Jump to content

Talk:George Soros/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Controversies

I think the controversies mentioned in this article need to be dealt with on this page

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/27/george-soros-rich-man-who-is-hated-around-world/

173.73.17.241 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most of them are, though not in the same tone. Fox is clearly editorializing, we have to have a neutral tone. Among the incidents mentioned there that might be mentioned here (or get more weight here): role in bringing down Communism, OTP investment, Brazilian mistress. Anything else? Smallbones (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair to dismiss Fox out of hand as it's clearly unreliable. Fox news doesn't help with due weight, we need reliable sources for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Your comment regarding Fox news is pure ad hominem. The article is fairly well written and just about every single fact mentioned in the story is common knowledge. To dismiss the story, out of hand, simply because it came from Fox is just part of a larger liberal smear campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.76.122 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We regularly judge sources here as reliable or otherwise; propaganda mills aren't given a lot of credibility here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their authors. It doesn't matter whether the opinion is left, right or center. We don't use it for factual material about living people. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should or can dismiss Fox News as an unreliable source, just because its a conservative news company but in this instance the article that is referenced does not meet WP's standards for a reliable source because it is clearly labeled by Fox News as an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for information for an article on a living person.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Fox News is reliable for most purposes, provided it's their actual news page. However, the above link is to an opinion article, so it's less reliable for criticisms of Soros, unless the author has some special level of expertise or standing, or we can back it up with some more reliable sourcing. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

2008 Contributions

There are pretty good details on his political donations in the 2004 election cycle. But afterwards, it jumps to 2009. I doubt that he sat out 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). In fact, OpenSecrets lists his direct contributions as $5 million. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivsdetail.php?id=U0000000364&cycle=2008 Can we get some more detail added here, please? Cjbreisch (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

Please add the current Bloomberg Billionaires reference under Wealth:

In March 12, 2012 Forbes listed Soros, at 81, as the 22nd richest person in the world, the world's richest hedge-fund manager, and number 7 on its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, with a net worth estimated at $20 billion.[90] Soros has given away $8 billion to various causes since 1979.[91]

As of October 2012, the Bloomberg Billionaires Index ranks Soros as the 25th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of 21.6 billion. [1]


CubanellePep (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. That link would be against Wikipedia's policy on inline external links, rest is in article. gwickwiretalkedits 01:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Obituary

For the avoidance of doubt, he isn't dead. Why Reuters hasn't pulled his obit I don't know. The entire rest of the media is mocking Reuters though, so that's fun. Dolive21 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They did pull it, so I've removed

"On 18th April 2013 newsagency Reuters published his obituary accidentally. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/18/soros-george-b-aug-idUSL2N0CR1TF20130418 "

I can definitely see why this might be interesting for readers - even if we tell them directly that it's false. But what it says is a matter of speculation (especially since it's not there anymore). In any case it's likely against WP:BLP which has a conservative non-speculative approach. Perhaps if the article was archived somewhere, or an article comes out saying how this mistake was made ... But I think it can wait, we're not a news service. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


An article admitting the error in publishing was published by Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/18/us-soros-obituary-error-idUSBRE93H1CP20130418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.104.83 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I can find on this speculative story

I've checked the 60+ top stories on Google News for this speculative story from a definitely UNreliable source. There's nothing even hinting at this, which would be front page news if it were reliably reported. In line with WP:BLP all material on BLPs must be reliably sourced, even on talk pages, so I've removed the story here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Kapo

This article should shed light on the stories coming out about Soros' real role in the Holocaust, especially the evidence he might have been a kapo. This story has been picked up by mainstream commentators just as Glenn Beck. The topic has also been subject to investigations by Executive Intelligence Review. So it would be inappropriate to exclude them as being "fringe." Poet of Freedom (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For now I am going to add the category of Nazi collaborator to the article. It is beyond doubt, and even admitted following his 60 Minutes interview:

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.

Poet of Freedom (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to base accusations against living people on your personal interpretations or those of non-notable, non-reliable sources. To categorize him as a Nazi collaborator, we need actual reliable sources saying he collaborated – watching a crime and failing to intervene is not usually the same as committing the crime – and those sources need to be incorporated into appropriate text in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox uncle. Also PhD.

The bit about Soros having an Orthodox Jewish uncle was removed twice today and restored once. I removed it the second time because I could not find any support for the fact except a 2011 biography by Purcell which appears to suffer from WP:CIRCULAR problems.

The factoid (which I think is wrong) was added by an IP editor working from Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey, USA, in the only edit they ever made to Wikipedia. (This was in October 2010, when the article talked about Soros earning a bachelor's degree but no doctoral thesis leading to PhD.) The IP editor supplied no reference. I see no reason to respect this uncited assertion, especially in a BLP. The real question is why didn't we catch it for three years?

The CIRCULAR source I noticed when researching the matter is a self-published book by Thomas Purcell: The Return of the Kings: Rise of the New Feudalism. The 2011 book uses almost the exact same wording as our Wikipedia article of that time (the version with no PhD). Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually the Orthodox description was only removed once and not restored at all, but hey... who's counting? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, quite right. Who is counting? :-)
Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with George Soros, Breaking the Bank of England

George Soros, Breaking the Bank of England doesn't appear to be notable on it's own, but if the sources are verifiable some of this could be included in the Currency speculation section of this article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  checkY Merger complete. . Content merged from George Soros, Breaking the Bank of England to both here and Black Wednesday, with a redirect placed from George Soros, Breaking the Bank of England to George Soros#Currency speculation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

He was born in Hungary. The article states he is American, but does not say when he gained that status. Was he ever a citizen of the UK? The article would benefit from an account of his citizenship history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.20.251 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced sections, POV, 'Bush won by large margin'

This edit, in which I removed the portion that stated "Bush won re-election by a large margin", was reverted with the edit summary of "I mean via electoral college, which is how we elect people in the US" seems to indicate the editor(User:Rms125a@hotmail.com) has no idea that the 2004 election was the narrowest re-election ever for an incumbent, nor that my explanation of a 60k vote swing was referring to Ohio, which would have given the election to Kerry. I'm not about to re-argue the 2004 election, but the failure to understand these basic points calls the editors other mass changes to the article into question. This removal of sourced content for example. I believe the editor should explain their reasons here and gain consensus before making substantial changes to this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A re-election is still an election. As this link shows, both of Bush's wins were in the top 10 closest U.S. presidential races, but #1 was John F. Kennedy's 1960 win when a suspiciously large number of votes were uncovered in Boss Daley's Chicago, putting the Democrats over the Republicans. All I am trying to point out very clearly is that the subject of this article, was unable to buy that election as he tried to do, and without remotely coming anywhere near exhausting his entire fortune as he had sanctimoniously claimed he was willing to do. More later, after midnight in NYC. Quis separabit? 05:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through your edits to the page right now, but I suggest you take it easy on this BLP if you feel so strongly against the guy. I wouldn't spend all my monies trying to ensure some politician was defeated if I were that wealthy, but neither you nor I know his reasoning for sure. Only what's reported in reliable sources. On a side note, you are showing you still do not understand the history of presidential elections based on their closeness. The page you point to as the 'Top 10 Closest Presidential Elections' has the 1960 election as the least closest(or #10), not the closest. And I know all about Daly's goons in Chicago stuffing the ballot boxes, as well as the Republicans in south Illinois doing the same thing. The fact is, even without Illinois Kennedy wins the election. Whereas without Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election, Bush loses to Kerry. The closest elections are at the bottom of the page. #1 is in 1876, Hayes 'beats' Tilden by 1 elector vote and loses the popular vote by 3%. #2 is Bush 'beats' Gore by 5 electoral votes and loses the popular vote by .5%. And the #4 closest election was the 2004 re-election of GWB. So not only was it the closest re-election of a sitting President, it was the 4th closest election in US history. I hope you can better understand these fact better in the future. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I know how Dubya won in 2000, and I was a Democrat back then and extremely upset. However, I guess I didn't realize the 2004 race was as close as you have pointed out. Obviously the pro-Bush vote was substantially larger than it had been in 2000, and I guess in comparing the two and not doing the electoral college math better I missed up. As far as the re-editing -- as broken down below -- I await your opinion (and that of any other editor with good faith). Yours, Quis separabit? 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's cool. I'm not contesting the edits below, and frankly I don't know that much about Soros. Only that we need to be fair to a BLP. If someone else wants to weigh in, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we weren't putting in bias or removing something important and sourced. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-editing breakdown (10/28/14)

OK, I reviewed my edits and reedited. This time, aside from tweaking and tagging, the only things I removed, per se, were these items, which, IMO, are fairly clearly both unsourced and either POV or OR:
  • "Later, the Open Society Institute's programs in Georgia were considered by Russian and Western observers to have been crucial in the success of the Rose Revolution."
  • ===Education and beliefs===

"His philosophical outlook is influenced by Karl Popper, under whom he studied at the London School of Economics (LSE). His Open Society Foundations is named after Popper's two volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, and Soros' ongoing philosophical commitment to the principle of fallibilism (that anything he believes may in fact be wrong, and is therefore to be questioned and improved) stems from Popper's philosophy."

Note - his having studied at London School of Economics (LSE) is already included in the article

"Confiscate the valuables of the Jews"

75.108.122.74 has, five times, added "Actually George Soros admitted in a 60 Minutes interview, he helped to confiscate the valuables of the Jews. He went on to say he had no regrets." sourced to "Soros, George, 60 Minutes Interview with Steve Kroft , 20 Dec 1998,". Not only does this prose lack neutrality, the way it written violates WP:BLP and the sourcing is dubious.- MrX 14:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If Soros did indeed make that statement then it should be easy for the IP to find secondary coverage of it. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
And (surprise, surprise) the IP is distorting Soros' words: [1]. Other coverage: [2] --NeilN talk to me 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any source saying George Soros' religion is "None"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Description of George Soros's political position

For the Institute_of_Economic_Affairs#Funding section needs to know the best way to describe George Soros. At the moment it says 'left wing'. I notice this article says he support progressive liberal cause, the ref is pay walled Time. Any suggestions welcome ? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of sources noting that he supports "progressive liberal causes" but Inquisitr describes him as a "progressive liberal". Meatsgains (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, plus from "Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve" and "The Great Investors: Lessons on Investing from Master Traders". Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Question about accuracy of this page: what is his citizenship, and specifically does he hold Hungarian citizenship as well as US? The current page says in a box: Citizenship Hungary, United States[1] The footnote goes to a 2013 Forbes list of billionaires. The link goes to the 2015 Forbes list, which does not support the footnoted statement. Rather it says: “Citizenship United States”. Some other web sources say he is dual national, but I am not positive of this. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

With the elections coming up there have been a number of anon edits, including the removal of "philanthropist" in the lede that seem to need consensus to change. Please discuss these changes here. BTW, I was at a speech he gave where he stated that he was a citizen of the "European Union", so I'll suggest that we keep in the Hungarian citizenship part. Put in a "citation needed" if you wish and I or somebody else will get around to re-citing it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

SorosLeaks

removed - this looks like the perfect example of "getting the word out" which is prohibited. See WP:PROMO Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how information pertaining to the leaks is prohibited under WP:PROMO. I actually came to this article expecting to read something about it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about this? I am doing research on Soros and find this page to be a white washed generic version missing key facts and information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.185.32 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ages of his wives irrelevant

I fail to see why two of the entries about Soros's wives indicate the age difference between them and Soros. Is this a Wikipedia template? What constitutes an age difference meriting mention? I think it's silly and irrelevant. Do other entries on billionaires carry this information?

In 1983, George Soros married Susan Weber, twenty five years his junior.

In 2008, Soros met his current wife, Tamiko Bolton, 42 years his junior.

Avocats (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Connection to business world irrelevant

In connection with the previous poster's ejaculation that his personal life isn't important on this wiki on this individual, I'd like to expand on the concept and say that his business life is not important.

If we're not talking about George's personal life, and we're not talking about George's Business life, then why not just erase this entry, as clearly, George Soros is not a notable person in either aspect. Clearly, if the age difference between his wives is trivial, then the net worth difference between his contemporaries is equally as trivial, as many are completely human and arbitrary goals and measurements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.210.33 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Soros means Coffin

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/soros.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA. Meatsgains (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Putin arrest warrant?

There are various sources on the net that claim that Vladimir Putin issued an international arrest warrant for Soros. All of them look extremely unreliable. Does anyone know whether there is a reliable source confirming or refuting this claim? It seems worthy of inclusion if it is true. MathEconMajor (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

youtube video

Please stop reinserting this material [3]. Do not link to this attack video on youtube. I don't care if there's 60 minutes segments spliced into it. This has no business in a BLP and the fact that somebody would even try and add in stuff like this should be grounds for immediate block. Please take your smear campaign somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The video is an excerpt from a nationally broadcast 60 Minutes interview with the subject. No other video was "spliced into it", please don't misrepresent the source. I'll try to find the full interview which would be helpful in expanding other sections. You've been reverted by multiple users - if you have issues with the source resolve them at BLPN. I'll gladly participate. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
1) To decide whether a particular phrase from a long interview of the subject should be quoted, we need to look and see whether RSs have quoted the interview, and if so which parts for DUEWEIGHT. The only reference I could find is https://books.google.com/books?id=W1Jn4zYBom8C&pg=PA37 where an RS calls the interview "bizarre" and then after detailing the interviewer's charges, "This is what actually happened". So the 60 minutes segment was rubbished by the only RS that covers it. 2) Should Kaufman's biography be considered an RS? The NYTimes notes it was written with the subject's cooperation, but says "Mr. Soros makes no effort to win popularity contests, and Mr. Kaufman doesn't try to win any on his behalf. This is a flinty-eyed exposition of a brilliant capitalist," suggesting that it is independent enough of the subject and an objective RS. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, the material was selectively quoted to the extent of being a misquote. Immediately after the part that was quoted (my transcription) "If I weren't there - of course I wasn't doing it - but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not - I was only a spectator - the property was being taken away. So, I had no role in taking away that property." So there you have it, the 60 minutes reporter asked a tough question, which might even be over-interpreted as "were you a 14 year old war criminal?" and Soros denied it. If a quote suggests otherwise, it is against our BLP rules. 60 minutes did not say that he did anything wrong. Soros did not say he did anything wrong. Some right wing nuts have said that the material shows that Soros did something wrong, but since they are not reliable sources, we don't include their interpretations of this material. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous statement to make, nobody is accusing Soros of being a war criminal, and very few would agree with you on labeling 60 Minutes, a highly respected investigative journalist program, to be "right wing nuts". The interview is clear and uncut, and gives credible insight into Soros' past and his views. There's not any violation of BLP to quote a person in he's own biography. Your effort to try and stop any criticism of Soros just boomerangs right back at you. Beatitudinem (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. I do not say that 60 minutes is a right-wing nut, but there are right-wing nuts and sources who have tried to put this material into the article as a way of condemning Soros. 60 minutes asked a tough question - I've got no problem with that. The question could be, and has been, over-interpreted and people have made very vicious attacks on Soros based on this interview. In any case Soros denied it. If a discussion of this interview does not include his denial "Whether I was there or not - I was only a spectator - the property was being taken away. So, I had no role in taking away that property." then it violates WP:BLP. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
See the current version sourced to Kaufman's biography. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, it looks fine. There are no veiled accusations in there. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive on this - many years ago - 10? - and for several years, multiple people tried to put in some very vicious interpretations of this interview in the article. It was Wikipedia at its worst and it took a long while to get it straightened out. I just don't want to have to do that again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree on Wikipedia not being tough enough on BLP, just look at all the nasty stuff we've seen by certain editors against Donald Trump and others people they don't like. Beatitudinem (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Education

word correction.........

In 1947, Soros immigrated to England and became a student at the London School of Economics.

immigrated should be emigrated .

In 1947, Soros emigrated to England and became a student at the London School of Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monis0161 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Death reports

Did Soros just die? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news. [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Views on Trump?

Might it be possible for someone to fix the wording of this section to make it sound a little less robotic? 'Soros expects Trump to fail because Soros believes Trump's ideas are self contradictory', for example, is backed up by a source, but reads as though it was written by an android somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5054:FE00:D437:7B68:FE05:8E74 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The edit was probably written by his hired clack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.87.93.177 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"escaped Nazi Germany"

The introduction reads "Born in Budapest, he escaped Nazi Germany occupied Hungary and emigrated to England in 1947.". It might be because I am not a native english speaker, but it seems equivalent to "In 1947 he emigrated from Hungary to England to escape the Nazis". However, the Nazis were already defeated in 1947.

I suggest to replace it by "Born in Budapest, he survived the occupation of Hungary by Nazi Germany. In 1947, he emigrated to England". I can not write it myself because my account is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernesttg (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Both of these sentences are okay (other than the point about 1947 - the war ended a couple of years before that.)-78.148.111.106 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hagiography

This article makes this man look like a saint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.87.93.177 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really. That's probably just what an objective article looks like to someone who's accustomed to wallowing in the sorts of antisemitic conspiracy theories the far-right loves to spin about Soros. I'm sure Conservapedia has an article on him that you'll find more in line with the sort of bogeyman portrayal with which you're familiar. Trilobright (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears objective is you think he's a saint. He is a controversial character for a reason, and most of those reasons are not mentioned here. I think any honest person would agree his article would draw editors with different political views, and tilting one way or the other is inevitable. Best solution is to include as many facts as possible and allow readers access & choice to decide if he's a saint or a ruthless devil. Paulthemonk (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh look, the person George Soros hired to edit his wikipedia page has arrived. Not enough accusing people of being Nazis, Soros wasted his money on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. Soros is not a "leftist" or a "socialist" (it is only Americans who generally believe the megarich are "leftist"), he is a billionaire businessman who uses his wealth to exert influence upon markets and political systems for further personal gain. He is no friend of working class people, nor of the poor.

Soros is not as widely admired as this article states. It is not just the far right that vilify him, but people on the left, and many moderates do as well. The influence that such people have upon political systems and markets is something we should be very concerned about - at best it represents a kind of fixing. This is not an objective article and shame on you Trilobright for assuming that any criticism of Soros is based on his Jewish background. -78.148.111.106 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

in the first paragraph it says that George Soros escape Nazi-occupied Hungary. This is ABSOLUTLEY INACCURATE. Hungary joined forces with the Nazi regime in 1941. George Soros evaded the wrath of the Nazi's, but Wikepedia does not say how. George Soros joined the Deutsche Nationale Sozialistiche Partei in 1941 as a member of the Schutz-Staffel, aka the "SS." Please correct these historical facts. 72.216.0.16 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits of the form "please change X to Y". You haven't provided sources for your claims, either. In particular, I find it hard to believe that Soros would have joined the SS at the age of 11. You might also want to read the section titled "Early life and education", which expands on Soros's life in occupied Hungary. clpo13(talk) 18:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Though way off base in most of the comment, this did point out one minor inaccuracy. Soros did not "escape" the 1944 Nazi occupation (as in fleeing to another place). He survived it (in place). It was especially confusing in that it might be said that he escaped the Soviet occupation in 1947, except that (if I remember the bios correctly) it was not a secret flight that "escape" might suggest, but a regular border crossing. In any case I changed "escaped Nazi-occupied Hungary" to "survived Nazi-occupied Hungary." Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I think the "biased-tag" should be removed unless there are specific concerns brought up on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody check this edit. Kicker Aha changed it back to "Born in Budapest, he escaped Nazi Germany-occupied Hungary and emigrated to England in 1947. " saying that "escaped" is less ambiguous. I don't see it that way at all (please read two paragraphs above). "Escaped" can be confusing in 2 ways in this sentence. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not section of controversies around Soros?

There are tensions and controversies around Soros, both in US and in Europe. He has been involved in some ruthless investment and shorting practices thats brought whole countries' economies down. Why isn't there a well sourced section on these topics. This article reads more like an authorized biography than a neutral fact rich article. I am considering adding the section and am gathering material reliable source.

Paulthemonk (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paulthemonk: See WP:CSECTION for recommended practices. --NeilN talk to me 23:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I agree that "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged". This is referring to an "article" that written "dedicated" to criticism and that is not what I am asking. Leaving out very prominent and sustaining criticisms of the subject seems to be pushing a view point as well. I am asking for reflection of all aspects of the subject. ex: A search through Donald Trump's article mentions about 10 "controversies", there is only one on this page and that is about another person. Q: Are you implying this article is complete? What approach would you suggest? Thank you Paulthemonk (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Paulthemonk: Please read the second paragraph of WP:CSECTION which is the main focus of that section. Specifically, "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". If notable criticisms are missing, add them to the appropriate section. --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Mats33, what specific viewpoints do you think are missing? --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the biased-tag. I just don't see what's missing. Perhaps if people wrote down a list of what's missing on this page, we can work on it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I re-added the tag because I see it as being adequate. Soros is accused of giving money to a bunch of radical left organizations seeking to implement globalism and other stuff. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's definitely something that should be in the article. In other words, Soros is the left-wing version of the Koch brothers. Holy Goo (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to be more specific than "giving money to a bunch of radical left organizations seeking to implement globalism and other stuff." Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I expanded the article and added a source. I will edit more later. Holy Goo (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The poll you added in this edit is extremely one-sided. Human Events is a conservative website and the poll was conducted there and likely only gathered the opinions of regular site visitors who share the site's views. If this poll is to be used at all, it should mention that it sampled the readers of Human Events, instead of leading the reader to believe it was an unbiased poll among a wide variety of people. But it shouldn't be used and certainly not in the lead. As an online poll, it's worthless for gauging actual opinion. It asks a leading question, and we have no idea what the sample size was or if they controlled for repeat votes. This is a biography of a living person, so we need much better sources than this. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Other editor made more clear that it is the opinion of a closed group of people. This kind of information is important to make the article less biased. The template on top can soon be removed. Holy Goo (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think some editors own comments (" Soros is accused of giving money to a bunch of radical left organizations seeking to implement globalism and other stuff. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's definitely something that should be in the article. In other words, Soros is the left-wing version of the Koch brothers") provide all the justification for removing the spurious tag we need.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles that might be of use..

... To expand the article...

  • The dirty tricks that demonise George Soros. By Nick Cohen.
  • George Soros Has Paid for His Opinions on Donald Trump and His Performance as President. (a lot about the Trump vs Soros stuff and which organisations he has backed recently, around the presidential election, among them 56 womens marches)

--Mats33 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The intro was way too long...

... And talking about things in detail that the intro shouldnt go to details with. Thats why I deleted a large part. Everything about his studies etc can still be read under that headline.--Mats33 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, except your deletion of the content from the lead section has resulted in citation errors below the lead section because you removed some sources that are referenced below the lead section. May I respectfully suggest that you re-add those references to their proper locations somewhere below the lead section, then remove the text from the lead section. Thanks, Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I dont know how to do that. So its better that you do it. If you agree that the intro shouldnt be the same long text as the MAIN text. --Mats33 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs NPOV tag

This is not a forum to complain about people you dislike. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A very one-sided biography of Soros. I cannot affix an NPOV tag to the page as I am not registered (I do not wish to be). Soros is a highly controversial figure (and not just on the far right as some Wikipedians claim.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.186.108 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This reads like an authorized biography and is very one sided. I do question the neutrality. Gathering info to add a "controversies" or "criticisms" section. Paulthemonk (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Currently, there is an "unbalanced" tag to the article. Something's clearly wrong with this article and its content. Zakawer (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree; I was puzzled when I read the article because it seemed so polished, almost admiring him, when his actions are in fact highly controversial, even amoral according to himself (source: interview with him, <removed - WP:BLP applies to talk pages>. --Jhertel (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what kind of info you think would make this article "neutral". But this is a WP:BLP which means any criticisms have to be impecabbly sourced. And judging by past edits to this article, as well as that youtube video linked by Jhertel, it seems like your complaint that the usual idiotic conspiracy theories and attacks haven't been allowed into the article. That's actually the way it's suppose to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is extremely not puzzling. The article is nothing more than a propaganda piece for one of the most controversial billionaires in the world on purpose. And judging by your past edits to this article, as well as to this site it seems like your usual WP/POV pushing and general cyber bullying have successfully run off any editors that would waste the time bothering. That's actually not the way it is supposed to be. WP/CANCER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

one of the most controversial billionaires in the world I have only heard the name "George Soros" in the context of stupid (and I mean really stupid, not just run-of-the-mill stupid) conspiracy theories coming from the furthest fringes of the political right. I had to look him up two years ago because I'd never even heard the name before that. He's only controversial to those in the far-right. The rest of the population (~95%) either doesn't know a damn thing about him, doesn't care one whit about him or knows him personally. Now, if you want to see what a controversial billionaire looks like, there's one over in Washington D.C. to check out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


George Soros in any search engine responds with 99% controversial political responses. The thing that is not very puzzling is how the left wing cabalists have run off 35% of the active editors via POV pushing, cyber bullying and harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Look at these far right only <5% of the people think he is controversial responses: George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system ... www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice...

George Soros attacks Hungarian prime minister for building a 'mafia state' www.theguardian.com

Brexit: George Soros warns of 'Black Friday,' Dr. Doom ... money.cnn.com/2016/06/21/investing/brexit-george-soros-warning/...

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-George

Great left wing cabalist projection though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still too long intro...

Soros is a philantrop/good guy... Born in Budapest... Bla bla bla Bla bla bla ... his hometown...

In my view still too long. Of course he studied somewhere. Of course he gives money to liberal movements. Of course we can give numbers indicating that he is very rich. But details on that dont need to be in the intro/summary.--Mats33 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The intersection of philanthrop and insert the name of any billionaire is just worrying! Either one amounts huge funds, money, stock a.s.o. OR one is a philanthrop. The way it is now used makes me assume, that philanthrop means something like motherfucker, paedophile or arsehole - three states of human entity I do not link George Soros with. Because I don't know about him anything!!!--77.187.119.71 (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Philantrop is basically rich or very rich people who have given away part of their money. Which they can do for several reasons. They might care about the environment, they might have political reasons, they might want to get a better reputation etc. The use and sometimes over use of the world in texts about them gives the reader an impression that its a good guy after all. He is not so greedy...å--Mats33 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The authors of this article seem to have responded to the presence of conspiracy-minded idiots trying to trash Soros' reputation by overcompensating in the other direction. It comes across as praising Soros in a fawning and decidedly non-neutral way. Pauldelwynbates (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article is, in my view, too positive and the criticism should get a somewhat larger share of the text. --Mats33 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I semi-agree with this. The article does not read with a favorable bias towards the subject in my view. However, there is little to no criticism within the article, despite noting extensive use of money to influence political outcomes. I would think that any objective article about a political actor of this caliber would warrant a section on the criticisms of those actions. - Sleyece 23:12:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

Change these source links back from:

To:

115.97.60.165 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for buzzword removal or rewording

In the second on his views on anti-Semitism and Israel: "He has funded NGOs which some commentators describe as anti-Israel groups." The phrase "anti-Israel" is a very subjective one, and this sentence as is contradicts other points in the paragraph without any substantiation. Its cited sources are biased/opinionated sources, none of which have any authority in definitively defining who is "anti-Israel" and who is not.

I propose, then, that this sentence either be removed, or reworded with specifics, such as "He has funded NGOs such as <list of groups and links to their wikipedia pages>, which have been actively critical of Israeli policies."

--Zeikan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes reverted - Macedonia section

I have edited the entry and added the information which I believe is important about the Macedonian issue, but my edit got reverted and suggested to first do this on the talk page. So here I am. I think most of the resources I suggested are quite reliable and I do believe this issue is important. I would be happy to hear why my edit wasn't good enough.

Chrislifeisawesome (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It was sourced to rt.com, primary sources and blog postings. That's not good enough. Primary sources and rt.com are okay for uncontested statements of fact, but I wouldn't use them for anything controversial, and your edit was about a controversy. Using blogs as sources is just a huge no-no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I researched more and found a "real" source. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/gop-senators-ask-tillerson-to-probe-us-funding-soros-groups-abroad.html. On another note, it's not really controversial subject, as the information I'm trying to add is just pointing at a fact (checking if tax payers money went to support groups that are related to Soros. I'm not even writing about if it's right or wrong. I do believe that in this objective platform, all the information should be presented so, god forbid, people won't think that someone here is operating this entry out of PR motives. I want to enter this information with this news-worthy source. Chrislifeisawesome (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. As the editor who reverted your original edit, I'm okay with adding that controversy based on the foxnews source (is there a better source out there? Fox's reputation isn't exactly the best), although I'll rather wait and see what other editors think. Also, since this content seems to be specifically about criticism of the Open Society Foundations, perhaps it would be more appropriate to add this to the Open Society Foundations article instead? Bennv3771 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Fox News isn't the best, but for something like this I think it's good enough. They are a mainstream media outlet with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. The fact that they put a political spin on everything and make corrections reluctantly and don't draw attention to them doesn't really matter, because us Wikipedians can deal with both of those problems by simply being good at what we do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

If someone could have the patience to use proper grammar when referring to anything Soros possesses, that would be exemplary.

Soros's is incorrect, it would be Soros' MrSuperEditor123 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's actually not true. For proper nouns "s's" is the correct version (there are some exceptions but this isn't one of them). This is also why the top sources spell it that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
[5] (subscription required).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per Volunteer Marek. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lies in the early life

The description states his protector on one occasion took him to inventory the riches of Jewish families, but didn't help. There was a 1998 60 minute interview where he openly says he did partake in an active roll and had no problem doing it, in fact, he was quoted as saying that time "was the happiest time of my life". Check your facts and stop sympathizing with Nazis just because he donates money to the Democratic party. The interview is available on YouTube, check it out for yourself. Dennis.dklservice (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Soros Atheism, but no mention of it, why?

I just watched George Soros appearing in 60 Minutes (1998) replying to Steve Kroft that he doesn't believe in God. Kroft went on to say that "Soros told us he believes God was created by man and not the other way around; which may be why he thinks he can smooth out the world’s imperfections".
I intrigued to know more about Soro's views and values, but Wikipedia has no mention of this basic fact, why? Yes, he is famous, controversial and highly politically active, but his atheism is very well known and there are plenty of good sources to back it up? I think category atheist should at least be added (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXqty2rkUDY). Mr. Bench Press (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Soros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

George Soros

Wikipedia has sometimes been accused of left-favoring bias. I'm undecided on the issue. However, I've noticed that if the subject of an article is a conservative and there is any controversy surrounding the person, that controversy is nearly always covered in the article. I was disappointed to find, upon reading this article about a person clearly on the left of the political/social spectrum, that the controversies were not discussed. And the reason is not because of a lack of controversy. Some of the controversy about George Soros is bogus, but some is legitimate and should be discussed.

2602:306:B8A4:DD00:D8A5:704B:93DD:45E9 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Sam Watts

What controversies do you want to add and what reliable sources cover them? --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Conversely, it might be worthwhile to have a section which tries to objectively discuss the widespread conspiracy theories about how all "liberal" (broadly construed) politicians in the world are given marching orders by George Soros. I wouldn't know where to start because I don't know where this comes from, but according to alt-right media outlets everything from the Alabama Senate election to the Canadian purchase of Australian F18s is part of some great George Soros funded conspiracy. He's become a vague boogeyman for discrediting any and all progressive governments and policies by just saying that he somehow is behind them. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:3D36:D37B:F53B:D875 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know all that much about Soros. I don't follow him in the news or anything. I haven't even read this entire article. What I know about Soros has come entirely from me fact-checking claims made by conservative/right-wing people about him. So far, every single one of those claims has turned out to be false. He doesn't own Snopes.com; he didn't help fund the Third Reich, he's not an arms dealer, etc, etc, etc.
But the level of hatred I see towards him, coupled with my knowledge of basic human nature tells me that yes, there should be some legitimate controversies surrounding him. So I believe that there are RSes documenting something that Soros apparently did wrong, or at least questionable. So please go find those sources and bring them here. I will happily help work on a "Controversies" section with anyone who can track down some of those sources. But if they don't exist, then perhaps it's time to stop wishing for a controversies section that will never exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I just want to add a note of thanks for the editors on this page. It must require a lot of tenacity to keep original research off the page of someone who is used like this. Duncan (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Only European nationalists?

The article as it stands only mentions that Soros is disliked by European nationalists in the introduction. He is also hated by the actual left (socialists) in Europe for his subversive activities in overthrowing the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, which we should mention too. It is literally just Anglo-American bourgeois liberals and imperialists, along with their affiliaties/proxies/paid agents who are on side with him. Here is a quote from Soros mentioning this; “I have now come under attack in several countries: in Hungary from Hungarian nationalists; in Romania from the Vatra Romanesca; in Slovakia from the communist party newspaper Pravda; in the Soviet Union by the organ of the hard-liners Sovietskaia Russiya” from his book "Underwriting Democracy." Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This biography isn't the place for you to discuss your wild fantasies about "bourgeois liberals and imperialists." Unless you have a source more meaningful than a FOX News opinion column, we've no need to go any further here. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy-mongering about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The source cited in the news article is George Soros' own book "Underwriting Democracy" and it is a direct quote from himself about which political tendencies have raised opposition to him. It is important to denote in the article that Eastern European socialists dislike him as well and are not in the same category as what the article calls "American progressives and liberals" (which I more scientifically refer to in this talk page as bourgeois liberals). As the article stands it gives the impression that only the right dislike him, which isn't the case. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(which I more scientifically refer to in this talk page as bourgeois liberals). That's a rather ignorant approach to "science". In the US, the vast majority of inner city (read: poor and destitute) residents with political affiliations identify as liberal or progressive. Even rural areas with higher poverty tend to have a slightly higher rate of liberalism than rural areas less affected by poverty. In fact, the majority of non-whites in the US identify as liberal and progressive. In contrast, the vast majority of the top 1% identify as conservative or right-wing, and those minorities who identify that way tend to be wealthier than the average resident and far wealthier than other minorities in their group.
Not to mention the variety of flavors of liberalism. There's "west coast" or "California liberals" who are the closest thing to what you describe, except that calling them bourgeois is a bit of a stretch, as they tend to be solidly working-to-middle-class. The wealthiest of them also tend to be far more libertarian than liberal. But then there's the "ghetto liberal", the "Yankee liberal", the "New Southern Democrats", the "Secular liberal" and the "college progressive", all of whom go after each other hammer & tongs every chance they get.
If you're going to make statements about American politics, you'd do best to learn a few things about American politics, first. It's an amazingly complex subject; not easily summarized or understood, and has little relationship with politics in the rest of the world because 'Murika!
That being said, I don't agree that it's "important" to draw a distinction between European communists and American liberals, but if you can find a reliable source (an autobiography won't cut it) that does so, I wouldn't object to a sentence of clarification. I don't think the distinction is a false one (American liberals tend to be economically liberal as well, unlike European leftists, for example), or even that it's a particularly unimportant one, just that it's not necessary here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"American liberals tend to be economically liberal as well, unlike European leftists, for example"
Which is the crux of the issue. American liberals are supporters of free-market capitalism, unlike socialists, who Soros states have voiced opposition to him (including in the Soviet Union when it existed). American liberals also, like Soros' Open Society Foundation, are largely in favour of advancing the cause of homosexuality, unlimited abortion and so on in foreign countries where these topics are highly unpopular (under the banner of "human rights"), which is not typically the case with socialist governments.
Back to the topic at hand. To be fair the article already does name and shame American liberals in the introduction. All I am suggesting is we give European socialists some credit in the introduction as well for pushing back against Soros, instead of giving all the plaudits to the nationalists. Another example:
"In March 1997, the Soros foundation froze all payments to Belarusan users in the light of political developments and anti-democratic reforms by the Lukashenko government. It subsequently became clear that this freezing of Soros' funds was the result of the forcible closure of Soros-Belarus by the KGB for `donating grants to people from the political opposition' (`Repression in Belarus', 1997)." - Kay, R. (2000) Russian Women and their Organizations: Gender, Discrimination and Grassroots Women's Organizations, 1991-96, Springer, 0333977750 (pg. 249)
So here we have our boy, Alexander Lukashenko, maturated in the bosom of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, leader of a country which openly rocks a statue of Vladimir Lenin in Independence Square, Minsk, sicking the KGB on Soros' network and we are only giving Orbán and the right props in the intro? At the very least this is a case of recentism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see an RS in there. All is see is WP:OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Here it is if you missed it: Kay, R. (2000) Russian Women and their Organizations: Gender, Discrimination and Grassroots Women's Organizations, 1991-96, Springer, 0333977750 (pg. 249), oh and the other reliable source on the topic, which for some reason we are supposed to conveniently pretend isn't good enough: Soros, George (1991) Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterprise and Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe, The Free Press, 0029302854. You're welcome. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeating yourself doesn't make your proposed content any less WP:SYNTH, and I've already responded to your proposal of using an autobiography (this isn't a personal preference, but our policy). Also, I didn't thank you. I don't generally thank people for repeating themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why there is no criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.235.228 (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

These are avoided on the grounds that they breach Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The existence of such sections in some articles does not mean they are admissible here. It is usual to create new sections after those already existing. For that reason I have moved your contribution. Philip Cross (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
So it's OK to breach [WP:NPOV] in some articles but not in others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.24.224 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As I have said before: Bring us reliable sources of sufficient quality documenting criticism of this person, and we will happily write a criticism section. Until then, all you Soros-hating folks are shit out of luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism from Right Wing" section

@MPants at work: Could you explain why we need this section? It's redundant and the English is terrible. Soros' political views are discussed extensively, as is his status as the "bugaboo of European nationalists". FYI, the 1992 shorting on the pound was actually good for the UK economy (this isn't controversial). The source doesn't claim that it was "economy damaging", as you have. It also doesn't claim that he is an object on hatred on the right because of the Malay/UK shorting. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Literally every claim you've made here is easily disproven:
  1. There's nothing wrong with the grammar or syntax. It's certainly not "terrible" by any reasonable standard.
  2. Soros is the political right's preferred liberal boogyman. This is easily verified by the RSes, but not so frequently covered. Leaving out mention of this would be the definition of WP:UNDUE.
  3. The claim in your edit summary that the right-wing conspiracy theories are adequately covered elsewhere in the article is flatly wrong.
  4. The source plainly states that Soros' short sale "...broke England's monetary system overnight". To summarize that as "economy damaging" is perfectly acceptable.
  5. The source plainly states that "From [The Malay/UK shorting], he's become a singular target of unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories, in part because he has so few peers on the left. "
No-one wants to lend credence to right-wing conspiracy theories less than I (an admittedly liberal skeptic), but there's really no way for us not to cover them here. They're just far too prominent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Okay, so you don't understand monetary policy. The phrase "broke the Bank of England" refers to the UK withdrawing from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It doesn't imply it "damaged" the economy--the devaluation was actually good for the UK economy. The whole point of the exercise was that Soros had identified that the rate at which the UK had been brought into the ERM was too high. I missed the connective "From there", but I strongly dispute the suggestion that the irrational animus towards him on the part of the fringe-right has anything to do with Black Wednesday. I doubt you will find any other references in support of that claim. Also, "Criticism from Right Wing" is barely English. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Since I doubt that we will agree on this, and since the talk page and the archives are littered with people asking for a "criticism" section, I would suggest that we have an WP:RFC? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The section tittle could use the word "the", but it's still perfectly legible without it. If you don't like "economy damaging", then change it. We can quote the source if you think that's better, e.g. "Due in part to his trading against the English Pound..." but I would point out that the article you linked to states that the event "...had arguably put Britain into recession as large numbers of businesses failed and the housing market crashed."
@SPECIFICO: Your edit summary is just this side of nonsensical. How is business insider a "weak source"? What statements do you think are incorrect? Please try to engage in the discussion rather than trying to instigate an edit war. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss content not contributors. Read my edit summary. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Gaslighting only really works on people who can't identify it, so please answer my questions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This sentence: "...had arguably put Britain into recession as large numbers of businesses failed and the housing market crashed", refers to the effects of the high interest rates before Britain fell out of the ERM, not the effects of Black Wednesday. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this is easily arguable based on a reading of some of the sources as well as this article and the black wednesday article, but as I said, I'm not opposed to changing that text to something less dire-sounding, so long as it's supported by the source. Regarding the link between those and the right wing CSes, the source makes that rather explicit. If you can find a source that contradicts that, I'd be quite happy to include a bit from that source's perspective, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • L.R. Wormwood, I apologize for not responding to the question earlier, but I'd be perfectly happy to have an RfC. As you said, I'm no expert on monetary policy, so I don't want to get too deep into an argument about that, and as I've said before, I'm neither an expert on Soros; knowing of his existence mainly through the conspiracy theories my right-wing relatives constantly try to convince me are true. From what research I've done since first starting to edit here, it seems like there really should be something about this. I suggest we title the section in question simply "Conspiracy theories" as there are no left-wing CSes about him that I'm aware of to require us to specify that it's only about the right-wing ones. Would you care to write a proposed wording for the section (there are some additional sources just added by a brand-new editor in the section directly above this), or should I? If I write it, I will use the wording "trading against the English Pound on Black Wednesday" instead of "economy breaking", since you disagree with the latter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are ample sources that say his positions may have precipitated the devaluation and its consequences. That's not the same as causing it. The conditions were preexisting, and he recognized them. This should be separated from the question of the "Left-wing" tag that was part of the bit I removed. That label is mentioned in passing in one person's words, not the journalist's even, and is not something we can say in WP's voice based on the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are ample sources that say his positions may have precipitated the devaluation and its consequences. That's not the same as causing it. Um, actually that's literally the same thing as causing it. But I understand what you're getting at (you meant he hastened or aided the devaluation), and frankly don't see the point. Have you read anything that I've said in this thread? I've already said I'm not interested in arguing this anymore and offered a compromise that doesn't say anything about the possible broader impacts of his actions.
That label is mentioned in passing in one person's words, not the journalist's even, and is not something we can say in WP's voice based on the cited source It's said or implied five times in the source. Twice by quoted interviewees, and three times by the author.
  1. The first quoted interviewee is Joseph Uscinski, a prominent expert on conspiracy theories who mentions it in passing and both by contrast and by implication ("What makes the Soros thing interesting is that most of the conspiracy theories about rich people tend to be made by people on the left about people on the right,"). Admittedly, that's a weak mention. However, it's blatantly not the only mention.
  2. The second interviewee who said it is Timothy Melley, a Professor of English, Affiliate of American Studies and Director of the Humanities Center at Miami University as well as the author of Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America. who said it to specify which political ideology Soros subscribes to ("It's a projection of right-wing billionaire behavior onto a prominent left-wing billionaire,").
  3. It was mentioned in passing, and again through implication by the author ("From there, he's become a singular target of unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories, in part because he has so few peers on the left.")
  4. It was explicitly stated once by the author ("To the left, he's a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in.")
  5. Finally, it was implied through a simile a third time by the author ("The left's Koch brother").
Please be more thorough in your reading of sources. Also, please cite a relevant policy the next time you claim we can't repeat something said in a reliable source. I'm unaware of any policy preventing us from quoting expert sources simply because their words were reported in another reliable source. In fact, I'm pretty sure secondary sources like that are explicitly encouraged by policy. And you still haven't explained why Business Insider is a "weak" source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You really don't understand how the currency markets work -- I believe you've been forthright about that. My comment stands. None of the other stuff verifies "left-wing" which is what the text stated. Close but no cigar. Big difference. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: You are (aside from making yet another personal attack for no reason other than pure pettiness at this point) asserting that "...he's a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in." doesn't support a claim of "left-wing philanthropy"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"Left-wing" is a pejoritive tag. It would be a BLP violation without strong sourcing to show that it's the dominant description of Soros in mainstream sources, and that is not the case. Liberal, left-liberal, progressive etc etc. Not left-wing. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh?! Left-wing is categorically NOT a pejorative term. nagualdesign 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm just as perplexed as Nagual by this. Since when is left-wing a pejorative term? And this is not being used as a "dominant description of Soros", but to describe his charitable givings. You're really not making any sense, SPEC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Bloody do-gooders, always trying to help people! *shakes fist* nagualdesign 02:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I keep trying to come up with a response that's just as funny as that comment, but I can't. I bask in your comedic greatness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
We need to show it's used by the bulk of mainstream RS if we're going to say it in WP's voice, that's all. It's used by his critics as a pejorative. If it's widely used as a description by mainstream sources, that would be reason for WP to use it. Similar concerns arise at articles about far-right or alt-right figures. Sources are not as common as one might expect and we avoid labeling people w/o sources. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
it's not a pejorative term. It's not even controversial. I'd like to see one RS that claims Soros is not left-wing. Even if you were making sense, it's actually pretty trivial to find RSes referring to Soros as "left-wing". See Fox News, the Christian Post, the Washington Examiner and just to make sure it's bipartisan, the reliably left-leaning New York Times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On the effects of dumping the ERM: [6]. Third graph and second to last paragraph. L.R Wormwood is correct. Leaving the ERM *was* good for the UK (this should *not* be generalized to the case of Brexit, which is a different kettle of trout).

Also, that one isn't necessarily a "right wing" criticism. At the time, Soros actions were criticized mostly by left wing individuals (like Paul Krugman). Only later, when the alt-right needed a fodder for their conspiracy theories did this one get thrown in with the other stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

For the third time: That's fine, I'm not interested in arguing that point. I'm not very interested in or knowledgeable of monetary policies of the UK. But the fact that Soros is the subject of numerous right-wing conspiracy theories is well-documented and the objections thus far to including material about it have been almost entirely spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There probably should be something about right wing conspiracies in this article, though the ERM thing is not really it - both because it's not a right wing conspiracy theory (I mean , he did it, and to the extent he was criticized for it, it wasn't in a "conspiratorial" kind of way, and it wasn't by the right wing). There lots of much better examples.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It was only mentioned because the source said that the CSes were a result of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: In answer to your comment, if there is to be a section like this, I think it ought to be 4.6 under "Political involvement". I've noticed there is much noteworthy commentary missing from this article, such as the ongoing feud between Soros and Viktor Orban,[2] and the Hungarian government's recent attempts to close the Central European University. Discussion of the state-funded anti-Soros billboard campaign in Hungary in this context might also be useful. There are also the recent conspiracy theories about Soros being responsible for bringing down the VMRO government in Macedonia,[3][4], and funding "plants" following the Parkland shooting.[5] This article in the Financial Times might be useful for writing a brief summary.[6] L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Any such section ought to be a general summary, outlining how his liberal political activism has made him the "bugaboo of European nationalists".[7] We should avoid specific detail. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is all good stuff, and I agree that "political involvement" would be the best place for the conspiracy theories, unless it gets too big, in which case we can just make it a regular section that comes after "political involvement". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about avoiding all details. I don't mean to include a definitive list of every Soros conspiracy theory and all the "evidence" and refutations, but we should give examples of them and note the most popular ones (like Soros owning Snopes.com). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see:

I made the first AfD nomination - it just looked like a place to dump nutzoid theories that had no basis in fact. The winning argument was that the nutzoid theories were themselves notable, probably because they were so nutzoid, though the same material had no place in this article.

OK, but the 2nd AfD concluded that there was no place for the nutzoid theories in the Conspiracy article as well.

Please note that this article is run under the political article sanctions from ArbCom (see top of the page). Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To refer to George Soros as "left-wing" is blasphemy and should not be counternanced in this article. How do we describe an investment capitalist as "left-wing"? This is a man who worked to tear down the Soviet Union and stands intellectually in line with British Empire (Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin and John Stuart Mill). Financing some cultural views which make the sons and daughters of Quakers and Unitarians feel all warm and mushy on the inside doesn't make somebody "left-wing". Soros has literally nothing to do with working-class and labour politics. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bloomberg Billionares Index". Bloomberg LP. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Missing pipe in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article148248126/Orban-gibt-Soros-Mitschuld-an-Fluechtlingskrise.html
  3. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/george-soros-fights-back-against-populist-foes-and-conspiracy-theories-1.3355808
  4. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/331026-why-is-the-state-department-refusing-to-disclose-soros
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/business/media/parkland-shooting-media-conspiracy.html
  6. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7f93856e-9c55-11e7-9a86-4d5a475ba4c5
  7. ^ https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21725575-governing-law-and-justice-party-still-aims-nobble-judiciary-veto-gives-rule

Straw poll: new section

Since the discussion above has generated a lot of pointless text and little else, I thought we should have a poll to gauge consensus. Should we insert a new section under 4 Political involvement detailing fringe-commentary, and opposition from the right? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose But I'll write it if it's thought to be necessary. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support. The fact that he's had opposition from the opposite side of the political spectrum is unremarkable. What is notable is the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding him that's become so popular in right-wing media and jargon. Even most recently he was blamed for the indictment of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens. The theories might have stemmed from his political involvement (at least initially), but they should be understood as their very own thing, one that (at this point) has very little ground in reality, if any. As a side note, the article George Soros conspiracy theories was deleted last year, and it might have had useful for content, though I haven't seen the deleted article myself. FallingGravity 02:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support for a section on conspiracy theories about Soros per FallingGravity. He's been the focus of a number of conspiracy theories, and that fact has received considerable coverage by now (more than it was when the page above was deleted), so it could be worth mentioning that and the general reaction to it. Something like this or this or this are good sources. However, I would insist that any such section unequivocally use the term "conspiracy theories" in its title and first section to characterize the topic, and completely oppose anything that didn't unambiguously use that terminology throughout on WP:BLP grounds. These are conspiracy theories (usually ones that make not even a token effort to ground themselves in fact), not legitimate criticisms, and the reliable sources that have examined them are entirely unanimous in describing them in those terms. Even then, I could see the argument for omitting it (including conspiracy theories on a WP:BLP is always going to be dicey), but I think the coverage of them is sufficient that we could justify a mention as long as we were unambiguous in identifying them as conspiracy theories in the section header. I would also add that I don't think the section should go into detail on specific conspiracy theories beyond what's necessary to establish that they exist - rather, it should focus on the WP:RSes discussing the fact that he is a popular conspiracy-theory target, and some of the discussion of why that is. The Business Insider ref in particular seems good for that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support I don't think that it necessarily needs to be under the political involvement section, and I think it should cover the conspiracy theories, not the more generalized "fringe commentary". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an issue with this as long as we reference it to reliable independent secondary sources that describe the lunacy, instead of what often happens, where people add "Soros was accused of eating babies by $WINGNUT, source, $WINGNUT accusing Soros of eating babies on InfoWars". Guy (Help!) 00:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support He's a high-profile target of these theories. However we should not validate them by calling him "left-wing" or leftist in WP's voice. His actual views are what the US would call liberal or more recently progressive. Like Bernie Sanders with a global focus and more policy detail. Remember, his activism became widely known due to his opposition to the reelection of Pres. Bush in 2004. Half the country opposed Bush, so that's hardly left-wing. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if well sourced. Over the last 15 years, he has been extremely active in politics, injecting a lot of money into the process. I think that makes him fair game for criticism, even from the more extreme elements of the right. Adding it is easy, it is making balanced that will require some finesse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a practical matter. In theory, it's possible to make a well-balanced section on all the nutzoid conspiracy theories about him, but in practice it would just end up as people throwing all the nutzoid theories in this article without specifically mentioning that they have little or no basis in fact. Those type of smears were once a common part of this article and I don't want to see it happen again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Note that if they're all in a section identified as "Conspiracy theories", then by definition; they all have little or no basis in fact. I have no wish to see this article turned into a hit piece, and I'm very sensitive to your concerns, but right now, these conspiracy theories exist and are notable, but WP is pretending they don't exist (or aren't notable) by not covering them. That's a serious problem for an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that. Also, there's plenty of RS discussion of them as conspiracy theories, in part because they have such a rich lode of material to work with. Jewish, Financier, Eastern European, NY Socialite, Intellectual, Democrat. It's a gold mine for the alt-right and wingnuts. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support depends how this is broached. We must concede that the pro-Soros lobby is in fact the fringe, limited to the Anglophile/East Coast "liberal" establishment in the United States and the puppet governments of the American Imperium in Occupied Europe. A broad based aproach of political opposition to Soros across the world, left and right, is needed. Not least in Russia, Belarus, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia (all of the countries raped during the 1997 Asian financial crisis), etc, where the people who run the countries are anti-Soros. To make this just about alt-righters and to try to turn widespread political criticism of him into a thing about "Jooz control the world" conspiracy theories is POV because it is blatantly an attempt to place a protection bubble around Sorosism by tactical playing of the "anti-semitism" card. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Ummm, no. Your "concession" is a full on rejection of the facts and and embracing of the conspiracy theories. That POV is a fringe view which has no purchase here, and if you continue to push it, I will request that you be topic banned from this article. Hell, I'm considering requesting it just based on the ocean of red flags in this comment alone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Americans are a minority in the world and anti-Americanism is a widespread sentiment universally, making the liberal values Soros forwards a fringe globally. The definition of mainstream is not "stuff Anglos approve of in the US and Britain," and fringe, what the rest of mere humanity dares to think. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
See what I mean? Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, this is so illustrative of your concern that I'm tempted to open an SPI to see if you're socking as a conspiracy theorist. But as I said to Claíomh , I sense a topic ban in the not-too-distant future. I'm always willing to entertain pragmatic or political concerns with articles, but I'm never willing to let them dictate content like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL, I'd be interested in what they find at SPI about me that most folks don't know already. Tell them that I'm not against them fishing or otherwise checking me out, but I don't think they'll do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL, I'd be interested in what they find at SPI about me that most folks don't know already. They once found out I still own a pair of socks from high school, much to my shame. I could legally date a girl younger than those things... They're so stiff they can stand on their own, and so ripe with foot stink they can walk around unaided, too. They've grown a personality. They even talk from time to time, though it's never very interesting. Mostly just rants about the "deep state" and "big government" and the occasional racist diatribe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
You better watch how you talk about 'Murika, or I'll sic the "puppet governments of the American Imperium in Occupied Europe" on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

List of sources

Just listing the sources proposed for this use thus far.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bondarenko, Veronika (20 May 2017). "George Soros is a favorite target of the right — here's how that happened". Business Insider. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  2. ^ Soskis, Benjamin (5 December 2017). "George Soros and the Demonization of Philanthropy". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  3. ^ Grynbaum, Michael (20 February 2018). "Right-Wing Media Uses Parkland Shooting as Conspiracy Fodder". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  4. ^ "CNN's Jack Kingston: "I have a hard time believing" that Florida school shooting survivors can organize a rally by themselves". Media Matters for America. 20 February 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  5. ^ Maza, Christina (20 February 2018). "Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists Blame Anti-Gun Rallies and Teen Activism on George Soros". Newsweek. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  6. ^ Lusher, Adam (8 February 2018). "George Soros: The billionaire investor who became the favourite target of conspiracy theories and antisemitic hatred". The Independent. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  7. ^ Brown, Jennings; Steinblatt, Jacob (30 March 2017). "How George Soros Became The Right's Biggest Boogeyman". Vocativ. Retrieved 26 February 2018.
  8. ^ Marcotte, Amanda (22 February 2018). "Parkland paranoia: Why is the far right obsessed with George Soros?". Salon. Retrieved 26 February 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

It is not a conspiracy theory about George Soros' opposition to Brexit. He has admitted being proud to fund a group opposing Brexit. Please edit this. Thank you .[1] 155.91.28.237 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove the words "opposition to Brexit", under the "Conspiracy Theories" heading , since it has been documented in the above Reuters link, as being ADMITTED by George Soros to him donating money to an anti-Brexit movement. So it is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.237 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is not that Soros is opposed to Brexit, the conspiracy theory is that he is somehow nefariously "behind" the opposition. Donating money to an opposition group does not support, much less prove, that Soros is "behind" Brexit opposition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Too little discussion of the vast number of conspiracy theories attached to Soros.

This article does need more info on the the fact that he is the subject a lot of conspiracy theories, especially from right-wing circles. We need at least a paragraph that states that he is the subject of many conspiracy theories, including many that claim he is secret part of a plot to create a new world order government. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:EC4B:36F1:FAB:62FD (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your sources? --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is my first time posting here on wikipedia. Hope I'm doing this right. Soros is the subject of tremendous amount of conspiracy theories, and there are many people who say this is an example of dog-whistle antisemitism. OK Sources:
Here is a recent article on Salon.com. Now... I imagine that Salon may seem to be a not-impartial source. Here is from February 20th edition of NYTimes, TITLE: Right-Wing Media Uses Parkland Shooting as Conspiracy Fodder. "They have been portrayed as puppets being coached and manipulated by the Democratic Party, gun control activists, the so-called antifa movement and the left-wing billionaire George Soros."
Here is a source from Media Matters. Showing a video from CNN, "KINGSTON: I would say to you very plainly that organized groups that are out there like George Soros are always ready to take up the charge, and it's kind of like instant rally, instant protest and those groups are ready to take it -- take it to the streets." Captain-taikongren (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Captain-taikongren: There is a discussion below about this same subject you may be interested in. Those sources look good at first glance to me. They might be useful in expanding the section under discussion below. (which is currently not present on the page, but which will almost certainly return shortly). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Some good sources for this is Vocativ, The Independent, and Business Insider. The Atlantic also has a pretty good piece on the theories. Interestingly, The Atlantic says the conspiracy theories were first popular among the leftists opposed to globalization, but soon became popular among right wingers. FallingGravity 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Those also look very good. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A new source appears here [7] SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Soros and Hungary 2017

Hungarian government started a "national consultation" on support of "Soros Terv" (Operation Soros) with 7 yes-or-no questions. The test is sent for every 18 and up citizen by mail, but also available online ( https://nemzetikonzultacio.kormany.hu/kerdessor ). Deadline of the test-filling is 2017 November 24. User:tothaa

Well this have been nicely escalated to an unprecedented personal attack on Soros up to (and possibly onwards) the general election of Hungary. There are similarities to the case of Emmanuel Goldstein in the novel 1984 by Orwell. I have extended the CEE with the Hungarian affairs up to the recent events, but I'm pretty sure it's ongoing, since Soros support various NGOs working in the general fields of freedom of speech, fight against corruption and investigative journalism. Grammar and style updates are welcome. --grin ✎ 08:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Section "Soros Fund Management" - missing date

In the last para of "Soros Fund Management", first sentence reads: 

The fund announced that it would inject $300 million to help finance the expansion of Fen Hotels, an Argentine hotel company.

It doesn't say when. According to the reference at the end of the para, this would be 2015. So, can the para start "In 2015, the fund..." please?(As it's the final para, the whole section would remain in chronological order.) Thanks. 178.48.16.181 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification Hungary was not occupied by Germany therefore the statement Nazi occupied Hungary is incorrect. Hungary was an ally of the Nazi regime but was less harsh on Jews. Had the Nazi's occupied Hungary many fewer Jewish people would have survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrice86 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

Answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

George Soros has publicly admited he was a Nazi Collaborator and that he has no regrets for doing so. <<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9tKvasRO54>> Kruskiego (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please look through the talk page archives for prior discussion. NeilN talk to me 19:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Soros and a summer house on the Danube

It was mentioned on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Profile" on 9 June 2018 that Soros has a summer house on the Danube. I do not know whether this is interesting enough to go in the article.Vorbee (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry - I got that slightly wrong. I have now heard the morning repeat of "Profile". It said that it was Soros' family who, when Soros was growing up, had a flat in Budapest, but also had a summer house on the Danube.Vorbee (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Born into a Jewish family

The paragraph that begins "Born in Budapest" could point out that he was born into a Jewish family. Vorbee (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Survived" Nazi occupation?

Conspiracy theories not welcome here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given the immense controversy surrounding his actions during this time it is clearly inappropriate to say he survived the occupation. (109.145.42.109 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC))

Total amount of donations to" largely liberal" causes as of 2018

Currently the lead states that Between 1979 and 2011, Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes;[19][20] by 2017, his donations "on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world" totaled $12 billion.[21]

However, an article in The Guardian[8] from yesterday states that ...George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, which has given away $32bn to largely liberal causes since it was established in 1984.

That would be far more. Is there a discrepancy what is considered a "philantrophic cause" and political cause here, or does the new $32bn figure just include his 2017 very large one-time donation to the foundation? --Pudeo (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Soros' personal donations and those from the Open Society Foundation are completely different things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Blaming the victim

user:יניב הורון The source does not say "blaming the victim" and you can't say who is the victim and who is not! Thats for the reader to decide SharabSalam (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The source says:

"He buys into the stereotype," Foxman said. "It's a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what's out there. It's blaming the victim for all of Israel's and the Jewish people's ills."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Pants is correct that Soros was accused of "blaming the victim". I expanded the text to note who actually made the accusation, as well as adding that Soros himself was disparaged by anti-Semitics as a Jew who "ruled the world by proxy". Xenophrenic (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

"The government have attacked OSF, the international civil support foundation created by George Soros, including various legal changes to revoke the permission of Central European University (Budapest) (which failed mostly due to significant public outrage[111]). In response Soros called the government "a mafia state".[112]" SHOULD BE "The government HAS attacked..." Jujones1 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

International charity != Globalism

Anyone who intends to add the claim that Soros supports "globalist" causes needs to find a cite that explicitly says that. "International" is not a synonym, and the two words carry very different meanings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

How would reporting "conspiracy theories" be undue weight? Isn't this mainly what he is known for? I never heard of his name in any other context than related to these accusations. If he truly is funding liberal causes, shouldn't the liberals be praising him? Wouldn't we hear about him being a great philanthropist? Why are liberals hush about his contributions unless there either, there is a conspiracy behind it, or that he's not really funding anything. If not then what does he do? Seriously have you ever heard his name in any other context? 69.23.244.65 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a point, or should I just archive this section now? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

False conspiracy theories

"False conspiracy theories" is a badly constructed phrase in the lead. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that … [lacks] credible evidence. Saying something is a "false" conspiracy theory is like saying something is a "true" fact (not exactly but in the same vein). @Volunteer Marek: Sure, lacks evidence ≠ false as you said. However, lacking evidence does not make something inherently false either. When a conspiracy theory gains credible evidence (i.e. truth), it is no longer a conspiracy theory. I cannot find the construction in any other article offhand. There is one occurrence of "conspiracy theory falsely." I would be okay with stating that the conspiracy theories have been "judged to be false" as e.g. QAnon#Pizzagate conspiracy theory does. That aside, though I did not realize this before, false was just added, which makes my edit valid under WP:BRD as well. I was reading the article because of his involvement with the recent news event; the article is likely getting more views than normal, and as the error (or, at the least, poor wording) jumped off the page for me, it likely will for others as well. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"False conspiracy theories" reads to me like a pseudosceptic has simply made up some conspiracy theories and insisted someone believes in them. Like they're not really conspiracy theories, but just kinda look like them. I'm fairly okay with removing the word "false" there, but...
The problem I see is that some of the claims aren't really conspiracy theories per se, but simply false claims of fact ("George Soros used to be a nazi!" isn't a conspiracy theory, but an idiotic claim of fact that bears no resemblance to reality). Since conspiracy theories are a form of "claims", I would rather replace "conspiracy theories" with "claims" in that bit, and leave the "false" in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I just made an edit splitting the difference by removing "false" from an infobox use of the same phrase and changing "conspiracy theories" to "claims" in the body. I think both read much better this way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

The shooter was obsessed with Soros[[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-conspiracy-theory-about-george-soros-and-a-migrant-caravan-inspired-horror/2018/10/28/52df587e-dae6-11e8-b732-3c72cbf131f2_story.html?utm_term=.3876e357bb33 ]]. Mention? --Calthinus (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, yes definitely. All that whipping up of anti-Soros sentiment has consequences and this case highlights it. Your addition would go somewhere in the Conspiracy theories and threats section.Resnjari (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

anti-George Soros broadcasts: “George Soros, the multimillionaire Jew of Hungarian origin…”

Radio y Televisión Martí, U.S. Agency for Global Media’s Miami-based broadcast operation to Cuba, made a series of anti-George Soros broadcasts May-June 2018, repeatedly mentioning Judicial Watch as a source.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Section: Conspiracy theories and threats?

Is there any link between threats and conspiracy theories so that the section was named like that? Should Attempted bomb attack be linked to conspiracy theories? SharabSalam (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should. The connection between the viral spread of conspiracy theories and "retaliatory" actions by radicalized individuals is already well demonstrated by WP:RS. Soros theories also played a major role in the radicalization of Bowers, who committed the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. --Calthinus (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"False" claims?

The article states: "Numerous American conservatives have promoted false claims that characterize Soros as a singularly dangerous 'puppetmaster' behind a variety of alleged global plots," but not all these claims are widley regarded as false. The word "false" should either be removed, or have a clarification added to it. Light Millennia (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources stating that they're false; and no one has yet produced reliable sources saying otherwise. We have to go with what the sources say, especially for a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I know, and I agree that most of them are probably false. But the statement—in its current format—is vague and ambiguous at best, and inaccurate at worst. It does not mention any specific "false" theories, and some of the "false" theories mentioned in the sources are far from debunked. Light Millennia (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Unsupported or uncorroborated might be best. --Calthinus (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the use of "false" is well supported by the sources, here. Acerimusdux (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we consider spinning the conspiracy theory section off into its own article?

This is what we often do about other topics or public figures that have attracted outlandish conspiracy theories (allowing us to go in-depth about them, their implication, what sources say about them, how they're spread and so on without overwhelming the main article with nonsense), and it seems like coverage of the conspiracy theories about him is increasing following the double-punch of the failed bombing and the shooter obsessed with him. Spinning it off into another article would allow us to have more minimal coverage here and more in-depth coverage there without having to worry about giving undue weight to individual WP:FRINGE views; while I think that the basic fact that he's a heavy focus of conspiracy theories is reasonably high-profile and well-sourced enough to support its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I support this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I support this too.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the fact that Soros conspiracy theories, especially the one of the caravan, have played a critical role in the radicalization of individuals with fringe political views should be covered here as well as some summary of how these came to be, who spreads them etc. If and only if the spinoff page is something adds to information presented rather than subtracts from relevant info being presented here, then I will support the idea. I do agree it is better to avoid going into the specifics for all of them, as this mostly gives them oxygen. Aquillion what are suggesting leaving here specifically?--Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's about what I'm thinking. We can say some of it here, but there's a lot more to say about the conspiracy theories than we have here right now - stuff on who spreads them and why, the various attacks motivated by them, individual controversies and incidents related to them, scholarship placing them in historical context, etc. Beyond a certain point, a lot of that is actually tangential to Soros as an individual outside of noting that the conspiracy theories have no grounding in reality, so there's always going to be limits to what we can cover here, but I feel like there's enough coverage to write a decent article about the conspiracy theories themselves. SharabSalam, he has, yes, but that (and the large amount that has been written about those attacks) is exactly why it's worth having a page tracing the roots of those attacks and placing them in historical context. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright sounds good Aquillion, I support this.--Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Aquillion, your are similar to what i had in mind as well. SharabSalam does Aquillion's elaboration cover concerns you might have had going forward? If there are no other issues, is it all good then Snooganssnoogans, Calthinus, @Aquillion and @SharabSalam to detach this redirect Conspiracy theories about George Soros and turn it into a separate article? Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Support this idea. If there's no opposition, why not just go ahead?--Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

1944 confiscation of Jewish property

The article states: "the official took Soros with him while he inventoried a rich Jewish family's estate, though Soros did not take part." I added well-sourced material regarding his confirmation of partaking in such activities. The two statements now seem a bit contradictory. Perhaps the prior statement refers to another occurance, or is it simply false? Light Millennia (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dailywire doesn't pass WP:RS, and 247sports is both a bad source for something like this and is being used for original research on its own, since you're taking part of the interview out of context and trying to draw your own conclusions from it. A better source, Snopes, discusses that specific interview at length (scroll down): 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. It goes on to discuss it in detail, citing several sources with universal agreement that he didn't take part. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, I ask: could he refer to two separate occasions? Because in one interview, he explicitly confirms that he helped confiscate Jewish property, and says that he felt "no problem at all."
Daily Wire is much more reliable than New York Times or Washington Post. They rarely get anything wrong. Light Millennia (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Those quotes are from the exact same 60-minutes interview. The sources saying he participated in taking property away are misrepresenting it, or only saw edited clips, not the full interview. It is clear he was talking about the one occaision when he accompanied Baumbach on an inventory of a confiscated estate. Acerimusdux (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You are correct though that "did not take part" is not supported here by the source. Tivadar is quoted there as writing "He even helped with the inventory." I would interpret Soros as denying any involvment in taking property away, but not necessarily in helping that one time to document property that had already been seized. Acerimusdux (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no way this is getting onto the page. Severe violation of WP:BLP basics. Save it for the conspiracy page that will be created.--Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I made the requested edit removing it (the bolded portion). Contentious, unsourced, and contradicted by reliable sources (the Snopes link from Aquillion). Do you disagree? Acerimusdux (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soros/soros-donation-to-halt-brexit-causes-storm-in-britain-idUSKBN1FR3AB
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Soros/Archive_9&oldid=1087963396"