Talk:George Soros/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

American conservatives have repeated conspiracy theories about Soros

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)

• Agree, with modification: Looks mostly good, but nix "...including an accusation that he collaborated with Nazis in the murder of fellow Jews". Just end with "...behind a variety of nefarious global conspiracies". I feel that it's a bit too much detail for the lead, and being accused of murder is not a "nefarious global conspiracy". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion It looks like the consensus is coalescing in any event, but I agree that the sentence, as written, is WP:DUE; "American conservatives is a bit vague for my taste and I can't help but feel that there might be a more elegant wording to the whole statement, but as weight matter, the general thrust of the sentence is consistent with the description of a topic (the existence of the conspiracy theory) which has, unfortunately, become an all-too-readily-known subject associated with the man's name. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment not exactly sure what my exact stance on this whole issue will be but I would like to remove the clause about alleged Nazi collabbing -- imo, this is giving oxygen to the conspiracy theory and helping spread it...--Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I prefer the more neutral one - "Soros has been at the center of numerous conspiracy theories regarding his political influence, attainment of wealth, and geopolitical interests." - Soros conspiracies are a global phenomenon. - Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Bulgaria - In the past year, he has been denounced by political leaders in Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Turkey, all of whom claim he is plotting against them. - Why Soros-Phobia Is a Global Phenomenon Isaidnoway (talk) 15:24, 14 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)

• Comment I agree with Calthinus and K.e.coffman. Repeating the details of anonymous conspiracy theories only serves to promote them, and should not be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 15 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. — 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 Matteo Salvini It should be said that former Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini also believes in theories of Soros and the Kalergi plan. He is the only member of the government of a democratic country (not Putin and Orban) to have given credit to these things. Reference/source: (in Italian) Salvini e il piano Kalergi, così la bufala cospirazionista è diventata dottrina di governo (Salvini and the Kalergi plan, so the conspiracy hoax became government doctrine) - critical article by Il Fatto Quotidiano Critics by Agenzia Italia: Chi è George Soros e perché Salvini ce l'ha tanto con lui (Who is George Soros and why Salvini is so angry with him) Article in favor of Salvini by Libero Quotidiano (one of Berlusconi's newspapers) against Soros (which shows the billionaire's words about Salvini, defined dictator by Soros) and "Sardine" Movement (a left-wing movement): George Soros: "Matteo Salvini potenziale dittatore, le sardine trionferanno" (George Soros: "Matteo Salvini potential dictator, the sardines will triumph") --Traiano91 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Does Trump also believe in conspiracy theories about Soros? Now I have the doubt.--Traiano91 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Moving Conspiracy theorists It should be a subsection under philanthropy. ToddGrande (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Liberal bias I'm dumbfounded by the strong liberal bias of Wikipedia, in this article it's visible in the section of "Conspiracy theories"; now, I don't doubt that most of them are bullshit and that most (if not all) came from the right and Conservatives; however, a slight bias is visible in the way that section of the article states that most of those theories are promoted by Fox News and Breitbart, essentially portraying them as 'evil' right-wing propaganda machines and saying they blame Soros of everything they disapprove of. I don't doubt that these outlets promote those stupid theories, but can we please rewrite that part so we can stop potraying Fox News, Breitbart and other pro-Conservative Right-wing media outlets in a cartoonish villanous light (an endemic problem here in Wikipedia)? Let's substite a few words and make a slight rewrite so it looks more neutral and more objective, that's all I'm suggesting (and I think the rest of the article is fine). --177.225.172.224 (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC) You're referring to the following paragraph: Conservatives, meanwhile, picked up on the thread in the late 2000s, spearheaded by Fox News. Bill O'Reilly gave an almost ten-minute monologue on Soros in 2007, calling him an "extremist" and claiming he was "off-the-charts dangerous". Breitbart News, according to the London Times journalist, David Aaronovitch, in promoting East European nationalism, has regularly published articles blaming Soros for anything of which it disapproves. This is the only place where that section mentions Fox News and Breitbart. It seems to be WP:DUE weight to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC) References Why do the summarization of the occupation list “Investor, hedge fund manager, author, and philanthropist” and omit “political donor” despite many major conservative / Republican political donors are correctly labeled as such? For example, Sheldon Adelson is described in Wikipedia as “American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, and political donor” but George Soros is not, despite his article documenting substantial ongoing political contributions to liberal / Democratic issues and candidates? Edokin (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Why do the summarization of the occupation list “Investor, hedge fund manager, author, and philanthropist” and omit “political donor” despite many major conservative / Republican political donors are correctly labeled as such? For example, Sheldon Adelson is described in Wikipedia as “American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, and political donor” but George Soros is not, despite his article documenting substantial ongoing political contributions to liberal / Democratic issues and candidates? Edokin (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC) IMO Adelson's page shouldn't start off like that. Neiher Soros nor Adelson are notable because of their political donations. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Soros has individually donated several billions of dollars to political causes and has contributed to over 200 political organizations and he is not notable because of his political donations? Not sure I understand Muboshgu (talk). - Chiappoloni (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Adding to Political Involvement section In reference to: 05/23/2020 Please can we add these edits back to the Political Involvement section (sub-headings re USA federal, local, and other donations, as well as sourcing information for relevant articles)? Also, relevant sourcing to referenced The Telegraph article in the Brexit paragraph of the Conspiracy Theory section for the relevant sourcing for readers' ease-of-access and readability? I am fine with the wording of certain sentences in the article being reverted to the previous tone (which appears to not have enough of a NPOV), if necessary, but please can we not remove the helpful articles and information with legitimate sourcing articles. Chiappoloni (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I disagree; I think it's wildly undue weight to go into extensive detail about the arguments of, to choose one example, particular county district attorney candidates who may have received some funding from some groups which receive some funding from Soros. It's completely irrelevant to Soros' biography that Real Justice is underwritten by Cari Tuna, the wife of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Soros and has no place in his biography. Additionally, several of the sources you used in that edit are absolutely not reliable sources; "NeedToKnow.news" appears to be a right-wing extremist conspiracy-theory-peddling nonsense site, and Ballotpedia is a wiki at least partially made up of user-generated content and thus fails reliable sourcing guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC) *I disagree - To Chiappoloni - I do not support your request. The verbiage used is derogatory, bias & violates NPOV. For example, "illegal aliens" is derogatory, bias, violates NPOV, and has nothing to do with the biography of George Soros. Plus, as NorthBySouthBaranof says, the sources used are not reliable sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020 You wrote "Numerous American conservatives have promoted false claims that characterize Soros as a singularly dangerous "puppet master"..." I believe the use of the word FALSE is a politically biased and an unnecessary add to the story. I support Wikipedia because of it's non-biased non-political offering of informational facts. I believe this violates those standards 2601:151:4502:14A0:A0CA:6F01:B0A9:1752 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: Being unbiased means telling the truth as verified by reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC) The European right as well as the American right Please change Soros' philanthropy and support for progressive causes has made him the object of a large number of conspiracy theories, most of them originating from the political right.[154][155] Veronika Bondarenko, writing for Business Insider said that "For two decades, some have seen Soros as a kind of puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics."[156] The New York Times describes the allegations as moving "from the dark corners of the internet and talk radio" to "the very center of the political debate" by 2018.[157] Soros has become a magnet for such theories, with opponents claiming that he is behind such diverse events as the 2017 Women's March, the fact-checking website Snopes, the gun-control activism engaged in by the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting,[158][159][160] the October 2018 immigrant caravans, and the protests against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.[157][161] Conservatives, meanwhile, picked up on the thread in the late 2000s, spearheaded by Fox News. Bill O'Reilly gave an almost ten-minute monologue on Soros in 2007, calling him an "extremist" and claiming he was "off-the-charts dangerous".[159] Breitbart News, according to the London Times journalist, David Aaronovitch, in promoting East European nationalism, has regularly published articles blaming Soros for anything of which it disapproves.[162] Soros' opposition to Brexit (in the United Kingdom) led to a front page on the British Conservative supporting newspaper, The Daily Telegraph in February 2018, which was accused of antisemitism for claiming he was involved in a supposed "secret plot" for the country's voters to reverse their decision to leave the European Union.[30] While The Daily Telegraph did not mention Soros is Jewish, his opposition to Britain leaving the European Union had been reported elsewhere in less conspiratorial terms.[31] Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle, said on Twitter: "The point is that language matters so much and this is exactly the language being used by antisemites here and abroad".[32][163] In October 2019, Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Soros of being the "funder-in-chief" of the Remain campaign, and was subsequently accused of anti-Semitism by opposition MPs.[164] After being ousted from office in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal of 2016, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson accused Soros of having bankrolled a conspiracy to remove him from power.[165][166] It was later pointed out that Soros himself had also been implicated in the Panama Papers, casting doubt on the prime minister's theory.[167] Right-wing figures such as Alex Jones, Donald Trump Jr., James Woods, Dinesh D'Souza, Louie Gohmert, and Larry Klayman have spread a false conspiracy theory, which has been described as anti-Semitic, that Soros was a Nazi collaborator who turned in other Jews and stole their property.[168][169][170][171][172] Soros was a child during World War II who had to hide from the Hungarian government during Nazi occupation.[173][174][175][176][177][178] In October 2018, Soros was accused of funding a Central American migrant caravan heading toward America.[179][180][181] The theory that Soros was somehow causing Central American migration at the southern US border apparently dates back to late March 2018, however.[182] The October 2018 strain of the theory has been described to combine anti-semitism, anti-immigrant sentiment and "the specter of powerful foreign agents controlling major world events in pursuit of a hidden agenda", connecting Soros and other wealthy individuals of Jewish faith or background to the October caravan.[182] Both Cesar Sayoc, the perpetrator of the October 2018 attempted bombings of prominent Democrats, and Robert Bowers, the perpetrator of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, referred to this conspiracy theory on social media before their crimes.[183][184] In November 2018, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denounced Soros while speaking about Turkey's political purges, saying: "The person who financed terrorists during the Gezi incidents is already in prison. And who is behind him? The famous Hungarian Jew Soros. This is a man who assigns people to divide nations and shatter them."[185] In November 2019, attorney Joseph diGenova, who is known for promoting conspiracy theories about the Department of Justice and the FBI,[194] asserted without evidence that Soros "controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department" and "also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine."[195] A study by Zignal Labs found that unsubstantiated claims of involvement by Soros were one of three dominant themes in misinformation and conspiracy theories around the 2020 George Floyd protests, alongside claims that Floyd's death had been faked and claims of involvement by antifa groups.[196] to: Soros' philanthropy and support for progressive causes has made him the object of a large number of conspiracy theories, most of them originating from the political right.[154][155] Veronika Bondarenko, writing for Business Insider said that "For two decades, some have seen Soros as a kind of puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics."[156] The New York Times describes the allegations as moving "from the dark corners of the internet and talk radio" to "the very center of the political debate" by 2018.[157] Soros has become a magnet for such theories, with opponents claiming that he is behind such diverse events as the 2017 Women's March, the fact-checking website Snopes, the gun-control activism engaged in by the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting,[158][159][160] the October 2018 immigrant caravans, and the protests against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.[157][161] Conservatives, meanwhile, picked up on the thread in the late 2000s, spearheaded by Fox News. Bill O'Reilly gave an almost ten-minute monologue on Soros in 2007, calling him an "extremist" and claiming he was "off-the-charts dangerous".[159] Breitbart News, according to the London Times journalist, David Aaronovitch, in promoting East European nationalism, has regularly published articles blaming Soros for anything of which it disapproves.[162] Soros' opposition to Brexit (in the United Kingdom) led to a front page on the British Conservative supporting newspaper, The Daily Telegraph in February 2018, which was accused of antisemitism for claiming he was involved in a supposed "secret plot" for the country's voters to reverse their decision to leave the European Union.[30] While The Daily Telegraph did not mention Soros is Jewish, his opposition to Britain leaving the European Union had been reported elsewhere in less conspiratorial terms.[31] Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle, said on Twitter: "The point is that language matters so much and this is exactly the language being used by antisemites here and abroad".[32][163] In October 2019, Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Soros of being the "funder-in-chief" of the Remain campaign, and was subsequently accused of anti-Semitism by opposition MPs.[164] After being ousted from office in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal of 2016, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson accused Soros of having bankrolled a conspiracy to remove him from power.[165][166] It was later pointed out that Soros himself had also been implicated in the Panama Papers, casting doubt on the prime minister's theory.[167] Right-wing figures such as Alex Jones, Donald Trump Jr., James Woods, Dinesh D'Souza, Louie Gohmert, and Larry Klayman have spread a false conspiracy theory, which has been described as anti-Semitic, that Soros was a Nazi collaborator who turned in other Jews and stole their property.[168][169][170][171][172] Soros was a child during World War II who had to hide from the Hungarian government during Nazi occupation.[173][174][175][176][177][178] Far-right politicians in Soros' native Hungary have also promulgated conspiracy theories revolving around him, with American-Polish writer Anne Applebaum describing among the Hungarian far-right a widely held "belief, shared by the Russian government and the American alt-right, in the superhuman powers of George Soros, the Hungarian Jewish billionaire who is supposedly plotting to bring down the nation through the deliberate importation of migrants, even though no such migrants exist in Hungary." Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban based his successful 2018 campaign for a third term largely on a "Stop Soros" platform, including a crackdown on various civil institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations supposedly associated with Soros. In October 2018, Soros was accused of funding a Central American migrant caravan heading toward America.[179][180][181] The theory that Soros was somehow causing Central American migration at the southern US border apparently dates back to late March 2018, however.[182] The October 2018 strain of the theory has been described to combine anti-semitism, anti-immigrant sentiment and "the specter of powerful foreign agents controlling major world events in pursuit of a hidden agenda", connecting Soros and other wealthy individuals of Jewish faith or background to the October caravan.[182] Both Cesar Sayoc, the perpetrator of the October 2018 attempted bombings of prominent Democrats, and Robert Bowers, the perpetrator of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, referred to this conspiracy theory on social media before their crimes.[183][184] In November 2018, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denounced Soros while speaking about Turkey's political purges, saying: "The person who financed terrorists during the Gezi incidents is already in prison. And who is behind him? The famous Hungarian Jew Soros. This is a man who assigns people to divide nations and shatter them."[185] In November 2019, attorney Joseph diGenova, who is known for promoting conspiracy theories about the Department of Justice and the FBI,[194] asserted without evidence that Soros "controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department" and "also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine."[195] A study by Zignal Labs found that unsubstantiated claims of involvement by Soros were one of three dominant themes in misinformation and conspiracy theories around the 2020 George Floyd protests, alongside claims that Floyd's death had been faked and claims of involvement by antifa groups.[196] References  Not done. Please break up your proposal into more digestible portions which clearly show what changes you wish to make. Please also attach any new refs rather than copy the numbers. El_C 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 The Term Arbitrage investor is misleading. This is more commonly referred to as Hedge Funds investor. All instance of the word "Arbitrage" be replaced with "Hedge fund". Matthew.buma (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) “Macedonia” is wrong The part talking about Soros’ activity in Central Europe has a big mistake. It denotes the former Skopje country as Macedonia. The newly recognized country, along with its government, should be flagged as “North Macedonia”. If you write down solely the name “Macedonia”, this indicates a region of Greece, rather than the country of North Macedonia. Please change it where it‘s due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazTheo23 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC) The issues are mentioned before renaming, however, I inserted a link at the first occurence to clarify.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)) SCOTUS rules against Open Society-yet another right wing conspiracy to be added https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf court records are the epitome of RS, any editor that posts otherwise is merely waiting on spin. 98-6 editors posting more criticism vs the gate keepers who perpetually disallow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:DFD:C69B:4927:494B (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC) The word "Soros" does not appear in the document. The Wikipedia policy on original research says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" (emphasis in the original). Philip Cross (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Disclosure of Soros ties to Wikimedia (and thus Wikipedia) funding As this page discusses Soros, it seems it would be prudent to at least mention that Wikimedia (and thus Wikipedia) has a financial tie to Soros. This is not to say that Soros dictates what is on this page, but as disclosure is imperative in many other areas where information is attempted to be provided in a neutral way, it certainly could not hurt to disclose the connection when the subject is the also a donor. Wikimedia cites Tides Foundation as a donor. In addition, Wikipedia cites Tides Foundation as a donor. Reuters cites Soros as a donor to Tides by way of Open Society Foundations. This is listed on the Tides Foundation, as well. You'd need significant coverage of that as an issue in third-party sources, and it's more appropriate for articles concerning Wikipedia than for an overview of Soros's life. Since nobody who actually edits Wikipedia is paid for it, it's not like we're the Washington Post where they presumably have a macro that inserts a disclaimer every time Jeff Bezos is mentioned. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) References District attorney campaigns @Snooganssnoogans: Did you have an objection to having a mention of the district attorney campaigns that Soros has been donating to in the #Political involvement section? You did not use an edit summary in your revert of Ihaveadreamagain. The sentence was sourced with a Politico source. Politico is generally considered reliable. I think that this is due because there is wide coverage in reliable sources and the donations are counted in millions of dollars (which is unprecedented in DA campaigns per RS'es). Politico (30 August, 2016): George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system Los Angeles Times (23 May, 2018): Here’s why George Soros, liberal groups are spending big to help decide who’s your next D.A. Houston Chronicle (13 October, 2016): Soros again pumps money into Harris County district attorney's race Chicago Sun Times (20 February, 2020): Another billionaire weighs in on state’s attorney’s race: George Soros gives $2M to group backing Foxx Philadelphia Inquirer (25 April, 2017): Billionaire George Soros now a player in Philly DA race St. Louis Post-Dispatch (24 July, 2016): St. Louis circuit attorney candidate defends accepting super PAC campaign money from liberal billionaire The Wall Street Journal (1 June, 2017): Black Lives Matters Defender May Become Philadelphia’s Next District Attorney Buzzfeed News (7 March, 2018): The Campaign To Change Policing In The US Has Found A New Way To Win The New York Times (5 November, 2016): After High-Profile Shootings, Blacks Seek Prosecutor Seats The coverage is so extensive that it would be good if an article was created for the Safety and Justice PAC itself, but given how these sources directly talk about Soros's donations, a short mention would be warranted. --Pudeo (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC) The text was added by a right-wing POV pusher, and the language of "quietly overhauling the criminal justice system" was clearly intended to feed into anti-Semitic George Soros conspiracy theories that he is engaging in sinister puppetmaster activities and more specifically that he is somehow behind the George Floyd protests. I have no opposition to addition of text that says that Soros has donated to causes such as criminal justice reform and candidates who run on criminal justice reform platforms. However, over my dead body that this encyclopedia is going to push anti-Semitic conspiracy theory narratives about Soros. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Does it in any way matter if the person commenting is on the right or left politically? And why is criticizing Soros "clearly intended to feed into feed into antisemitism"? I ask again, as a Jewish person why criticizing this non religious billionaire anything to do with AntiSemitism? 2601:445:447F:1370:4184:2AFD:C32A:65F0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) The the language of "quietly overhauling the criminal justice system" came from the Politico article, not me. You should read the source. Characterizing me as a right-wing POV pusher seems quite hostile, given my history of attempting to neutrally edit pages. I am new, and not so hardened to be impervious to slurs. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)IHaveADreamagain Politico's language is utterly disgraceful, given the context. The article is popular among white supremacists, right-wing conspiracy theorists and other crackpots for precisely the use of incendiary conspiratorial language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Politico may write stories that you don't like covered, but considering how hated Soros is by many people in Israel, especially by the President of Israel, whom Soros has attacked numerous times, I think we can drop the "racists like it so we need to stop talking about it". A billionaire is trying to change our legal system in his image. How is talking about it antiSemitic? 2601:445:447F:1370:4184:2AFD:C32A:65F0 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Notwithstanding anyone's opinion of Politico, it is WP:RS/P by consensus, and should be included. Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)IHaveADreamAgain I find it very interesting how rather than argue for language that is not anti-Semitic and conspiratorial (which can be found in the Politico piece or in the many other articles listed above), you instead just keep arguing for the anti-Semitic conspiracy presentation of this content. It's almost as if the purpose of this content is not to clarify that Soros donates to the cause of criminal justice reform, but rather something else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC) How would you word the entry? I just wanted the information there that reflects what Politico said. You come off as a suspicious person who is intent on twisting the edits of well-meaning editors. It's no wonder new users often leave so quickly. You are making it a hostile environment. Personally, I LOVE Jewish people and HATE antisemitism, which I assume from your statements is the same as you. I do not understand your hostility to me when I simply wanted to add a Politico article reference. If you're trying to pick a fight, go elsewhere, please. I would like a neutral party to intervene and advise what should be done with the edit. This type of nonsense is not worthy of much more time spent. Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)IHaveADreamAgain You do understand that some here may not even know who Jews are? I do not know. Never cared, another religion or what? I mean Soros is not a Jew, he clearly does not believe in God or whatever. Really, as a teenager, I think it is hillarious, all that BS. Also, it is against wikipedia rules to tell others they are homophobic, transphobic, etc, etc. Also, to the other guy. The way to have inclusion is WP:RfC and I vote yes on the speedy inclusion as it is a scandal of Fox News, notabilty and wide coveredge is overwhelming of that scandal. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Order of his real name "Gyorgy Schwartz" or the reverse? For some reason, Soros's birth name is shown as "Schwartz Gyorgy". Is there a reason that his first name is last, and first name last? A small thing, but an error nonetheless. I'd just fix it, but maybe there's a reason it's done this way -- it doesn't even have a comma after "Schwartz" as it would be represented in a footnote or other reference. Soros doesn't seem to have a sense of humor and I'm convinced he's the real life incarnation of Karl Stromberg from The Spy Who Loved Me, so better to be careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, unless noted, it should not be on Eastern name order.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)) Project Syndicate George Soros is a regular columnist to Project Syndicate, this needs added to his wikipage. --Devokewater (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Shorting pound to things Soros is known for? As in title, namely in the infobox, would it be alright to add his short sale of the pound during ERM crisis into the things he’s known for? Or is it only for organisations he’s set up etc? Iamthinking2202 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Thats covered in: "Advising the Quantum Fund". --Devokewater (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020 "Numerous American conservatives have promoted false claims..." - What are the sources of the "false claims?" If it's a journalist at a newspaper -- no matter how large or popular -- that doesn't make it fact. Cite what the claims are and how they've been PROVEN false. Journalists' opinions aren't proof of false claims. Perhaps their claims are false. User442 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)  Not done. It's already cited. You can read the sources and see for yourself how it is a well-supported summary. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC) -I propose changing "Numerous American conservatives have promoted false claims" to "have claimed". This is in order to keep Wikipedia as accurate and unbiased as possible. "False claims" would suggest they are proven to be false, while "Have Claimed" already suggests the claims are not proven right, but neither have they been proven false. I respectfully ask that we keep Wikipedia as politically neutral as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:C42A:7C70:7546:6C77:84D6:AFF2 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Robert Soros - not CEU Founder Robert Daniel Soros (born 1963): The founder of the Central European University in Budapest, as well as a network of foundations in Eastern Europe. In 1992, he married Melissa Robin Schiff at the Temple Emanu-El in New York City. The Rabbi Dr. David Posner officiated the ceremony.[88] Correction: This line incorrectly references Robert as the founder of the Central European University in Budapest, as well as a network of foundations in Eastern Europe; George Soros is the the founder of the Central European University in Budapest, as well as a network of foundations in Eastern Europe. Aine duffy (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Aine_Duffy On being most giving person. There should be a footnote or, something in parentheses mentioning that the foundation he gave to, is his. Seth.wrigh (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Seth.wrigh, we follow reliable sources. The Forbes article says When measured as a percentage of net worth, the most generous giver is renowned hedge fund manager George Soros, who has donated 64% of his original fortune. The Hungarian native, now worth an estimated $8.6 billion, has distributed more than $15 billion to nonprofits through his Open Society Foundations, an international grantmaking network that supports advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. He uses his foundation to fund causes, as he is supposed to, unlike those who set up foundations to run as a personal piggybank. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Certainly this is the most generous BILLIONAIRE donor in terms of percent of net-worth. There are, all throughout the history of mankind people whom have given everything they have to others, but they are not as notable because they never amassed a huge fortune. I propose parsing the sentence to state percent of original net worth, and then state that "Forbes called him the most generous giver." Surely this is more true than him actually giving the largest percent of net worth of anyone. Scotty.tiberius (talk) George Soros - Education misrepresentation and falsehood/fraud 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. I personally never knew Wikipedia could be a fraud and promotion was for an institution called London School of Economics. It's pathetic that Soros who is a billionaire is being promoted as a LSE degree holder. It is a fact that until 2008, LSE as an institution never awarded a single degree to its enrolled students. Until 2008, all constituent colleges solely awarded University of London degree. There was no LSE diploma/degree/certificate in existence. It was a creation after 2008. How did George Soros get a LSE degree in 1950's and 1960's when LSE started its degree from year 2008. Isn't this a blatant fraud and a lie? Why is LSE lying? LSE is a social sciences institution and that's all. It isn't actually a university in the sense that it doesn't teach engineering, arts, creative sciences, pure/applied math and pure sciences. Neither faculties and not departments exists within LSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.202.98.106 (talk) 12:48, June 30, 2021 (UTC) LSE was founded in 1895 and counts hundreds of notable people among its alumni, and your claim here doesn't seem to even understand how colleges and universities work: One absolutely can graduate from a college that's associated with a university. This should have been easy to look up, as there's an encyclopedia at hand, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Tell me all about it. you are biased and totally wrong. I have a good understanding how universities across world work. LSE was founded in 1895 but no proof it awarded any degree in 1895. LSE joined UOL in 1900 and under federal collegiate UOL awarded UOL degrees from 1901 to 2008. How is LSE mentioned in the article and conveniently University of London not even mentioned? The fact is that the central federal UOL has been awarding degree (to its constituent colleges) since 1836 and not LSE which started to award degree in its own name since 2008. University of London Worldwide was established in 1858. So in terms of existence the central body is more prestigious than LSE which began to award UOL degree since 1901. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.202.97.178 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC) I am biased and totally wrong, eh? Amazing how this well-sourced encyclopedia here just so happens to agree with me that one can, in fact, graduate from a college that is part of a university, versus your assertion that they cannot. One wonders what the point of a Collegiate university is if one cannot actually graduate from it, but alas, I'm apparently biased and wrong, so I'll never be able to figure it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Bill Gates studied at Harvard College but dropped out. Why does his profile in his info-box say Harvard University as alumni and not Harvard College. This goes for other drop outs and famed alumnis across the world. UOL is collegiate but so is Oxford and Cambridge. At the end any student studying anywhere at University of Cambridge, does get a singular Cambridge degree, but we all know studying at Trinity and other colleges are too different. Each other have their own alumni groups within Oxbridge. LSE began to give degrees since 2008. We know the reasons why (goes for all UOL constituent colleges)? First, to raise endowments and come ahead in global and UK rankings. Ranking is a big business now. The fact is George Soros did attend and study at LSE and as such he was both enrolled at LSE as student and UOL for exams. Without saying his undergraduate, master's and PhD are all from central UOL but now a backdated LSE degree to 2008 is a lie. As you know English, you still haven't answered my previous question a) How did George Soros get a LSE degree in 1950's and 1960's when LSE started its degree from year 2008. Isn't this a blatant fraud and a lie? Why is LSE lying? b) How is LSE mentioned in the article and conveniently University of London not even mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.202.96.202 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Read the sources. They're right there in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 30 June 2021 (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. Edit request "He has also donated 64% of his original fortune, making him the most generous giver (when measured as a percentage of net worth)" Can we clarify that this is among Forbes 400 billionaires? Imagine a recent grad with a zero net worth donating some old clothes to Goodwill...how can anyone beat infinity? 2600:1012:B060:9080:CD14:2257:D22F:4C33 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Error There is a mis-date in the paragraph regarding recent right wing attacks on Soros. Date says a 1998 interview, however the referenced articles refer to a 2018 interview date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:87F:5D76:683E:9E48:88D:A3A9 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Categories overkill There are too many categories. I'll try to remove the redundant.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Agreed --Devokewater (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC) George Soros is already in George_Soros, which is in Soros_Family. I'll remove Soros_Family.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Change http:// URL to official website to https:// Basically just the title. Jkhon0 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Done. Marquardtika (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022 Remove the word "false" from Paragraph 6. This loaded term is used without any attribution or validation. It is strictly an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. 47.201.41.187 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)  Not done: False conspiracy theories are false. It's not opinion and is needed to refute the conspiracy theories to maintain WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Black Lives Matter and the LGBT organization Why isn’t recognized his relationship with these organizations?? 2600:1700:6580:5230:BC39:D1FA:A37E:53BE (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Provide WP:RS. And what is the LGBT organization supposed to be referring to? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Not one point is mentioned about his views on India? Please add a suitable point immediately for I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to add references! Science nerd11112007 (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Request edit to fix offensive image (2023-04-05) When one's mouse hovers over the term "market fundamentalism" (which appears twice in the section "Political and economic views"), a popup appears with a photo of a housefly on feces. I don't know where/how this image originates (it des not appear in the main article: market fundamentalism) but it needs to be removed, it is offensive and an obvious troll of Wikipedia. Jimluschen (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC) @Jimluschen: I see no such image on this article, the article market fundamentalism, or anywhere else accessible from this article. Can you provide any more information about how the image appeared? Mindmatrix 20:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Oh how odd. I see it when not logged in on another browser when I hover over the market fundamentalism link. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC) It's the image File:Ch.megacephala wiki.jpg. Cute trick, I wonder what's invoking it? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC) yep, turned on page previews here, same thing. I've reported it on WP:VPT. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023 Please make two changes: [[Black Wednesday|Black Wednesday UK currency crisis]] should become [[Black Wednesday]] UK currency crisis. If just the words are linked, it's clear that this is the article title, but when the whole phrase is linked, it leads the reader to suspect that the crisis has some other, more formal, name. By September 16, 1992, the day of [[Black Wednesday]] should have Black Wednesday delinked. The phrase is linked just three sentences earlier. Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)  Done Xan747 (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Succession and family Perhaps the most important family news regarding George Soros came out in June and was reported all over the world. Please add something to the article, here is a sample of the press coverage::: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/12/billionaire-george-soros-confirms-succession-wsj-interview.html 178.190.191.50 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Recent takeover of the polish newspaper "RZECZPOSPOLITA" The Soros owned firm "Pluralis" has bought the newspaper RZECZPOSPOLITA, to the dismay of the "FiDESZ" style "PiS" conservatives. https://wszystkoconajwazniejsze.pl/pepites/firma-george-sorosa-przejmuje-kontrole-nad-dziennikiem-rzeczpospolita/ 2A02:8108:1640:5282:8D8F:7EF3:9E82:7805 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC) Views on a one world government Views on the U.S.- Views on Europe- Views on relations between Europe and Africa- Views on China- Views on Russia and Ukraine- And yet no bold category stating direct "Views on a one world order" "Soros' vision of a "New World Order," which he has promoted for years." https://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-new-world-order-2011-9?op=1 I came here to read the article as I'm not really aware of who the man is, but the article missing this key point makes it appear Wikipedia is falling short of being what I deemed it was, unbiased. RobertFULL30 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)