list the normal English pronunciation, and if that's different from how people pronounce their own name, we should include that as well, but clarify what we're doing. I went by an interview with Soros, where he was announced as ˈsɔrəs, and then mentioned as ˈsɔroʊs by his interviewer. He accepted those pronunciations. If he uses a Hungarian pronunciation himself, when speaking English, we should be able to find a record of that somewhere. Otherwise it's just speculation.

Oh, and Budapest is pronounced with an /s/. That is the correct English pronunciation, just as Paris is pronounced with an /s/ in English. kwami (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but English speaking people living in Budapest pronounce it with 'sh'.Kope (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a phonetic pronunciation in English should be included with the ones I can't understand.Wiki name (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources/references lacking

In reviewing this article I noticed that there are no sources or references for two significant areas: his move to the U.S. and his philosophy. --Samiharris (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following new addition based on lack of sources, and BLP concerns. Saying that GS is hypocritical is against WP:BLP, saying that x in newspaper y says that he is hypocritical is generally allowed (if x is a notable person talking about a notable event in a reasonable manner). Feel free to correct this passage (in 3 or 4 spots!) and add it back. Smallbones (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"There is also the question of Soros's funding of groups opposed to the development of the Rosia Montana gold-silver mine in Transylvania, Romania. Soros's position appears to be hypocritical as he has interests in gold mining companies elsewhere in the world that operate little differently to the Rosia Montana proposal. It has been suggested that his main interest is keeping the gold that would be produced at Rosia Montana off the market, so helping to maintain the currently high gold price. His opposition could also be due to general Hungarian opposition to, and jealousy of, any development in Transylvania that would benefit Romania."

I agree. The above was objectionable on several grounds, including WP:OR. --Samiharris (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the philosophy section. Some parts of this section, particularly re Reflexivity, strike me as OR essays. Given all that has been written about Soros, can't something on him be utilized from one of the several biographies and many articles?--Samiharris (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag says that I can challenge the unsourced information in the philosophy - education and beliefs section, which is all of it, and remove it if necessary. I challenge that information, with a view to eventually removing it should there be no sources to verify it. Manimalmagic (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Removal of the history of Soros involvement in the collpase of Stering/£ ?

Why has every mention of Soros involvement in the collapse of the British pound been removed? This lack of info makes the article to appear incomplete. Can we have the Bank of England material returned please?--Redblossom (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's here. — goethean ॐ 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the following - Reliable sources???

removed: "In April 2008, Soros hosted an event in his apartment that had guests such as David Brock of the self-described progressive watchdog group Media Matters and liberal commentator Paul Begala. Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements against the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, through a group called The Fund for America and Progressive Media, whose key backer, according to politico.com, is Soros. Commentator Bill O'Reilly, who on numerous occasions has accused Soros of secretly backing what O'Reilly feels are "far-left" political causes, repeated Soros "wants to buy America" after learning about the event. "

I can't find much on the politico.com except that it is about a year old and seem to have a right-wing orientation. It's based on a Washington, DC free sheet. There's no particular reason to consider this a reliable source. If the material printed is true, then it should show up in a known reliable source. Including the Bill O'Reilly statement is just extra criticism for the sake of criticism. BOR says Soros is trying to buy America. What does that mean?

Any discussion on this is welcome, but I don't think it should be reinserted unless some consensus is reached.

Smallbones (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To say that politico has a right-wing orientation is to say TIME magazine has one too. Politico has been quoted on several news networks and has had many critical assessments of conservatives and Republicans too. It's absurd to say they are "right wing." This was perfectly sourced and apart of what the criticism Soros has been engaging in. The McCain campaign themselves thought it serious enough to address. I am putting it back in. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. Language is in NPOV and the sources are also attributed. Arnabdas (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bill O'Reilly stuff is just name calling and doesn't belong. The words "Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements" do not strike me as NPOV. I'll list the question on whether Politico is a reliable source on the reliable source notice board and see what they think. Smallbones (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources and don't revert this material into the article again unless there is a consensus on this talk page that politico is a reliable source in the context of WP:BLP. Only one response at WP:RSN so far. It says include with the preface "According to the tabloid ..." If it is indeed a tabloid, it doesn't meet BLP requirements. Smallbones (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair, I'll respect BLP and not put it in until consensus, but politico has been used by all three major cable news networks as a source. If it's good for all of them, why shouldn't it be for wikipedia? It definitely is far more credible than Media Matters or Huffington Post, and those are included as sources. The quote was one that the author said, not me. I was quoting him and I attributed it...he called them attack advertisements. Arnabdas (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week and no discussion as been made as per possible stonewalling. Politico is a reliable source used by all 3 major cable networks. I am putting it back in the article. Arnabdas (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

13 year old hiding from Nazis

The 60 minutes interview has come up again (for the 3rd time). I'll take out the sentence: "Kroft asked whether the experience was "difficult" and whether Soros had guilt feelings; Soros replied that it was not difficult and that he felt no guilt, adding that "it's just like in markets," that if he had not been there, someone else would have done it."

I'll ask everybody to be very careful with this. One reason is that the "quote" seems to be lacking a direct source. Sure something like this was on 60 minutes, but I've never seen their transcript or the actual footage (after the broadcast). My recall is that the broadcast was a real conversation with a lot of -ers- humms pffs, etc. that would be difficult to transcribe. The transcriptions that were put in before came from very biased sources.

Another reason to be careful here is that the point seems to be in criticizing a 13 year old boy who is hiding from the Nazis. He would have been killed if found (there are percentages in our holocost articles). According to one of his bios, the non-Jew Soros was with was a family friend, forced to do the job because of his gov't position. His Jewish wife and children were later killed by the Nazis. Soros's alternative was to stay locked in the apartment for several days. I don't feel right putting any implicit criticism of this activity in the article, but I'll leave it to others to decide. Smallbones (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "60 Minutes" transcript is all over the web, and it seems very consistent. I assume it to be an official transcript. Here are examples: [4][5][6] There is a dispute where "Media Matters" accuses Martin Peretz of the New Republic of omitting some of Soro's comments, but the transcript quoted in the Wikipedia article is undisputed. I have restored the sentence you removed from the summary, not because it reveals anything about Soros the teenager, but because it reveals something about the mature Soros' take on the financial markets. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The transcript in the article footnote from the New republic looks like it's from a reliable source. The 1st 2 above in your comment I'd say are questionable sources, and the 3rd link shows the problem with the other sources. Let me reproduce the last paragraph from the New Republic version:

"*Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets --that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

You say the purpose of including the material is "because it reveals something about the mature Soros' take on the financial markets." In that case it seems to be in the wrong place (this section is about his boyhood) and pretty indirect and open for interpretation. But the material does collateral damage. Our readers might get the impression that Soros volentarily went out and assited in the confiscation of Jewish property, e.g. "Kroft asked Soros to confirm that he had assisted his protector in the confiscation of property from Jews, and Soros answered that he had in fact done so. "but in the last paragraph of the transcript he says "I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt." This seems to be a contradiction, but in terms of a conversation, I think "expansion" is probably a better term - i.e. he did not mean the word "assisted" in the way Kroft (and you) seem to have taken it. Perhaps "attended" might have been a better word, but "I was only a spectator, .... I had no role in taking away that property." is pretty clear. So why are we implicitly critisizing a 13 year old Jewish boy who was hiding from the Nazis with his life on the line?

I'll take out the unclear, un-needed section and suggest that we get an official 3rd opinion and abide by it. OK with you? Smallbones (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look at the whole transcript (see below,) the summary that was in the article is perfectly fair. If you try to analyze it sentence by sentence, you miss the point. --209.247.5.137 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcript:

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

• Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.

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

• Mr. Soros: Yes. That's right. Yes.

• Kroft: I mean, that's –- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

• Mr. Soros: Not -– not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -– you don't see the connection. But it was -– it created no -– no problem at all.

• Kroft: No feeling of guilt?

• Mr. Soros: No.

• Kroft: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

• Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets --that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Soros.23Native_Hungary.2C_and_move_to_England for the resolution of this matter. This is more or less how it was resolved before, and I have no doubt this is how it will be resolved again if the material is added back.

Smallbones (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Category of Nazi Collabrators

Since this current articles mentions that "Soros worked for one day for the Jewish Council, which had been established by the Nazis, to deliver messages to Jewish lawyers being called for deportation." with appropriate source, I think it's proper to put him under the category of Jewish Nazi Collabrators.99.244.181.114 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One day, when he was thirteen. Let's keep this in the proper perspective. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In an interview with Geoege Soros on 60 Minutes in 1998:

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

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’tyou don’t see the connection. But it wasit created no-no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

So I think it's appropriate to say he knew exactly what he was doing. 99.244.181.114 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• So if you have a reliable source that refers to him as a Nazi collaborator, we'll consider the category placement. Otherwise, it's an extrapolation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead; the evidence is here - [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.41.126 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Schwartz (Soros) continues his Fascistic Policy of Wealth Redistribution to this very day! His Policies, Politics, Economics, etc. continue his furtherence of Rule of the Many by the Few which is the very definition of Fascism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.50.7 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neil Clark?

So who is Neil Clark and why does one quote from him encapsulate the entire section? There isn't even an article on Wikipedia about him. Basically I'm confused as to why his opinion holds enough weight to be a major portion of this article. Kniesten (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: The "60 Minutes" interview

I am dissatisfied by the discussion I have seen on this topic on this page. I think more input is needed. I have seen other biographical articles where interviews are used as sources, and I don't see why this case should be an exception. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A runaway bot keeps removing this RfC. I have contacted the BotMaster and am awaiting action. --Marvin Diode (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, I'd say, yes it can. An interview on a TV show like 60 Minutes is a perfectly reliable source to document the fact that this person has claimed something. It has to be phrased in the article accordingly of course, e.g. "Soros claims that he..." instead of "he is..." if there can be doubt about the truth of his statements. People usually try to make themselves look better on TV. So#Why 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive48#George_Soros.23Native_Hungary.2C_and_move_to_England for the reasons this material was removed for the third time. In short, some people like to push an interpretation of one sentence in the interview, which is explicitly denied (3 times) by the subject a bit later in the interview. I don't think that forum shopping helps the case for including the interview. Let's keep it on WP:BLP/N, if there are any further questions on Soros's biography. Smallbones (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Interviews, especially in mainstream mdeia sources, are reliable. However they are primary sources should be treated carefully. The most important thing is to avoid interpreting them. Anything we use an interview for should be obvious to anyone who reads it. Regarding User:SoWhy's comment above, "claims" is a word to avoid because it implies the claim may be dubious. "Said" or "stated" are more neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the interview is notable, and I would suggest that we simply quote enough of it verbatim that the meaning is clear and requires no interpretation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no generic reason why an interview would be an improper source. Better to include a link to an interview transcribed by a reliable source than to the video (videos are harder to work with, doing your own transcription is a little unreliable, and the links are often copyvios). However, if the subject of the interview is the subject of our article, then he's not a reliable source for controversial information about himself. The link mainly goes to show that he actually said something, which itself is a type of primary source problem and original research. Beyond that, the fact that a person says something is rarely notable by itself - one would have to find a reliable source to establish the importance and relevance. Further, quoting interviews verbatim in order to draw conclusions, or to let the reader draw their own, goes against the summary style we use, and can also be a WP:NONFREE violation. Finally, if this is yet another attempt to shoehorn in the derogatory information about his supposed Nazi past, it's inappropriate here. So I can't approve in the abstract, and may well advocate for reversion after I see it. Why not include the actual proposed text and citation here to see what people think? Wikidemo (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was happy with the way it was in the article mid-June. I'll reproduce it here. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Soros was asked by journalist Steve Kroft about this episode of his life during a December 20, 1998 interview on the television program 60 Minutes:

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

• Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.

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

• Mr. Soros: Yes. That's right. Yes.

• Kroft: I mean, that's–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

• Mr. Soros: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't–you don't see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

• Kroft: No feeling of guilt?

• Mr. Soros: No.

• Kroft: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

• Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c--I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets--that if I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

I don't hear an objection, so I'll put this in and see what happens. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's much too long a quote for a short biography, giving it excess weight. Isn't there any secondary source that has summarized his statements on this? It appears that this could be covered in a couple of sentences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. This is a relatively minor incident, has no bearing on the things he is significant and famous for, and quoting long transcripts simply isn't what we do around here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be in a bit of a loop here, because Smallbones objected to the idea of a summary on the grounds that there were some apparent ambiguities in the interview that could cause Soros' viewpoints to be distorted if they were summarized. The interview doesn't take up all that much space; the question would seem to be one of notability. Being interviewed on "60 Minutes" is usually considered to be a pretty big deal. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't include the entire interview. Picking a part of the interview gives that part much greater weight than the parts we don't quote. An interview is a primary source. Let's find one or more secondary sources that discusses it and base our coverage on those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A 60 Minutes interview is a big deal. But was Kroft's interview entirely about Soros at age 14? Why aren't editors advocating including long transcript excerpts from other parts of the conversation? Why single this incident out for a long excerpt? Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The quoted part is the controversial part, the part that has inspired a lot of commentary, most notably Martin Peretz in The New Republic. However, Smallbones objected that the commentary, which mostly casts Soros as a Nazi collaborator, is unfair, because some of Soros' comments appear to be a claim of innocence. To me, it looks like he's sort of simultaneously admitting guilt (with no remorse) while claiming innocence. This makes a summary difficult. I still think that the best course is to post the transcript and say that the interview sparked a lot of controversy. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is undue weight. This episode simply does not justify treatment here at that length, and long transcript excerpts are generally not included in Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of including the transcript was proposed to address the concerns of an editor who objected to efforts to summarize the transcript. I disagree with the undue weight claim -- this interview, specifically the quoted part, has been widely discussed, including in the New Republic article. Many 2nd party sources simply draw the conclusion that Soros was a Nazi collaborator. Rather than cite those conclusions, I think it would be better to include the transcript. But I am open to serious suggestions (other than "can't we just quietly bury the whole episode.") --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite an objection, the answer is to summarize this interview, not to post lengthy verbatim transcript. The best way to summarize it would be with reference to the secondary source, so that someone else is doing the summarizing. However if a good one can't be found then we'll have to do it ourselves, using the neutral point of view and treating the material as a primary source (meaning that we avoid drawing any conclusions from it). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd like to call Buster on his saying "Many 2nd party sources simply draw the conclusion that Soros was a Nazi collaborator." Who is that? I doubt that anybody above the level of Lyndon LaRouch, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly has ever said such a thing. Smallbones (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"So this is the psychodrama that has been visited on American liberalism. We learn Soros never has nightmares. Had he been tried in a de-Nazification process for having been a young cog in the Hitlerite wheel, he would have felt that, since other people would have confiscated the same Jewish property and delivered the same deportation notices to the same doomed Jews, it was as if he hadn't done it himself. He sleeps well, while we sleep in Nazi America." -- Martin Peretz, "Tyran-a-Soros," New Republic New Republic 2/2/07. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all a fairly serious BLP violation in addition to the weight concerns. I'm not sure whether it should be excised completely or summarized in a sentence but either way the current wording and long quote from his father need to go. Wikidemo (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but could you explain how the inclusion of quotes from the subject and his father could possibly violate BLP? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could, but WP:BLP can do a much better job. It's contentious, not reliably sourced information that tends to disparage a living person. Take a look at WP:SELFPUB. It's not Wikipedia's business to use things that people and their relatives said to impugn them. Wikidemo (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. A book published by the father, and an interview on "60 Minutes," are reliable sources. The material is only contentious if it is summarized or characterized here in a misleading or disparaging way. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not reliable sources. I contend it's not proper content, as do many others here - so by definition it's contentious. It's certainly disputed. And it's misleading to boot - it tends to show that Soros has a Nazi past when that's quite a stretch. Wikidemo (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Buster Capiñoaz and Marvin Diode have both been blocked as socks of banned editor(s).   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

link not working

no.13 or 15 www link to time doesn't work anymore. http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/nations/0,8782,98437,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoting Euthenasia vs. caring for the dying

I've removed the following: "Soros has also promoted euthanasia. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act received money from his organizations,[8] The Project on Death in America, active for nine years before closing in 2003, was one of the Open Society Institute’s U.S. Programs, part of the Soros network of Foundations. It received $45 Million in funding. [9][10] Among its other activities, it filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a Washington State assisted suicide case.[11]"

There's a grain of info here, but it seems to promote a POV against Soros so has the usual BLP problems. My specific problems with the paragraph.

• 1st sentence - overly general, not in sources
• 2nd sentence - mistated (s.b. "promoters of" but who exactly, what for) too vague
• 3rd sentence - project was on care for the dying, not for euthenasia.
• 4th sentence - source given makes reference to euthanasia, but not to promotion of.
• 5th sentence - can't get any specific reference from that link, just a place to click on a broken link.

In short, this section grossly overstates any possible connection between "promotion of euthenasia" and Soros.

I will rewrite it to satisfy your concerns. Proponents of euthanasia typically couch their policies in euphemisms, to avoid the stigma attached to euthanasia due to WWII. I will quote some 3rd parties to clarify. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to see why this material is being added: "George Soros Promotes Death" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that B.C. is affiliated with the LaRouche movement. Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it just bad faith speculation? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the foo shites. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't decide which conspiracy theories I like better, Lydon LaRouche's or yours. Read my lips -- if I want to feature LaRouche's viewpoint, I'll just cite his site instead of Soro's (Duh!) --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a thin veil which doesn't obscure the origin of the POV. I've edited the material to remove an Op-ed used as a source and to make it more neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• For reference, three accounts that posted to this page, Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), Buster Capiñoaz (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), and 209.247.5.137 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) were recently identified as socks of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Possible block-evading agenda account and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

undue weight?

The intro of the article places too much emphasis on his politics, so much that it makes it look as if he is more known for his politics than for the Bank of England and GBP affair. I am not sure whether this is an example of undue weight. Surely his politics do need to be described in great detail in the article and also referred in the intro, but I am not sure whether it is okay to place so much emphasis in the intro or whether the politics paragraph should be above the GBP paragraph. The intro also seems to place too much emphasis on current political issues, eg the 2008 US elections. Intros should answer the questions "why should I, as a reader, bother to read this article? why is this notable? why should I accept the opportunity cost of losing some time from my life reading this article and not do something else? what benefit will I receive from reading this article?". I think the intro can be improved somehow, but I am not sure exactly how. However, I do not advocate deleting any text or info from the intro without careful consideration, so that's why I wish other wikipedians step in to help improving the intro, which I think has issues with undue weight and currentism. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like another unfortunate outcome of the tendency for all WP biographies to be depicted as seen through the lens of US politics. Feel free to rework it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• He once was charaterized as following:

  George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and is the founder o a global network of foundations dedicated to supporting open societies. He is author of several bestselling books. He lives in New York City".

  What do you think about amending the intro along those lines? BaldPark (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on politics is definately a US bias, the foundations and philanthropy are pretty well covered, the books are something of a sideline, the one part that is probably under-represented is the currency speculation (maybe just a British and SE Asian bias?). I'd guess that Soros is seen by people in many different lights as far as what defines him. It's a free to edit encyclopdeia, so feel free to emphasize what you'd like. Please just keep an NPOV and make it verifiable! Smallbones (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following "Teodoro Schwartz supported the authoritarian regime of Admiral Miklos Horthy." It would certainly need a citation, if it were true, but it rings very hollow, so I suspect it's some of the usual trash that gets put in here. Smallbones (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SNL skit

George Sorros was in a saterday night live skit, in which he is portrayed as the owner of the democratic party. He also is said to have put several billion dollars in swiss francs. I have other sources that say that he is doing this. Can we put this in the article?

Major public figures are routinely satirized, both in print and broadcast media. George W. Bush was parodied many times, but we don't mention SNL in that article. OTOH, Sarah Palin was parodied a few times but those were of particular notability and importance. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone remembering the Soros skit few years hence as being memorable. Do you have a source that says so? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This looked interesting but was pretty much a washout. If Soros had actually been on SNL it might be interesting enough to go in the article, but it was just a short piece where an actor played him (this type of thing happens to various people at least a dozen times every Saturday!). Here's a complete unofficial transcript from the web:

Soros: So what became of zat $700 beellion dollars? Well, basically it belongs to me, now. Actually, it’s not even dollars anymore, but Swiss franks, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

Bush: Oh, really. That’s not good. Soros: You’re not to speak. I don’t like you. Yes, uh, zee U.S. dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week. Either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven’t decided wheech yet. It will depend on how I feel.

Frank: Thank you very much, Mr. Soros. You’re a great man. Soros: Could I just add that even though you know what’s coming, you won’t be able to do anything about it. Pelosi: You’re a wise man, Mr. Soros. And a powerful one. Frank: You are better than us.

Soros (pointing to Anne Hathaway character): Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me, please. Greg and Judy: Sure. Ok.

Announcer: We’ll now leave this press conference and join a discussion of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy positions already in progress. Gov. Palin is about to say something embarrassing. End

posted by Smallbones (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

early life

Im surprised this article isn't semi-protected so before I add anything figured this would be better. The claim of him living with an official to avoid the nazi's came as a payment to the official. I can grab the sources but it's pretty much common knowledge. This kind of thing wasn't done for free in those days as there was alot of risk involved.Woods01 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's best to put new comments at the bottom of the page. As far as payments are concerned - probably it's best to think about who could possibly know about these payments? Obviously not the taxman or other government source. Probably only Soros, his father or maybe other relatives, and the official. So it would be best to cite one of these sources, not some third-hand source who's just summarizing one of the original sources and maybe putting his own spin on things. Probably the only source on this is Soros himself, and I think I've read several passages in his books about it - the payment thing might be obvious (or trivial depending on your POV). What's surprising (from memory) is that the goyim might be called an "almost relative" (if I remember correctly), as his wife was a (Jewish) in-law of Soros's mother and who died because of the Nazis. So, in short, make sure you get the facts right. Smallbones (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is George Soros an American citizen?

This question came up on the DailyKos 96.235.137.239 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question. The intro of this article calls him "Jewish American," which raises several questions, including whether we normally identify the subject's religion in the intro, and whether it is correct to call Soros Jewish when he has proclaimed himself to be an Atheist. Brazillion (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This Ask.Com bio says that he is a naturalized American citizen. Brazillion (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck through comments posted by sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Per ethnicity in the lead, see WP:MOSBIO, --Tom 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Global Citizen

Would you consider George Soros "an individual who is (or has been) active in promoting global citizenship"?
If so, why?

It's for a project forced on me, but I'm having trouble. Soros was recommended to me, but I can't tell if he's a gc. 99.246.116.144 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In general people usually don't do your homework for you on Wikipedia talk pages, but consider that he has both Hungarian and US citizenship, has lived in the UK, and has donated large amounts for the reconstruction of Central and Eastern Europe and does his financial business around the world. You should be able to take it from there. Smallbones (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Books by George Soros

Would somebody care to add a section about a number of books which George Soros has authored?--99.233.132.217 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what Bill O'Reilly has to say about Soros?

I noticed a recent back-and-forth regarding the segment below in the section on Political Donations and Activism

"In April 2008, Soros hosted an event in his apartment that had guests such as David Brock of the self-described progressive watchdog group Media Matters and liberal commentator Paul Begala. Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements against the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, through a group called The Fund for America and Progressive Media, whose key backer, according to politico.com, is Soros. [33] Commentator Bill O'Reilly, who on numerous occasions has accused Soros of secretly backing what O'Reilly feels are "far-left" political causes, repeated Soros "wants to buy America" after learning about the event. [34]"

I think the first two sentences, supported by citation 33, document events relevant for the segment.

The third sentence, however, adds no statements of fact about Mr. Soros. Instead, it merely documents the opinion of Bill O'Reilly. For this reason, I will remove the sentence and the link to O'Reilly's show (note that the factual content in the O'Reilly citation 34 is simply a repeat appearing one day after that presented in the Politico citation 33). For this reason, I am going to axe the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed the statements that are NOT in question. I put them back in. As for the last line, this is about an image of what Soros is to millions of people. Agree or not, it is significant. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This was removed again due to an allegation of a lack of relevancy. I put it back in. Soros' ties to different political and media organizations is exactly relevant to his political activism. It's to have the article show how he engages in activism. Arnabdas (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that should be kept in mind to allow this idea to remain in the article. For one, it should not be a statement about Bill O'Reilly's opinion. Two, the formulation should not imply that there is anything wrong with supporting Media Matters, hosting guests at a party connected with Media Matters, or supporting a group that is involved in influencing a presidential election campaign (these are all part of US citizens right to free speech and participation in the political process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If the source of the allegation is a right-wing smear, that should be specified. Attributing it to no one in particular gives it validity that it might not otherwise have and implies that multiple people have asserted this. See WP:WEASEL. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly just added commentary to the situation saying that Soros does support Media Matters when he denied doing so. The fund raiser itself was reported on by politico. There is no "right-wing smear" about it. I have no problem about attributing the statement as O'Reilly's opinion. Regardless of one's opinion of MM as an organization, supporting it is notable and can show readers of the article a better idea of Soros' political mindset. Arnabdas (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction, MM was the one denying they received funds from Soros, not Soros denying he gave to them. Arnabdas (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is a matter of emphasis, and I think by mentioning his name in the text gives O'Reilly the appearence of an authority on the subject. Also, the formulation "Commentator Bill O'Reilly accused Soros" suggests there is something wrong with the act in question - you don't "accuse" someone of using their influece to make a positive impact on the world - you accuse them when they are "running a vile propaganda outfit." Also, O'Reilly does not present any evidence to support the contention that Soros funds MM. No where does he show that money flows from point A to point B in his chart - he just says it does so "its gotta be true." And even if it is true, it would not be anything remarkable in US politics (other than being associated with a "liberal" cause). So, this aspect of the suggested MM connection should not receive emphasis.

If Wikipedia is to present the "neutral" facts it must simply state that some people think Soros is connected to MM. The idea that Soros and MM share common ground is not hard to believe and the Politico article cited appears to document a connection (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9514.html). The article in Politico suggests that Soros is at least "connected" to MM by it's founder Brock having attended a dinner at Soros' place in 2008. The content of discussions held at this dinner were reported in the article (the article does not state how the authors became privey to this info). I think the editors above are correct in saying that there is something of interest to those that wish to know of particular connections to Soros.

The allegations of MM receiving funds from Soros is made by O'Reilly in an episode of his "Factor" program. The denial of these allegations are stated by MM on their website cited in this Wikipedia article (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704240003). The MM page links on to a clip of the program as presented by O'Reilly. It would be good to inlcude a direct link to the relevant program if this exists on the Fox website. Other than that, I think O'Reilly gets all the attention he deserves as a footnote to this story.Johnfravolda (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IBD Editorial: A Disconnect Between the Public Soros and the Private Soros

The Investor's Business Daily has an interesting editorial today that might be of interest to readers: Why Does Soros Bite Hand That Feeds Him?. If true, it shows a disconnect between the public Soros and the private Soros, between "what he says and what he knows will make money." ("Financier George Soros is at it again, issuing dire warnings for markets and raising doubts about capitalism itself. A closer look at what he's really up to tells a different story … Soros gets a lot of attention from these doom-and-gloom statements largely because of his reputation as a successful investor. … Yet few in his rarified league draw the kind of attention he does, possibly because no one else seems so diametrically opposed to the very markets that fuel his fortune. Examples abound.") Asteriks (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of uncited things in the opening paragraph

I see no citations for anything in "Later, his funding and organization of Georgia's Rose Revolution was considered by Russian and Western observers to have been crucial to its success. In the United States, he is known for donating large sums of money in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush's bid for re-election in 2004. He helped found the Center for American Progress."

Someone reverted my citation needed saying they were already in the article but I see no cites saying he founded the Center for American Progress or any cites for is role in the Rose Revolution. If I missed these cites, can someone please point them out? Enemy2k (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To What Extent Did Soros Collaborate with the Nazis During World War II?

The World War II years may have to be expanded upon, or at least rewritten, if Ezra Levant's article is anything to go by (Moral hollowness at work ("Billionaire George Soros has made a living wrecking the lives of others. Now he wants to mess with Canadians")). Says Roger Simon: "Soros — who appears in the right-hand column of [the Wikipedia] entry as a 'Hungarian American' and an 'atheist' — is a Hungarian Jew who, when 14 at the height of the Holocaust, was, well… no Anne Frank", he writes, explaining that "To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis." Ezra Levant adds that Soros "turned on other Jews to spare himself", adding further that "That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life."

That information is taken from three sources (two of which are pretty similar): • Moral hollowness at work (Billionaire George Soros has made a living wrecking the lives of others. Now he wants to mess with Canadians) by Ezra Levant, Ottawa Sun, 7 September 2010; • Holocaust Denial: George Soros vs. the Tea Parties by Roger Simon, 6 September 2010; • The Man Who Broke the Bank of England, Spent $24 million to Defeat George Bush, and Never Met a Left Wing-Cause he Didn’t Like by Roger Kimball, 6 September 2010.

Incidentally: Having noted the irony of a Nazi collaborator likening George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler during the 2004 election, Roger Simon concedes that it is true that in the desperate years of the Second World War, it is hardly unthinkable that "I might have been a sleazy collaborator myself." However, he adds, "I do know this: if I had done something like that just to survive, it would have haunted me the rest of my days." Asteriks (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything new here. This topic has been discussed extensively here. The basic issue of his WWII activities are covered in the article. The only thing new is here are the commentary by Levant, Simon, et al. I'm not sure they're worth including, but other editors may have different views.   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Asterisk - are you seriously proposing to link to a couple of pajamas opinion pieces, as per your edit at 14:29, 7 September 2010? There's nothing original in those references, they're just opinion. If you want to reference the sentence "which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to forcibly carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures", why not just link to the wikipedia article about the judenrat? If not, then how about a reference to a historian. But not a pajamas media opinion piece, please. What next - rush limbaugh? 163.233.3.30 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

George Soros born as Dzjchdzhe Shorash

In this article http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/george-soros-wird-spekulant-als-wohltaeter-1.814411 this german newspaper claim, that his name was first Dzjchdzhe Shorash. Perhaps it is worth to mention.--Flegmon (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is another source: http://errol.oclc.org/laf/n86-11219.html --Flegmon (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've gotten yourself into a circular transliteration. Since we are an English encyclopedia, we should transliterate from Hungarian to English, not from Hungarian to German to English. Some of the really bizarre results might be transliterations from Hungarian to Russian or Georgian to German to English. Note that your second source uses machine translation. And if you want to get really, really bizarre transliterate from Hungarian to Russian to German to English then to Georgian and back to English via Estonian. The problem is that the sounds of Hungarian don't have exact equivalents to the sounds in English, German, Russian, and they don't have exact equivalents to each others' sounds (in general letters tend to get added in the process). Also Shorosh is covered in the IPA in the first sentence and your main concern is with the Hungarian "György" which I've heard pronounced more or less as "jerj" or "Georges" (a la Francais) or even "Yuri" but is generally put into English as "George," but never as "Dzjchdzhe" Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's pronounced as 'Dyurdy'. Pretty hard to recreate in English, but this comes closest. Cheers. Gregorik (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Split the baby - Man who broke the Bank of England

There was a minor revert war about the sentence in the lede "He was accused by financial analysts of contributing to the Black Wednesday crisis in the UK (1992) and of instigating the euro's devaluation (2010)." Which I've changed to "He became known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" after he made a reported $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.[4][5] ", dropping the 2010 stuff.

The problem with the older sentence is that he is being accused - presumably of manipulation - but there's no evidence of any crime. He is a currency speculator and is very good at what he does. He first became widely known as the Man who Broke the Bank of England - so I think that belongs in the lede - and it is covered more in the body of the article. The 2010 euro stuff looks like a pretty normal speculation (he probably does dozens if not 100s per year) - and the report itself looks pretty speculative, so this does not belong in the lede. Smallbones (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no middle position - I do not have a content position here. I was objecting to the addition of unsourced and poorly sourced contentious information, as well as some editing policy violations on the part of the IP editor. The "Man who broke the bank of England" claim is not properly sourced as is, but it seems to be sourceable given how often it seems to be said.[12] I'll leave that in for now, but you would need a properly sourced statement in the body of the article (right now there is no citation directed to that specific claim), and then to claim as a weight / POV matter that it belongs in the lede you would have to find a source not merely for the fact that he has been called that, but something to say that he is generally known that way and/or it is a defining part of his legacy. That's probably doable so I'm leaving it in, but it really ought to be done carefully. Soros has many detractors, some of them quite fringe or politically motivated. A lot of questionable stuff creeps into this article from that, so we have to be careful. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a crook! A Socilist! He caused the crash in England and is trying to do the say here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.124.40 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Levant

That "hollowness" article alleging collaboration is no longer available. The Ezra Levant article reveals why:

In September 2010, Levant wrote a column for Sun Media accusing George Soros of funding avaaz.org, a group lobbying to stop Sun Media being granted a license for Sun TV News Channel, and strongly attacking Soros's character and history by alleging that as a child he collaborated with the Nazis. Soros threatened to sue Sun Media for libel and on September 18, Sun Media issued a retraction and apology to Soros stating that:

On September 5, 2010, a column by Ezra Levant contained false statements about George Soros and his conduct as a young teenager in Nazi-occupied Hungary. ...

The management of Sun Media wishes to state that there is no basis for the statements in the column and they should not have been made.

Sun Media, this newspaper and Ezra Levant retract the statements made in the column and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Soros for the distress and harm this column may have caused to him.

Shouldn't this episode be mentioned in the Soros article as well? Redhanker (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that having somebody attack you in the media is such a big deal, but I'm not against an NPOV statement to that effect. The problem that has shown up here multiple times - and it is being continually scrubbed away - is opinion from attack media being expressed as if it were fact. That's against BLP and NPOV, two extremely important policies here. If the attacks were included simply so somebody might read it and say "Well there's no solid backing for this, but where there's smoke there's fire" - no, innuendo is out the window. Smallbones (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you put in a reference, you need to have a reflist afterwards, which I'll now put in. Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/12beck.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=George%20Soros&st=cse

Discussion of Malaysian currency crisis

In the "View of potential problems in the free market system" the Malaysian currency crisis seems to be discussed as an example of a situation where, in contrast to his professed attempts to help international finance, Soros precipitated a crisis.

I was looking into adding a note that Mahathir has retracted his claims, but the addition of that that would seem to eliminate the intended meaning from the section.

(See "finance" section on this page: Mahathir has retracted his accusations, and Soros's own narrative of the event puts him on the wrong side of the trade (actually supporting the currency)).

Rather than make my original addition, or delete the paragraph, I thought I'd put it up for discussion. Particularly since I'm not clear on the meaning of the passage. New york art editor (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why no Anti-Second Amendment activity?

Why is there no mention of Soros's anti-second amendment activity/philanthropy? By and large Americans support the right to own and use firearms, yet Soros has supported some of the worst offenders when it comes to firearm's freedom and anti-second amendment causes. I suspect that the recent addition to the article will become hotly contested/deleted outright. Why don't his supporters want his anti-gun record reflected in his wiki? Microswitch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the encyclopedia recognizes things like "firearms freedom", "worst offenders", supporters [of article subjects], "anti-gun", and the like. Those are political arguments and we're basically trying to cover facts. This is a biography and the NRA taking a position against a person is not a particularly notable biographical detail. However, if we can find reliable secondary sources to suggest that it is a significant matter in his life, then it could be added to a list of his activities and positions, in a neutral way that does not assume that guns should or should not be regulated in the US - just states the facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Family - Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The name Soros has always sounded to me exactly like the Yiddish word "tsores", which means troubles. I think it unlikely that Tivadar Soros would have been unaware of this homophone. This would have lent the palindromic name even more appeal, being loaded with both positive and negative meanings. So, I propose the following modified line:

Although the specific meaning is left unstated in Kaufman's biography, in Hungarian, soros means next in line, or designated successor; in Esperanto, it means "will soar"; and in Yiddish, the word "tsores" means troubles.

Katwig (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested alternative:

“ Although the specific meaning is left unstated in Kaufman's biography, in Hungarian, soros means next in line, or designated successor; in Esperanto, it means "will soar"; and in English, the word "tsuris" means "problems or troubles", borrowed from Yiddish צרות (tsarot or tsaros). ”

  — Jeff G.  ツ 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is probably no need to bring the English borrowing (tsuris) into the mix — and it's perhaps a bit of a distraction to do so.

Suggested alternative:

“ Although the specific meaning is left unstated in Kaufman's biography, in Hungarian, soros means next in line, or designated successor; in Esperanto, it means "will soar"; and in Yiddish, the word צרות (tsarot or tsaros) means "problems or troubles". ”

Katwig (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of problems here 1) WP:OR, and 2) WP:BLP. OR - while Kaufman, apparently referring to a discussion with Soros or a member of his family mentions "Will Soar" "next in line" and palindrome (to the best of my recollection), he does not mention "trouble" - so we have no reliable source here. It's just an editor saying - "it sounds to me like" - definitely won't pass the noticeboard, but if you want to try go to WP:ORN

BLP - making fun of a person's name is considered to be a very low sort of personal attack in many quarters. I don't know that there is a specific rule in WP:BLP about this, but if you want to see if folks would go along with it try WP:BLPN. Smallbones (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Agree with Smallbones. -Atmoz (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Broke The Bank Trade

Someone should clarify the story of the " big trade" that broke the Bank of England.. I have heard that the trade was the brain child of an underlying in Mr. Soro's office... Is this true?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck attack

There should be something in here about the Glenn Beck attack (also this) on Soros (and the condemnation of it by the Anti-Defamation League, Commentary magazine and Reason magazine). Beck <redacted BLP, personal attack> but he has a huge audience. - BoogaLouie (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting, but I'd suggest leaving it alone "Don't feed the trolls." We get all sorts of that garbage here. Why put in anything? It's not about Soros, it's about Beck. As the NYer starts out "It’s hardly news when Fox News airs something nasty." Anybody who has read the original sources (directly from Soros) and viewed the Croft video with any sort of sympathy for the plight of a 14 year old Jew hiding from the Nazis, knows that the Fox et al pieces are gross distortions of the originals - and that Soros is the only person who can say what happened. Putting in distorted accusations to refute them? Seems like playing the game of the slimeballs. Smallbones (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a exclusive club. People who HAVE NOT "read the original sources" and don't have time or inclination to do so, are EXACTLY the people for whom wikipedia was intended. If wikipedia could prevent "the trolls" from putting pages like "George Soros, Nazi collaborator - snopes.com" "Soros Helped The Nazis During Holocaust | Sweetness & Light" and "The Soros Nazi connection goes far deeper than a mere interview on 60 Minutes" (the first few of 561,000 results for a google of "Soros Nazi" ) then I would agree with the above. It cannot. --BoogaLouie (talk)

At some point an attack like this becomes significant - I'd be interested in when folks think it has reached that point. But in general "wrestling with a pig" only gets other people dirty. Please sign your posts (I signed one above). Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try to write a short (one sentence) account for the article if I have time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just my $0.02...I think it's important to provide an *objective* description of the events in question, as a counter to one-sided character assassination of the sort that the Fox News demo has been spreading. I also think the Anti-Defamation League has weighed in, it's relevant, as it means they not only take issue with the frankly appalling characterisation of Soros as a Nazi collaborator but also believe that the extent of Beck's audience demands a rebuttal. The sad truth is that a lot of people actually believe that FNC is a legitimate news source (or simply are fond of it because it reinforces their own prejudices). I think we have a certain duty to supply the facts so that Beck's twisted version is not the only one out there. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(impertinent WP:FORUM material removed, per WP:BLP and to keep discussion on track) - Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On the flip side, what about Soros' attacks on Glenn Beck? Soros and his many organizations are dedicated to getting Glenn Beck off the air. What's good for the goose is good... 199.208.239.141 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)culmo80

Wikipedia isn't about geese and ganders, it's about presenting encyclopedic content, in this case a biography. If either person's public statements against the other are duly sourced, relevant to the bio, and of sufficient WP:WEIGHT to be a part of the telling of Soros' life, a statement could be added in a neutral, factual way. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about "Feeding the Trolls", this is about putting the truth out there when it's been found in opposition of what Soros's camp thinks. We talk about being objective with entries all the time on Wikipedia. No article should ever be so one-sided, that it could be assumed the person in question is merely being picked on or being favored. We have the sources of information connecting this man to a variety of things, some of which are very controversial. And these issues in question aren't being made by some troll running around slandering him online. We're talking about world governments with recorded evidence of his activities. If that's not enough to persuade anyone here that there is viable and substantial information on him, nothing will. You have to connect the dots. Research what he has done, rather than going by his website. I could say many things on my own website that aren't totally true. What's to keep him from doing likewise? Many things and dates on Wikipedia that concerns Economic failure, some of these things can be directly linked to Soros and all of those things are right here on Wikipedia. - Sessou (talk) 9:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't "connect the dots," for good reason. If reliable sources directly make the connection, then we can look at how and where to add it, but that's it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's attacking him is hardly worthy of being mentioned. It's fairly well accepted that Glenn Beck isn't much more than a conspiracy theorist and commentator for the fringe of the right wing. Although he is very popular, it's hard to argue that he's more credible or any more worth mentioning than countless other commentators, bloggers, etc, who have similar beliefs about Soros. The fact is, most of them just don't like how much he donates to liberal causes and thus attack him. They see a billionaire who supports a mixed market and intelligent government regulation- And the thought of someone from the inside basically saying "some things I'm able to do are not fair" scares them, so they often do and say whatever they can think up to try to discredit him.. But, I think it is worth mentioning that he does receive a lot of criticism from the right, but if we start getting into specifics about who made what unsubstantiated claims then we'll get bogged down in hearsay not worthy of an encyclopaedia. Particular things he has done that are well documented and controversial (for example, negatively affecting currencies) has been covered fairly well in this article, in an unbiased manner, representing both sides, imo.--Lerikson (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "fairly well accepted" that Beck is a conspiracy theorist of the fringe right wing. Such a title doesn't come to commentators with his following and popularity. His high credibility outside of CNN and NBC is due to his consistent sourcing of the points he makes. My main query is to the person that wrote this article on Soros. I ask because it's unnecessary to define in the article what a 527 is. If someone doesn't know they can click on the hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.46.136 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic Philosophy

Soros is critical of the neo-classical economic theory, using the pejorative term "market fundamentalism." However, what school of thought does he subscribe to, and would he be classified as an interventionist, mixed-market or something else entirely?maclilus (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Are these citations reliable?

Many of the citations link to 'GeorgeSoros.com', is that a reliable source? It doesn't seem to be objective... --82.26.171.193 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The anon removed the source and then asked for a citation, using the edit summary "Citation needed, page linked to no longer exists. (and is a page from persons own website really a reliable source of information about them? - there seem to be a lot of citations linking to georgesoros.com..."

A couple of points here

1. there was only a single statement linked to the source
2. broken links can be noted, but are generally not removed until folks have a chance to find the new link, and even then it is not required. The new link is "http://www.georgesoros.com/faqs/entry/georgesorosofficialbiography/" which was not hard to find.
3. This is a primary source, which IS allowed to be used. And in many cases, it is the BEST source. On the site Soros states, "George Soros is often assailed by those who oppose his views by disseminating misleading or inaccurate information." In many cases of information added to this article, George Soros appears to be the ONLY person who could give accurate information on a particular topic (e.g. on his religious beliefs, his experiences hiding from the Nazis as a 13 year old ...). Given that information on these topics is often mis-represented, and that WP:BLP rules have been violated multiple times in this article, the official bio should be used whenever a BLP question comes up.

Anybody who disagrees is free to take up the question at WP:BLPN.

Smallbones (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely it being 'official' doesn't logically make it any more reliable? Who says it is official anyway - George Soros himself? "In many cases of information added to this article, George Soros appears to be the ONLY person who could give accurate information on a particular topic (e.g. on his religious beliefs, his experiences hiding from the Nazis as a 13 year old ...)" In that case the article should not state those as facts (because that is unprovable) but state them in a manner like 'George Soros described'. Otherwise, if a person says something about their own past then we assume that is true and have it in the article and people reading it like it is a fact? It doesn't appear to be an objective website which I think is something particular care should be taken with to ensure the article is completely neutral as well as accurate - especially with regard to high profile persons. --82.26.171.193 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, anybody who disagrees with my reading of the situation above is free to take the matter to WP:BLPN. As for the comment immediately below, please read WP:NPA. Smallbones (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Really?

Is this a BLP or a fanpage for GS? It is beyond ridicules that there is zero criticism, controversy or any well noted opposition to this man and his history included in the article. Who's policing the article on GS's behalf? 207.216.253.134 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you find reliably sourced criticism? Just because conspiracy theories are not permitted on a biography, doesn't mean actual significant criticisms wouldn't be added if they can be found Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

These all should be easy to check out,

God Complex Quotations.

- "It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out," (The Independent, June 3, 1993)

- "I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance --to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein," (The Alchemy of Finance, George Soros)

- According to friend Byron Wien (now with the Blackstone Group), "You must understand he thinks he's been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems. The proof is that he has been so successful at making so much. He therefore thinks he has a responsibility to give money away," (Time Magazine, Sept 1, 1997)

- "If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin. But when I made my way in the world I wanted to indulge myself in my fantasies to the extent that I could afford."

- George Soros 60 Minutes Interview - 12/20/98 / Transcript:

KROFT: Are you religious?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: Do you believe in God?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: (Voiceover) Soros told us he believes God was created by man, not the other way around, which may be why he thinks he can smooth out the world's imperfections.

Also, in 1992 he single-handedly destabilized the British Economy when he shorted the pound by several billion dollars. This is well documented. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-shorted-the-pound-etching-his-name-into-financial-history-forever-2010-6

He did the same thing to Thailand in 1997. Both of these escapades are /technically/ in the article, but not in a "criticism" context. They are hidden innocuously under "currency speculation".

He once admitted (on camera) "When you try to improve society you effect different people and different interests differently ... so you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So, I had to experiment, and it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity disrupting repressive regimes, and that was a lot of fun, and that's actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise."

So, he admits to having a God complex, admits to making his money crashing economies, admits to having fun unilaterally experimenting on destabilizing regimes that he finds repressive, all of this is very well documented, including his own words, and yet there is no criticism section.

Am I the only one who is about finished with Wikipedia when it comes to anything political? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrostatic1 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate criticism sections are discouraged whenever possible. It's better to put them in the context of the actions rather than highlight them separately. Sometimes it's difficult to avoid, but in this case there was an appropriate section.

As far as the quotes go, we need a source not only for the quotes, but for their significance. Otherwise, it's just quotefarming, a form of synthesizing sources to advance a position. Just because you or I find a quote interesting doesn't make it significant.

Also, see Hostile media effect for why I don't treat claims of bias on WP's part very seriously. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of sources that put those quotes and his actions in context, but they are almost universally considered "unreliable" simply by doing so. Also, it is not bias in WP itself, but in the (well known and documented fact) that persons and organizations that can afford to are hiring PR firms and social media specialists to "clean up" their messes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations --Electrostatic1 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To put it more plainly, it isn't a "conspiracy", it's the fact that if this page is not watched 24/7 by Mr. Soros's PR people, then they need to be fired for incompetence. That makes it very hard to have any unbiased BLP on WP for anyone who has real money to spend on their image. It isn't just this page, and it's equally true for persons on the other side of the political spectrum.--Electrostatic1 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Point out the Soros-paid editors, please. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do point them out so I can submit my application. I'd like some of that Soros money. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of getting even FURTHER off topic, just send your résumé to any PR firm that has inroads in Social Media. With the number of edits you have on Wikipedia, and your reputation, you would probably be hired instantly. The chances of the firm that hired you having anything to do with this particular topic would be remote, but you would definitely be able to get paid to "manage consensus" on WP pages. That said, I don't really see any point to arguing any further on this. The guy admitted to crashing the entire British pound to make a buck, it is definitely a valid criticism for a BLP, yet it is extremely downplayed on this page. The same thing happens on pages for people on the other side of the political spectrum, too. For what it matters, I voted green party last election, and it's not the first time. I now feel this has gone beyond valid postings on a "talk" page, and I apologize, but I just wanted to make clear what I was saying. It isn't about partisanship, or Wikimedia itself. It's marketing, and it just saddens me that it has been cheapening WP.--Electrostatic1 (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even simpler than that, Electrostatic. Our biography policy intentionally gives the living subject of an article the advantage, by requiring more strict sourcing and that disputed items be immediately removed. It's not exclusive to Soros, or partisans on one side or another, though more heavily-watched biographies tend to benefit more from the policy than ones that may only have a few looking in on it. While It's likely that PR people show up occasionally, it's doubtful that they monitor this page that closely, or have a significant impact on the overall article.

As for reliable sources, it's not that quotefarming itself makes a source unreliable, though it's a pretty sure sign that one is, since it's a partisan tactic designed to embarrass the target, rather than real journalism. If a source obviously is advocating for a particular viewpoint, it's almost certainly not going to be very useful as criticism, especially in a biography.

Tying this back to Soros' page here, several who show up here clearly believe what they see in partisan shows/blogs, and think that Soros' biography should reflect that. Problem is, these are not reliable sources for criticism, especially in a biography of a living person. Their claims that this shows some kind of bias does not hold up well under more moderate scrutiny. Criticism from legitimate sources can, and has, been incorporated into the article, but partisan hit pieces do not belong. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this page shows a clear bias in GS's favour. One clear example is in the description of his conviction for insider trading. Even if you agree with the clear intention of the article in it's implication he did no wrong in that case, it's inappropriate that the article implies it so strongly. There is no counter argument or description of the basis for the conviction. It doesn't make clear if or when decisions were made by a jury, or by a judge or judges, except in the 'near miss' with the European court. If the case were as clear or simple as described, why was he convicted?Soch (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Krugman quote in intro

I think the following should probably be taken out of the intro:

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is critical of Soros's effect on financial markets.

"[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi.'"

While I'm aware that there are lots of Soros critics, and that these critics should be included in the article, perhaps even in the intro, this criticism doesn't really belong there. 1st - this particular criticism isn't really covered in the main body of the text; 2nd - it's not really a direct criticism of Soros, but of other un-named investors. Krugman does not say that Soros does his best to trigger crises for fun and profit. 3rd - it's an opinion, not backed here or in the main text by documented facts. Little more than name-calling really, so even though it's the opinion of a well known and respected economist, it is at least technically against WP:BLP.

I'd suggest that somebody come up with a more appropriate criticism for the intro, make sure that it is covered in the body of the text and follows WP:BLP, and goes beyond simple name-calling. Smallbones (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Time out revert

I reverted a couple of User:Keithbob's edits, not so much because I disagree with minor parts of them, but because there seems to be a complete re-write going on that is removing some valuable parts, but also improving the article as well. This article has been the subject of some very nasty editing and the recent version was a fairly balanced attempt to come to some sort of truce. Which doesn't mean at all that more editing shouldn't be done, just that I'm asking for some slower movement until people involved can notice the changes. Otherwise we might end up going back to the beginning and starting over. Explaining some of the edits on this page would help. I'm also concerned that the trigger for this new round of edits seems to be about a "rounding error." If so it doesn't need to be included. But GS's father, his boyhood experieinces hiding from the Nazis and from WWII should be included, as well as his philanthropy in the FSU and Eastern Europe (in the lede). So please just give us some time here. Smallbones (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones for your post and for explaining the reason for your reverts. I did not see any activity here on the talk page since July, so I went ahead boldly. However, I'm happy to slow down and become more interactive here on the talk page if that will help create progress. Glad we can work together to improve the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Native language

Sorry for the hasty citation-needed the other day. I had just discovered this interview with Humphrey Tonkin in which he says that Soros is not a native speaker of Esperanto, but only of Hungarian. It's a blog so I thought it wasn't appropriate as a citation. Tonkin was one of the organizers of the event that the new New York Times citation describes. If the reporter concluded that Soros is a native speaker from his comments at that symposium, she may have a different definition of "native speaker" than Tonkin does, or Tonkin may be incorrect. I will be looking out for a citation fitting the reliable-source criteria that clarifies the situation.--Cam (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement about his being a "native speaker" has been in the article forever, and I have wondered about its technical accuracy. It would be incredibly difficult for somebody to learn Esperanto as a first language. But the blog and the NYTimes article can be viewed as telling a similar story: he learned it during childhood. How we state that is a difficult matter, but I'd leave out "native speaker." Smallbones (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Native Esperanto speakers.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Smallbones, since both sources say Soros learned Esperanto before adulthood, my guess is that the reporter is stretching the definition of native language to include one learned during childhood, while Tonkin is using the stricter meaning of "mother tongue" or "first language." But there are native speakers of Esperanto, I have met some. The linguist Ken Miner has distinguished "native language" (the language one learns in the cradle etc.) from "indigenous language" (the language of the broader society one is immersed in as a child, of the children one plays with etc.). He suggests that by these definitions, there are "native" Esperanto speakers, but no "indigenous" Esperanto speakers.--Cam (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neil Clark

Several years after noticing the reference to Clark's article here, I finally managed to confirm that the claim in his New Statesman piece, about Soros donating $3million a year to Eastern Europe is likely to be an error. Soros states on his website that he donated $3million alone to Hungary in 1984. My changes here are fairly self-explanatory. I managed to find an authoritative source about Soros philanthropy by Waldemar A. Nielsen who was obviously a distinguished person in his field, and have added a fuller reference to the relevant section of his book in the 'Scholarly perspectives' section. I do not think Clark's defence of the former Soviet bloc, I first reduced the use of this source a few years ago, really needs to be included here.

I have also removed a reference to Clark's New Statesman article from the 'Journalism' section towards the end of the article. Although the NS is usually reliable, Clark's article displays his fringe preoccupations - his support for Milosevic, as well as his attempt to demonstrate Soros' interior motives without any evident source. Clark also manages to blame Soros for actions in Serbia a decade ago which could not have been the Hungarian-American's responsibility in any way. Are we meant to list every artcle about Soros as though Wikipedia is a content farm? Philip Cross (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I have a history of online clashes with Neil Clark, also involving Wikipedia, I think it is important to refer editors to instances where the issue of incorporating material from Clark's 2003 article has come up before. The issue surfaced in 2007 (Clark was not named directly) and in 2008. The issue of Soros' involvement in the collapse of the Soviet Union was discussed earlier in 2008 (again, Clark was only tangentiallly referred to). Philip Cross (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Clark article was originally something of a balancing source. Somebody thought that we were pushing the POV that the fall of the Soviet Union was a good thing (or some such). I doubt that anybody thinks we need this type of balancing act now. Smallbones (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hi all. I'm a bit suspicious about the identification of Soros's ethnicity. This is not to say that he's not Jewish, nor that his religion/ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned. Rather, I feel that the positioning of that identification in the infobox is a subtle way to play into anti-semitic tropes (i.e., the Jewish businessman controlling the world). Glancing at other world leaders and businessmen, ethnicity/religion is never featured so high, if mentioned at all (i.e. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, David Rockefeller, John Davison Rockefeller). I recommend moving that line lower down, if not erasing it. Thoughts? Sailingfanblues (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Roughly speaking - if a person self-identifies with a religion then it should be mentioned. The ethnic identification is usually clearer, but I don't think it has to be included. I always forget how this is supposed to work with Jews, which can be seen as either a religious or ethnic identification. A rule of thumb that was used at the Bernard Madoff article was that "jewish" didn't need to appear more than 3 times, no matter how long the article got. (He identifies as both religious and ethnic Jew).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Soros doesn't self-identify as a religious Jew, but is clearly an ethnic Jew. So maybe once or twice in the article and it doesn't need to be high up. Smallbones (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a good answer, I think. Soros is, of course, an ethnic Jew, but he is not religious and does not describe himself as Jewish, just his background. I greatly prefer that the information is kept from the infobox and explained in full in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Soros' ethnicity as a Jew is probably a more important fact about him than Warren Buffett's Presbyterian up-bringing, if only because the young Soros had to endure so much during the Nazi occupation of his country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweinber (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, rmv it from the infobox and place it in the body if its supported by secondary sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

done. Sailingfanblues (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Climate Change - Question

May a description be provided on what is required to add Climate Change.Jamesmilligan (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Current member of the CFR

Citation is the CFR official web site. http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=S You cannot deny. You cannot get a more reliable source than the official membership of the organization.

I'm adding this back in and adding Category:Council on Foreign Relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizarDave (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is one of WP:Undue. People like Soros participate in organizations like the CFR. Why does it deserve its own tag? If it's so important it should be worked into the main body itself with actual citations alluding to relevance. This is all to say that from your broader set of contributions it appears as though your only interest in editing Wikipedia is tagging people to the CFR. To what end? I'll believe that these are good faith edits, but per Wikipedia guidelines, they are not appropriate. Sailingfanblues (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How exactly are they not appropriate? What purpose are any of the Wikipedia categories? "Categories are groups of articles on related topics.". Here is a list of all current categories for George Soros: 1930 births, Alumni of the London School of Economics, American billionaires, American currency traders, American Esperantists, American financiers, American hedge fund managers, American investors, American money managers, American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent, American philanthropists, American stock traders, Central European University, Drug policy reform activists, Framing theorists, George Soros, Hungarian emigrants to the United States, Hungarian people of Jewish descent, Living people, Native Esperanto speakers, Naturalized citizens of the United States, People convicted of insider trading, People from Budapest, Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 1st Class, Stock and commodity market managers, Progressivism in the United States Shall we do away with all categories, since you claim they are not important and the information should be worked into the main body itself?

Your contributions are only for George Soros and David Rockefeller. Are you speaking for them? Is George now ashamed of being categorized as a CFR member? I think not. He was the Director of the CFR. He should be proud of that status.

???The issue is one of WP:Undue??? The fact that George Soros is a member of the CFR has nothing to do with viewpoints. WizarDave (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WizarDave, you're taking this too personally. The fact is that soros is a figure often implicated in one world conspiracy theories. His role in the CFR is often mentioned in relation to those conspiracy theories. As such, it's essential that such identifications are carefully deployed. My suggestion is to highlight soros's participation in the main body. The worry (and the reason why I invoked undue weight) is that someone (not you necessarily) might come across this essay about soros, read nothing substantive about his work with the CFR, merely see the tag, and intuit wrongdoing. This is how conspiracy theorists bias Wikipedia! (not that you're a conspiracy theorist, just explaining my fear.) I'm going to undo your edit. Let's have a real conversation here and bring in some outside opinions. You can of course undo my edit, but I hope you won't until we figure out the right way forward. (let's not edit war!)Sailingfanblues (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be reserved for text that summarizes facts found in the article body. The CFR is not presently in the article body, so it should not be in the lead section. If there are interesting, reliably sourced and verifiable facts that can be said about Soros's involvement in CFR then those facts should be put into the article body. If not, CFR should be removed from the lead section.

Regarding the related category, if the article does not mention it, the category should not be present. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts do not cause conspiracy theories. Fact George Soros is a current member and past Director of the CFR, thus he should be included in the Category:CFR. You cannot pick and choose which facts to include in Wikipedia based on some fear it may cause a conspiracy theory. With all the various Occupy this or that city ranting about the 1%, are you not concerned of his billionaire status causing those conspiracy theorists to assume him of wrongdoing simply because he is a billionaire? Where do you plan on drawing your line of what facts can be included and what facts cannot? WizarDave (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The CFR's membership list is a primary source. Many secondary sources discuss him being a billionaire; what reliable secondary sources discuss membership in the CFR as being a significant part of Soros' biography? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was preparing to argue that membership in such a prominent group is noteworthy and worthy of inclusion per se, but after searching the sources I found no reliable sources that deemed this worth mentioning directly. There's an indirect minor reference on a brief Forbes article.[13] Another indirect mention is a Reuters article on Occupy Wall Street, mentioning that Soros has long backed CFR, among others.[14] Here's an article mentioning that he was planning to start a European version.[15] The partisans and conspiracy theorists do talk about it sometimes but compared to other partisanship and conspiracy theorizing it's just a blip. We're writing a brief biography of the guy, his life and times, and career, not a compendium of every single fact we can source. In that light this is not something to include if we only have a few pages worth of space. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty favorable to including a sentence or so on CFR - after all it is a well-known established organization with no serious claims of wrong doing against it. But looking through possible secondary sources on the web, it really looks like only kooks ever mention a connection between Soros and CFR, e.g. "alleging that was part of a plot by George Soros and some cabal inside the Council on Foreign Relations who are working to create Marxist, one world government and that the [2008 financial] collapse itself was intentionally triggered in order to help Barack Obama win the election." If anything like that were to be included, it would have to be taken out immediately. There is an article about George Soros conspiracy theories, so maybe it could fly over there - but the key to that article is that the mentioned theories have to be identified clearly as unproven conspiracy theories. So I think WizarDave should come up with a truly reliable secondary source that clearly mentions the connection between Soros and CFR, and we can include a short sentence or so on it. The worst that can happen is that we bore our readers for one sentence. Smallbones (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Smallbones and anyone else insisting on an RS (not WP:OR) to include CFR. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a consensus that we should spend our time checking all Wikipedia pages that link to memberships in any think tanks? Stating membership in the Cato Institute or Brookings Institute tells a lot about the core beliefs of a person without having to cite secondary sources. The secondary source is the link to the Wikipedia page telling about the think tank. Shall we remove all references of membership to ALL think tanks, or is your concern only with the CFR? To trivialize membership in the CFR is to trivialize the CFR. From their about page [16] CFR members, including Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Hagel, and Erin Burnett claim the CFR to be an "indispensable resource in a complex world." You do not want to include membership in an indispensable resource simply because of a few conspiracy theorists who cannot Cite their beliefs, so of course could not state them here?WizarDave (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a straw dog. The primary issues is RSs, notability can't be addresses without them. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what we should do is not conduct original research by trying to play biographer. If a serious journalist, academic or biographer, as opposed to one of the kooks, hacks, or partisans, decides to cover Soros' membership in the CFR as being biographically relevant, either a significant part of his life, a significant influence on the world, or an exemplary illustration of his beliefs, then we can weight that for inclusion. As a tertiary source we reflect what the best sources out there in the world have to say. It's simply not our place to make the judgments ourselves, and if we did make that call, then by all appearances it is not significant either to his life or the organization. Rich influential people are members of dozens, sometimes hundreds of organizations. Every time they give money, or an up-and-coming organization wants a big name on its list, they court these people. If we wanted to include every organization everyone belonged to, we'd have to clear out other content to make way, and Wikipedia would become a who-belongs-to-what list. Those sites do exist, you know, and we're not set up like they are to keep that information current. Occasionally some trivial membership stuff gets into the encyclopedia and it's mostly harmless. For the most part it doesn't matter what somebody's childhood dog was named, but it gets into a few articles. Nobody zealously removes it for the most part, but if you proposed to include it and people gave it a thought, particularly if the name were exclusively the fodder for detractors, it wouldn't be appropriate article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The dispute here is a tempest in a teapot. WizarDave, you have not yet attempted to write about Soros's involvement in CFR in the article body, with a summary in the lead section and a category to match. If you will stop going on about memberships across Wikipedia and instead focus tightly on Soros and CFR, you will be able to establish the category. Otherwise, if you can find no good supporting cite to describe the connection, then leave it be. This is not about conspiracy or censorship but about good encyclopedic writing. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)