Jump to content

Talk:George Soros/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:George Soros

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 24 August 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:George Soros) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories about Soros

KEEP WITH MODIFICATIONS
The concerns raised may very well be valid, but the community has come to a consensus that it does not belong in the article's preamble, and that that section should be reserved for general information related to the subject. Some users have pointed out that the wording used in the edit in question may not conform to neutral-POV policies, but is adequately sourced. The content should be moved to the Conspiracy theories and threats section, and wording should be updated to be less of an attack on the person. CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 21:09, 6 December 2018 (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.

Please see restored edits below and the concerns raised about wording, consensus, weight, and citations. Are the concerns raised valid, does the wording need to be changed, or is the restored wording acceptable? Gallic Village (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

this edit:

Numerous American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories that characterize Soros as a singularly dangerous "puppetmaster" behind a variety of nefarious global conspiracies, including an accusation that he collaborated with Nazis in the murder of fellow Jews.

should be restored. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. I removed the sentence from the lead. It puts undue weight on the subject and looks like its WP:POV-pushing. After I removed it, it was restored with he edit summary "The conspiracy theories are covered in numerous RSes and have become a part of the narrative of Soros' public life. Removing this from the lead resembles POV pushing." I do not know what that means or how it relates to WP:MOSLEAD, but that doesn't seem accurate. Secondly, another edit summary stated "this number of citations was arrived at by consensus at talk" as justification for having five citations (hard citation overkill). There was no consensus reached at talk. If anyone was referring to Talk:George Soros/Archive 9#Too little discussion of the vast number of conspiracy theories attached to Soros, that is poor WP:SYNTH. At the most basic level, you need to either remove all five citations and maintain Wikipedia:When to cite#Citations in leads, remove the sentence completely, or rewrite it in the middle of the lead in a more neutral way. If you would like to actually find a consensus for it, do so here. But as it stands there is not consensus to have that in the lead, with five citations, in that manner.
For example:
"Numerous American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories that characterize Soros as a singularly dangerous "puppetmaster" behind a variety of nefarious global conspiracies, including an accusation that he collaborated with Nazis in the murder of fellow Jews." (5 RS citations)
Changed to:
"Soros has been at the center of numerous conspiracy theories regarding his political influence, attainment of wealth, and geopolitical interests." (2 RS citations)
Gallic Village (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The proposed change is not an improvement, as it both weakens the statements of what the conspiracies are and removes the well-sourced description of exactly who is pushing the conspiracies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You need to actually look into these conspiracy theories. Everyone around the world has had exposure to them. Its not just American Republicans. These theories encapsulate dozens if not hundreds of variant issues so my version is in fact more accurate. The current version is POV-pushing given that it doesn't match whats at George Soros#Conspiracy theories, too. Gallic Village (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Switching "repeating a conspiracy theory" with "being exposed to it" and "conservatives" with "Republicans" is a dubious but easily recognized fact-distortion technique. Yes, people other than US conservatives are exposed to the lies, but they are the ones who repeat them. You are walking on thin ice here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"You are walking on thin ice here"? What does that mean? And yes I thought it said Republicans (I mean't to say conservatives). My point is that there is no consensus for adding this sentence to the lead in this wording, its doesn't match the appropriate section per MOS:LEAD, and five citations is over citation. I'm going to push this to an RfC. This is a high profile article, a consensus should be reached for this. Gallic Village (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that that Soibangla's preferred wording is well-cited, accurate, and proportionate, and belongs in the article. More importantly, though, I'm reading five people (including myself, now) supporting Soibangla's version on talk, and only you opposed. That is a consensus. You can start an RFC if you want to overturn that consensus or seek broader comments, but until then your objections aren't strong enough, policywise, to justify removing something from the article when discussions are so lopsided against you. (Most of them seem to be grounded in style guides - or in that essay about overcites, which isn't even a style guide, just a controversial essay summarizing the opinions of a few editors.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds fair. Just wanted to raise my concerns on the talk. Gallic Village (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The contents in question from the lede are directly pulled from the conspiracy theories section. The contents of that section represent a summary of all the easily-found sources on the subject of conspiracy theories surrounding Soros. There was a discussion or three back in February about it (see here) and the only editor opposed to creating the section ended up indeffed in a rather spectacular way. The extra sourcing is par for the course for covering conspiracy theories or controversial claims about a BLP, or CSes or controversies coming from them. It lets other editors know that it wasn't added to the lede as a POV push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
First of all threatening editors will get you no where. You drawing a parallel between another editor getting indefinitely blocked and my challenging the wording of this sentence is WP:BADFAITH and a WP:PERSONALATTACK. Secondly, if anyone is looking for "hard" policies that challenge this content look to WP:WHENNOTCITE. Five citations is way too many and is hardly "on par". You linked to an archive that had little to nothing supporting what you just said. The only thing I found was this thread. That thread was not a consensus and it was certainly no endorsement. All the editors talked about was finding sources for George Soros#Conspiracy theories. The first two editors supported the wording, the third one misread my comment, and the fourth one supported the wording. All of this is fine. But if we're to have a RfC, its important that all the challenges are brought forward. There is nothing wrong with having a conspiracies section and there is certainly nothing wrong with having it in the lead, but as my introductory post explains in detail, whats in the lead now is verging on WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I welcome everyone's opinion on the matter. Gallic Village (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Go report me to ANI then instead of venting your butthurt here. Any rational person might have read my comment literally; where I point out that the only person who opposed it was not a good editor. But if you want to read it in the worst fucking way possible you be my guest. Here's the link WP:ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
While it is true that "Soros-Phobia" extends far beyond American conservatives (and is in fact deeper in some other groups) I don't think a list of elected leaders in a lede is a way to go. --Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree, which is why I didn't suggest a list of leaders in the lead would be the way to go, I support the green text proposal, the refs would support the green proposal in the lead, and there's also his attainment of wealth, he is known as the man who broke the Bank of England - George Soros made a name for himself by making more than $1bn out of the UK's embarrassment. It was Black Wednesday, that was in 1992, long before the American conservatives made him their poster boy for everything conspiratorial. One of the refs that's supporting the other proposal actually has a timeline going back to 1992 as well with Hungarian populist Istvan Csurka calling Soros a “puppet of Jerusalem.”, again before the Americans adopted him, I just think the lead should represent a world view, rather than keeping it confined to an American Conservative pov. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm ok -- in theory I'm ok with the gist of this, but I don't think we should state "his political influence" and "his geopolitical interests" in Wiki's voice-- instead we could say perceived or supposed political influence? ("Geopolitical interests" isn't really necessary anyhow imo, it's innuendo)--Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the preceding sentence address your concern, or should that sentence be expanded to do so? soibangla (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Well I also want the part about murdering fellow Jews out. But I'm just one guy here.--Calthinus (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The word collaborated could arguably be changed to conspired. It shows just how far back in time these conspiracy theories extend. soibangla (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagree - While I think the text (with changes proposed by Calthinus) is appropriate for the body of the article, I don't think it is appropriate for the preamble. The preamble should be preserved for a more general discussion of the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)

Extended discussion

@K.e.coffman: Also note that its not just "American conservatives" that originate, pass, and maintain this conspiracies, its a lot of people (outside of U.S. politics). I agree with you with nixing the latter part, do you think we should open up the wording as well a bit? Gallic Village (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The preceding content is: "His extensive funding of political causes has made him a "bugaboo of European nationalists."[23] Numerous American conservatives..." So, the opinions outside of the US are already noted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but as you see "Numerous American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories" seems to only indicate that American conservatives engage with these theories. If we invert the sentence and say "Soros has been at the center of numerous conspiracy theories regarding..." then we sysnehtisize George Soros#Conspiracy theories really well. The preceding content excellently synthesizes George Soros#Political involvement and George Soros#Views on Europe. Gallic Village (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really on board with "Soros has been at the center of numerous conspiracy theories regarding his political influence, attainment of wealth, and geopolitical interests.", as this seems to vaguely suggest that these conspiracy theories may be true, as in: geopolitical interests etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Hows so? I thought the very definition of conspiracy theory was that there was a lack of credible evidence, i.e. are not true. Either way, what about opening up the language to include more than just American conservatives, these theories have been passed by leaders of European countries, international organizations, special interest groups, etc. Update: Oh I see that line now-"bugaboo of European nationalists" now, that does represent Europe viewpoints, okay thank you. Gallic Village (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are the alleged "geopolitical interests" of this individual? Well that's a very questionable thing-- we shouldn't use the phrase at all. If we do, we are implying he does have relevant "geopolitical interests" concerning the topic matter of the (various) conspiracies, which is itself inherently POV (a more charitable view might suggest he gives to causes he believes in).--Calthinus (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision

Preserving here by providing this link; I took the part about "murdering Jews" out, and also toned down some language to avoid appearance of giving credence to the conspiracy theories. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I support K.e.coffman's version. I do not support the subsequent edit that discussed Soros' alleged coup d'état plans against the United States gov't, and will revert it momentarily. --Calthinus (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Why? soibangla (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It is not necessarily for the lede. Instead it tends to give oxygen to the stuff. No need for specifics. --Calthinus (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it is important to show specifically how absurd the claims have become to understand how they have come to dominate his biography. soibangla (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary, and has the air of validating the conspiracy theories. Best saved for the body where they can be put into context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"has the air of validating the conspiracy theories"? *cough* — well OK then soibangla (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The only language I saw that lent any air of credibility was the "at the center of" bit (and even that did more to imply some legitimate controversy spawning the CS than it did to imply the CS itself was true). That being said, I'm not sure what the advantage is of pointing out any particular ones unless the RSes establish those as prominent among or symbolic of the CSes surrounding Soros. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 14 October 2018 (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.

Central European University

The article says that "…legal changes to revoke the permission of Central European University (Budapest) … failed mostly due to significant public outrage…" But Central European University has been forced out of Hungary and is moving to Vienna. It looks to me like this needs to be updated. (and please don't just tell me I can track down sources & do it myself, I'm currently very busy with other things.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

According to the first line of the article linked below from OSF website, George Soros donated more than $32 billion to OSF since it's inception, so I'm asking to reconsider and correct this if possible. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/george-soros

The first paragraph of this wiki page mentions George Soros's contribution to OSF as $18 billion with referencing a Forbes article as the source (linked below), but the only source mentioned in this Forbes article is Forbes itself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/igorbosilkovski/2017/10/19/after-big-gift-george-soros-fortune-more-than-halved-falls-40-spots-on-rich-list-ck/#b2d71f121ee6

So I'm asking to please change '$18 billion' in first paragraph to 'more than $32 billion'. Thank you! Sorryasshere154 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done AdA&D 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Soros

Is his name pronounced like "shorosh"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.255.72.166 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In Hungarian, yes. In English, his name has generally been pronounced with an "s" instead of an "sh" sound (not how I would say it, though). The Hungarian pronunciation is already given in a pop-up annotation. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much X-said Y-said

The middle of this article contains two lengthy quotes which are not helpful to readers.

In 1998's The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered Soros explained his role in the crisis as follows: "... We left most of the potential gain on the table because we were afraid that Mahathir would impose capital controls. He did so, but much later."
In 1999, economist Paul Krugman was critical of Soros's effect on financial markets. "...These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi'."

The effect of these side by side quotations is to say, "Soros claims he did nothing wrong, Krugman says otherwise." It's not concise, nor is it informative to the reader. Also, the long quotations are not encyclopedic style.

If we want to talk about what Soros did during the Asian crisis, we need to discuss what the quotation from him leaves out. No, he wasn't actually buying the currency until the short sale closed. But by using this to avoid blame he is being extremely dishonest. Obviously, he alerted the markets that he was going to make a short sale. And as a very prominent financier, that's an especially strong alert.

One quick solution is to remove the Soros quotation. Dushyanta2019 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

Please delete the statement that Alexander Soros is or has been on the board of Global Witness because it is incorrect. No replacement text.

The source is: https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/about-us/board-directors/

Vixii (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Vixii (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

The link in the floating box (?) on the right to Conspiracy Theories is broken and should point to #Conspiracy_theories_and_threats instead. Consti (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Large size meal of WP:FORUM with heavy seasoning of WP:BLPTALK

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Please add in George Soros felony for insider trading. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/ Martine4508 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: This is already in the article, under George Soros#Société Générale insider trade. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Arthur J. Finkelstein campaign against Soros

Please include information on Arthur J. Finkelstein inventing Soros as the political enemy first in Hungary and then around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.172.205 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed section

Large size meal of WP:FORUM with heavy seasoning of WP:BLPTALK

This article needs to discuss criticism of Soros of which there is a lot and not just from the right. This is a man who collapses national economies - the polar opposite of a philanthropist, since such actions create poverty and put people out of work.

I expect some Soros apologist will try and have this comment deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:141a:a1b4:1:1:c0ac:1162 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 February 2019 UTC (UTC)

Then get off your ass and find the RSes that cover this "criticism". Until then, you're just pissing in the wind with comments like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been 48 separate editors over the history of this page that have called for more balance, particularly a criticism section. Approx 123 different RS material has been posted anyone can find 10,000 more merely by searching his name. Four editors have over ridden the 48 since the inception of this page. There is no editing this page unless cleared by the left wing cabal. But hey it sure is fun pretending otherwise and duping these poor folks into actually trying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"left wing cabal". The talking points of FOX 'news' strike again. Its a stale routine (yawn). Try something else like facts. May make all the difference. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If only you folks were actually important enough to make Fox news. MIT cited the problems with WP including that one. Maybe it will show up on #fakenews for you soon. Try addressing the facts-there are 10 pages of arch9ives of editors calling for a criticism section and more balance here along with the RS material to support it. Yet, the same four gate keepers keeps it off the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If its facts your after, a wiki page on the conspiracy theories that mainly the right wing, not just in the US but around the world peddles on Soros is the way to go here. On criticism it depends what it is about. If its coming from the usual conspiracy driven hype, then the talkpage can grow to 20 archives, you wont see that fringe (however widely it is believed as 'fact' by certain parts of the political divide) in the article.Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

George Soros Bankrolls Democrats’ Fight in Voting Rights Cases-A Democratic legal fight against restrictive voting laws enacted in recent years by Republican-controlled state governments is being largely paid for by a single liberal benefactor: the billionaire philanthropist George Soros.-https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/bankroller-of-democratic-voting-rights-cases-george-soros/? on


George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system-While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system. He contributed a total of $9.6 million to defeat white Republican male DAs in particular, and replace them with minorities. The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors. He won five of them. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519

Billionaire George Soros put even more money into supporting the winning campaign of Larry Krasner for Philadelphia district attorney than the $1.4 million previously reported. Final campaign reports show Soros dropped another $211,000 late in the game, bringing his total spending on behalf of Krasner to nearly $1.7 million. For some perspective, that’s more than five times as much as Krasner himself spent — and nearly 30 percent of all the spending in the seven-candidate primary. https://whyy.org/articles/soros-weighed-in-with-even-more-money-in-das-race/ public tadio-rs.

The Bizarre Media Blackout Of Hacked George Soros Documents Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn't care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros' Open Society Foundations' servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn't find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what's in them. Oh no it's an opinion piece that must mean that these hacked memos don't exist as the fake news media chose not to cover it. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-bizarre-media-blackout-of-hacked-george-soros-documents/ Investors which is Investors Business Daily is RS.

There are only 10,000 more from bankrolling anti brexit to Hungary declaring him a national threat to his $25million to the HRC campaign. This is just from the last 3yrs.

Real non existent boogeyman of the right wing's imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert Soros and Melissa Schiff

Re the mention about these persons in the article, some sources have reported that Melissa Schiff is the sister of U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff, although the cited NYT supporting source does not make this assertion; other sources have refuted such an assertion. The article mentions the marriage -- perhaps it ought to mention this reported nonrelationship. Some refuting sources: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/adam-schiff-george-soros-not-laws/, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adam-schiffs-sister-was-married-to-george-soros-son/. https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/3470303-fake-news-adam-melissa-schiff-george-robert-soros-marriage.html#live, https://themikerothschild.com/2018/02/07/adam-schiff-sister/. I don't know whether or not Adam and Melissa are related. Robert Soros and Melissa Schiff are apparently now divorced; see https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a14480032/in-a-high-profile-divorce-who-gets-the-art/. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Who wrote this entry? George Soros? The bias is stunning. 67.158.178.25 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You can find a comprehensive list of contributors by viewing the article's history. GMGtalk 15:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

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

Information about George Soros collaboration with the Nazis is missing, he even admitted to it himself and have talked about it, so why is it being hidden? Otto1982 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems to already be mentioned in the sentence "conspiracy theory [...] that Soros was a Nazi collaborator who turned in other Jews and stole their property". – Þjarkur (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
it's not a "conspiracy theory", though it's debatable if you consider his acts collaborative or not. these are arbitrary distinctions and should be qualified as such, not pushing propaganda of Soros publishers/propagandists71.89.114.35 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

REMOVE UNSOURCED INFORMATION

George Soros does not have a masters degree neither a PHD. This is unsourced material that must be removed. He has an honorary PHD but doesn't have a master or a PHD. Which is very different. This information obviously makes him appear more academic than he really is and may induce people to think that his books might be of some value. This is deceiving consumers and spreading false information which is contrary to Wikipedia's mission . Bobperelmanbot (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It looks like this information was added here. The edit summary does have a link that says he has a Ph.D and, but I haven't been able to find that information anywhere else. One of the citations shows that he has a MSc (not MA), but says nothing about a doctorate. Because of the sanctions in place, I think it'd be best to get a consensus here. Frood 04:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Geroge Soros does not have a masters or PHD. Please remove the UNSOURCED information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2567811 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC says he has them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Some examples of bias and editorializing that need to be addressed

Lydia Gall of Human Rights Watch asserted that it was reminiscent of Nazi posters during the Second World War featuring "'the laughing Jew'".[212]

An important piece of context is missing: George Soros donated $100 Million to Human Rights Watch. This should be mentioned to warn the reader that this is not an dis-interested organisation.

Hours later, in an apparent attempt to ally Israel with Hungary, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a "clarification", denouncing Soros, stating that he "continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself".[213]

Why "apparent attempt"? Why put clarification in between quotes? This is clearly framing it into a negative action from Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.225.104 (talk) at 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Vulture Capitalist"

Seems logical to include this in the header the way @FactExposer: described. There are at least 2 verifiable sources. Anyone opposed able to logically explain how Soros is not a vulture capitalist? @NorthBySouthBaranof: AOKuneff (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That unfortunate term was coined to refer to an investor in distressed assets, which is not the basis of Mr. Soros' notability. So it's a non-starter. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is an unfortunate term. Vultures play a necessary role in nature, as do investors with distressed assets in the economy. soibangla (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
AOKuneff, of the two sources that user added, one is a source with a conservative POV and the other is an opinion piece. Pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
By Muboshgu definition, Comet Ping Pong's pizzagate has not been debunked because it is only liberal sources defending it.. Here's another source https://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/11/29/vulture-capitalism-is-bad-unless-george-soros-is-involved albeit a conservative one. It is unsurprising conservatives are more critical of Soros than liberals, although unless we see liberal sources defending Soros' practices as *not* vulture capitalism, it is reasonable to include conservative sources. AOKuneff (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't generally include one-sided, context-free invective in BLPs, and the fact that no one has bothered to refute a claim is usually a good indicator that the criticism isn't notable enough to bother citing on Wikipedia. The sources you've provided thus far don't seem sufficient to constitute WP:DUE weight for including. Nblund talk 14:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
AOKuneff, that's a ridiculous thing to suggest. Any nonpartisan source worth its weight has debunked Pizzagate. The Blaze is a right wing conspiracy site that isn't reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The Blaze and NRO are consistently more reliable than snopes or the nyt. Perhaps the compromise would be to say that "conservative sites such as The Blaze and the NRO have described George Soros as a Vulture Capitalist" AOKuneff (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The Blaze and NRO are consistently more reliable than snopes or the nyt. Yeah, no, if you really believe that, you should probably be editing Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to adding "conservative sites such as The Blaze and the NRO have described George Soros as a Vulture Capitalist" to the lede? Please be productive to the conversation in why this does or does not work. Simply "blah blah conservatives suck blah blah" is unreasonable. And there are tons of instances of snopes being out of bounds. In the last 10 minutes, I found [1], [2], [3], [4] . Can you provide a similar list for the NRO? Or the blaze? Perhaps you should be editing rationalwiki instead of Wikipedia. AOKuneff (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The Blaze and Daily Mail are unreliable, the NRO piece is an opinion, and Forbes is now a shadow of its former self, now mostly opinion pieces written by nobodies. It's junk. soibangla (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd be strongly opposed to adding that to the lead. I think you've gotten productive conversation, but you don't like the answers you've gotten. Statements of opinion should be given WP:DUE weight. Notable criticisms might be worth including in the body, but vague name-calling doesn't belong in the lead of a Wikipedia entry, especially when the sources are so weak. Nblund talk 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Update I didn't notice when I responded that AOKuneff has been blocked. I guess that puts a lid on this discussion. Nblund talk 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Go figure. Someone WP:UNINVOLVED should hat this then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

Please delete this redundant indefinite article in the section Honors and awards: 'describing him as a "a standard bearer for liberal democracy"'. 81.96.15.89 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! aboideautalk 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Right wing?

Under "Conspiracy Theories," the article cites several individuals who claim Soros was a Nazi sympathizer during WWII. These individuals are collectively labeled as"Right wing" despite one of them being Roseanne Barr. Barr has been a member of left leaning political parties such as the Green Party (running for president in 2012) and the Peace and Freedom Party. Wikipedia's own articles on Barr discusses this. Granted, Barr has been critical of Soros' perceived anti-Semitism. Her motivations may have been rooted more by the fact that she is Jewish, herself, than being a "Right-winger." I recommend (for consistency's sake) removing the label "Right wing" from this paragraph. DGTubbs (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RS say rightwing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, the NYT source doesnt say that she is right-wing. The source says that she conservative. I think that since she has apologized for the tweets per her article, we can remove her name.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought he was disputing the lead saying he was subject of rightwing/conservative conspiracy theories Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh yea I agree. The sources say that they are right-wing conspiracy theories. I focused more on the point that DGTubbs made regarding Roseanne Barr.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Soros' Open Society Foundation found to have unprecedented influence on decision makings of the ECHR

A 6-month investigation carried out by the independent organization European Centre for Law & Justice found that George Soros' Open Society Foundation had unprecedented influence on NGOs & judges at the European Court of Human Rights. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah-x3 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Founded by Pat Robertson, run by one of Trump's impeachment lawyers. Very "independent." We should probably wait for independent secondary sources to exist before discussing whether any of this merits inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
So? There are lots of trustworthy media outlets/organizations created by people from the left/right. It may not be independent, but not because of that. I still wouldn't use that as a source.

References

  1. ^ https://eclj.org/geopolitics/echr/conflits-d-interets-entre-juges-et-ong
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Soros/Archive_10&oldid=974617307"