Talk:George Soros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Soros article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here.
Constructed languages
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Contents

[edit] Criticism Section

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

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

While I agree that Hastert's criticisms aren't particularly good ones, I think we should at least mention them briefly, because his position at the time as Speaker of the House, and the media coverage they received, makes them a notable part of the historical record. --Delirium 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while since this has been discussed. Can you please refresh our memories by specifying exactly what you would like to add? --Samiharris 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I had argued that there was no reason for having Hastert's comments in the article. They are baseless conspiracy theory garbage. Just because he was Speaker of the House does not make it notable. If there is an article on baseless allegations by politicians, then this belongs. It does not belong in an article on George Soros. Sposer 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You're simply wrong on that point. If the Pope attacked George Soros as the devil incarnate, that would be a notable criticism, even if the Pope had no good reason for his criticism: the fact that George Soros was attacked by the Pope would itself be news. Similarly, I think drawing fire from the head of a national legislature is generally newsworthy. Similar standards apply to other countries: when Fidel Castro makes baseless attacks on people, if that turns into a controversy and gets reported we report it as well. We're supposed to document notable events, regardless of how silly they are. --Delirium 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It is neither right nor wrong. I am stating an opinion, and it would be nice if you didn't speak in black and white terms, because this is not a black and white issue. First of all, in an article about George Bush for example, I would not include criticisms of him by Fidel Castro. It would be pointless and ridiculous. Second of all, there is no place for conspiracy theories in any article here, except an article on conspiracy theories. If there was to be any mention at all of Hastert's statements, the only way it should be stated is that George Soros, due to his generally Liberal agenda, is often the target of baseless conspiracy theories. If you are worried about POV, it can be made more neutral by pointing out the same is true for right-wing vis-a-vis left-wing theorists. Personally, I would not mention any of them at all. The separate article is the model used in the September 11 article. Feel free to create an article called "George Soros Conspiracy Theories" and link it to his bio. Wiki is not an outlet for furthering fringe statements. This becomes even more ridiculous since Hastert backed away from the smear statement by saying that he had a problem with non-profit organizations that Soros gives to. Sposer 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What is being proposed is unencyclopedic and has no place in Wikipedia.--Samiharris 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by titling this subhead "Criticism Section"? There is none, and the little criticism that can be dug up here and there is immediately dismissed as ridiculous. As it stands, this article is so pro-Soros, it's not even funny. Go no further than the introductory paragraph: if a sentence akin to "He peacefully promotes democracy in Eastern Europe" (throughout, we are treated to sentences like "He has peacefully promoted democracy in many countries") were to be found in an article about a conservative, it would readily get deleted or edited down, and rightfully so. I think a piece like the Investor's Business Daily editorial, The Soros Threat To Democracy, would help balance the article, but I'm so sure it will get deleted within a couple of hours, I wonder whether it's worth the effort. Asteriks 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't. If you have a problem with fawning phrases, fix the phrases in question. It'd be nice if more people did this to the article, instead of inserting random wingnut conspiracy theory garbage in the interest of being fair and balanced, which just gets reverted. Chris Cunningham 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that went even better than I thought it would. I tried adding a couple of sentences derived from the information in the article in question ('Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news. That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them. Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. … The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.'); and when I looked for the 'edit this page' button, it turns out that the article — in its entirely pro-Soros form — is protected, so not a whole hell of a lot of criticism, rightful or otherwise, stands much of a chance of appearing in this "encyclopedia". Asteriks 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Asteriks. 68.229.201.181 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed New Section-Market Cornering

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

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

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

Not sure he really cornered the market. He had huge positions and others followed him as I recall. He could not have pulled off the move if the ECU was fundamentally sound at its prescribed levels. He did not do anything illegal, which cornering the market is. Nor was it fraudulent. I seem to recall most people knowing exactly who was doing what at the time, but I am not 100% sure. That said, I need to look a bit more deeply, as I hope will others. Sposer 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Present writer has no knowledge of these larger trades, but does note that a fraud done in public, because the regulatory authorities dont understand the situation or have the staff to do anything about it, is not made ok or legal because it is being done in public in front of everyone. AND a fundamental weakness (e.g. as in today's dollar) does not EITHER make a massive manipulation OK. E.g. if someone had 100 trillion to short the presently weak dollar and did so to smash it so its present value became only a few mills of its present value ... the fact it is prsently not so strong would not make that massive manipulation and smashing LEGAL; the cornering of a market is where one or a group of investors have positions so large THEY CONTROl that pricing ... and so use that ability to control in manipulation that market up OR down. And they fact that market doodes sit and watch or that it all began with a weakness one way or the other, or that trader doodes applaud in no way means it was NOT illegal. /s/ t booon amaranth, madras india-grate markit mogool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.166.216 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Market cornering is a very serious accusation, and words like that should not be thrown around lightly. His trades in the Sterling were perfectly legal, and at the time no questions were raised concerning the propriety of them. Wikipedia cannot and should not characterize those trades in such a perjorative fashion.--Samiharris 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the words above say he did or did not corner, they make the point it IS an issue. Esp see Indonesia and Thai objection to Soros slamming the Thai baht & Indonesian rupee; same as as done with the UK lb sterling. And again, having some psycophant say it was not corning avoids considering if it was. As many market pros can see what it was and what it was not even if you cannot. /s/Dimentre Komenos Jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.21 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] IBD series

  • Interesting series from Investors Business Daily, related to Soros and MoveOn.org.[3] I'm sure it will be a battle getting any of this info included. - Crockspot 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd save yourself the effort of bothering: it's a distilled version of O'Reilly's unhinged flow-chart, which is pretty conclusively not getting in. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I only skimmed the article, but it struck me at first blush, without a detailed read, as a dispassionate critique of Soros and from an WP:RS source. So my first impression is that yes, it is includable. But I want to give the series a detailed read.--Samiharris 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? Dispassionate? It hits every base from "funding illegal immigrants" to "left wing judges siding with the terrorists" and back again. Boilerplate right-wing email fodder. Chris Cunningham 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, that was my initial reaction. But IBD is a respected newspaper and I want to give it fair consideration. Obviously if there is nonsense it mustn't be included.--Samiharris 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I only read the first article, but the paying 3/4 of a million to a NASA official to become a whistleblower is news to me. I don't even think O'Reilly has ever mentioned that one. Since you so graciously are forbidding me from even attempting to source any of this in the article, you can be quite certain that I now have a new little pet project, so clear your schedule. - Crockspot 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that was meant in jest, for the sake of my own faith in humanity. Chris Cunningham 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
For the most part. I'm also assuming your first reply was not completely serious as well, which is an easy assumption for me to make when the comments come from someone who dresses like a pirate. AArrrrrrghhhh. - Crockspot 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are one the losing side of this one Thumperward.. if the source meets the criteria for inlcusion into a WP:BLP, then that the bar to pass. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
And it doesn't, so it won't. See also: almost every other biography that Wikipedia's right-wingers spend their free time hijacking. It is literally a rewritten version of the last screed which didn't get in here. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am firmly middle of the road. The IBD series is well written and done by a respectable organization. While I wouldn't think it makes sense to put in the wildest accusations, some distillation of the series, discussing his connections to moveon, ACORN, etc. makes sense. The first article seems a bit over the top, but the others appear worth noting in here. I have always admired Soros as a businessman, but the article, overall, is mostly written with a pro-Soros POV. Sposer 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sposer. --Samiharris 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I also believe the article is written in a pro-Soros pov. I am troubled that a WP:RS valid source like IBD would be dismissed out of hand and rejected without any discussion. I am not saying this must be included yet.. I want to read it. But to reject it so fast is a red flag of pov problems. --Blue Tie 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an editorial. Editorials may contain facts. When they do, they MIGHT be reasonable sources of "factual" information. But they are also sources of opinion. And actually opinion is their main purpose. Normally I am opposed to editorials for these reasons. But I note that this one is not identified as the opinion of one person but it is the opinion of the whole IBD organization -- presumably the editorial staff, because it is headlined "Investors Business Daily" instead of the name of a person. When the organization puts its weight behind the opinion and not just a lone gunman editorializer, that gains some weight in my view. I would be much more trusting of the factual information contained in it. BUT... anytime that it moves into opinion we MUST NOT just quote it as though that opinion is wikipedia's opinion. We must attribute the opinion (to IBD in this case). We do not, however, need to attribute factual information (not expression of opinion) that is included.--Blue Tie 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Attribution, rather than using Wikipedia's voice, is always a good idea in my book. - Crockspot 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] this discussion is not going to accomplish much, by itself

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

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

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

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

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

How do we deal with it???

Smallbones 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and notability is not transferable. Given the current situation (where User:Crockspot, amongst others, has half-jokingly made it a project to insert further contentious information) I'm happy for it to remain protected for now. Wikipedia's tendency to be used as a platform for slander has yet to be truly addressed by the community as a whole, and unfortunately at this stage I don't think the community is capable of addressing such issues in the way it is of dealing with childish vandalism. The correct way to deal with it is to tighten WP:BLP and pay closer attention to those janitors who already support contentious BLP edits. I don't see a quick solution concerning this article, given Soros's current status as an email talking point. Chris Cunningham 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This email talking point should become transparent in some fashion then. It's pretty strange this article has been locked for so long. I propose an RfC. Maybe that is what is needed to finally resolve these issues and get the article out of being protected. MrMurph101 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] RfC

Fixed RFCxxx template below - section param doesn't need a "" wrapper. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

{{RFCbio| section=RfC !! reason=This article has been locked for months and editors can not come to an agreement on how to include critical material, or whether the critical material warrants inclusion !! time=02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)}}

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

I thinking of withdrawing this. The article isn't locked anymore which was the main reason I did this at the time. There hasn't been any response anyway so maybe they're backlogged or something else. I believe editors involved can discuss on this talk page and can go from there. If someone totally objects to this then I won't withdraw it but I don't think this RfC seems necessary anymore. I'm also not sure how I should go about withdrawing it. Should I just delete this section or do some sort of special thing? MrMurph101 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I wrapped the RFC template in nowiki, which has the same effect, for the time being. Just delete the RFC template, but leave the related section, discussion etc here so that in future people can see that an RFC was requested and why - then if the issue comes up again the editors then will at least be aware that it's been raised before (even if there was no comments). DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He peacefully promotes democracy in Eastern Europe

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

[edit] Wow. George Soros collapsed the Soviet Union!

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

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


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

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

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


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

He supported the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, as well as the Czechoslovakian human rights organization Charter 77.[1] "helping to topple totalitarian regimes in those countries," according to TIME Magazine.[2]
  1. ^ George Soros, A Biographical Note, dated May 2006, at www.georgesoros.com
  2. ^ "TIME's 25 Most Influential Americans" (04-21-1997). TIME. 

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

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

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

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

[edit] IBD stuff

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

[edit] CO's criticism sandbox

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

Yeah, the problem isn't with the writing style as much as it is with the substance. While I'm less concerned with the writing style of a hit-piece sub-article (which isn't likely to go away given current BLP policy enforcement levels), I wouldn't exactly call that an improvement. Chris Cunningham 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have a real problem with that as a possible subarticle. --Samiharris 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's in user space, and there are no blatant BLP violations, there's no point in handwringing over it. - Crockspot 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} I'm open to others editing it. Carbon Monoxide 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections Should be taken out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallbones 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the version that went in was less bad than the sub-page work, but I agree with the specific points raised. In particular, the "highlight the controversy" angle taken with the Hastert stuff doesn't belong here. Thoroughly-debunked personal criticism is only notable in situations where it personally affects the person in question; WP:NOT the New York Times, keen to circulate "controversy" wherever it's found. Chris Cunningham 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If criticism has been debunked then it would be better to include the criticism and the subsequent debunking of it and would be more likely to prevent edit wars. That is really the best way to settle the issue. Why don't you put an {{accuracy}} tag on this section which would note objections to this? MrMurph101 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine; it exists to present facts, not air unfounded accusations. It's ludicrous to suggest that tagging the section is an alternative to removing the bad parts; tags are there to remind people to clean things up, which in the case of an unfounded accusation would be to - remove it. Chris Cunningham 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
An alternative if you're not going to revert it so the idea is not so ludicrous but yet more intelligent. I disagree with the notion of not airing "unfounded accusations." That's one's POV. If it really is unfounded it should be noted and shown how it is not true. (See James Randi's million dollar challenge for an example of how to approach it. MrMurph101 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's policy, and I tired long ago of putting up with people who treat Wikipedia like a gossip magazine. Were these people to have their way, every article on a liberal figure in US history would contain huge laundry lists of stupid allegations, along with tedious lists of "this was also denied" statements. This is already happening in places. The million dollar challenge section is the key focus of the Randi article. This is a WP:BLP, and has different rules for notability. Chris Cunningham 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There are people on both sides who want to make "stupid allegations" on figures they have philosophical differences with and push their POV. It's not limited to one side of thinking I hope you know. By the way, BLP does not provide different rules for notability, just promotes better enforcement of them. I'm just saying it would cause less headaches and revert wars to acknowledge these assertions, accurate or not, and show how they're not true instead of always having to revert them when someone else comes around to put in bad stuff. If it's too tedious for you so be it. I realize the ideal would be not to have it in but that's impossible the way wikipedia operates. The best thing to do is come up with more consistent guidelines in how to deal with this matter. BLP is too interpretive on the subject as it stands and consensus from subject to subject is much too inconsistent on the standards of including controversial material. MrMurph101 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith discussion

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

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

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

- I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views.[1] -

  1. ^ George Soros, A Biographical Note, dated May 2006, at www.georgesoros.com
  2. ^ "TIME's 25 Most Influential Americans" (04-21-1997). TIME. 

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

Smallbones 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] THIS ARTICLE SUCKS!

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

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

[edit] Sorosites

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

[edit] John Magnier, Dermot Desmond

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

[edit] Soros's last name

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

The IPO was just changed, and I can't say that I'm entirely against the current format. On the other hand, a person's name should in general be pronounced the way that he or she pronounces it and he probably pronounces it Shorosh. This is at least the third time through on this so I retrieved the following from the archive: Smallbones (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
See [4]. Marcika seems to be a real Hungarian-American Brit, so is probably correct: "Shorosh." I've spent some time in Hungary, and this is the only way they pronounce it. On the other hand, I've only heard "Soros" in the US, but I guess I've never heard Soros say "Soros."
...

Smallbones 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm the one who 'corrected' the IPA. A lot of people change the pronunciation of their names when they emmigrate. I know I do. As for "correct" pronunciation, that's a matter of opinion. We should list the normal English pronunciation, and if that's different from how people pronounce their own name, we should include that as well, but clarify what we're doing. I went by an interview with Soros, where he was announced as ˈsɔrəs, and then mentioned as ˈsɔroʊs by his interviewer. He accepted those pronunciations. If he uses a Hungarian pronunciation himself, when speaking English, we should be able to find a record of that somewhere. Otherwise it's just speculation.
Oh, and Budapest is pronounced with an /s/. That is the correct English pronunciation, just as Paris is pronounced with an /s/ in English. kwami (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources/references lacking

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] I've removed the following - Reliable sources???

removed: "In April 2008, Soros hosted an event in his apartment that had guests such as David Brock of the self-described progressive watchdog group Media Matters and liberal commentator Paul Begala. Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements against the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, through a group called The Fund for America and Progressive Media, whose key backer, according to politico.com, is Soros. [2] Commentator Bill O'Reilly, who on numerous occasions has accused Soros of secretly backing what O'Reilly feels are "far-left" political causes, repeated Soros "wants to buy America" after learning about the event. [3]"

  1. ^ George Soros, A Biographical Note, dated May 2006, at www.georgesoros.com
  2. ^ "TIME's 25 Most Influential Americans" (04-21-1997). TIME. 

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

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

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

To say that politico has a right-wing orientation is to say TIME magazine has one too. Politico has been quoted on several news networks and has had many critical assessments of conservatives and Republicans too. It's absurd to say they are "right wing." This was perfectly sourced and apart of what the criticism Soros has been engaging in. The McCain campaign themselves thought it serious enough to address. I am putting it back in. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. Language is in NPOV and the sources are also attributed. Arnabdas (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Bill O'Reilly stuff is just name calling and doesn't belong. The words "Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements" do not strike me as NPOV. I'll list the question on whether Politico is a reliable source on the reliable source notice board and see what they think. Smallbones (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources and don't revert this material into the article again unless there is a consensus on this talk page that politico is a reliable source in the context of WP:BLP. Only one response at WP:RSN so far. It says include with the preface "According to the tabloid ..." If it is indeed a tabloid, it doesn't meet BLP requirements. Smallbones (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fair, I'll respect BLP and not put it in until consensus, but politico has been used by all three major cable news networks as a source. If it's good for all of them, why shouldn't it be for wikipedia? It definitely is far more credible than Media Matters or Huffington Post, and those are included as sources. The quote was one that the author said, not me. I was quoting him and I attributed it...he called them attack advertisements. Arnabdas (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been a week and no discussion as been made as per possible stonewalling. Politico is a reliable source used by all 3 major cable networks. I am putting it back in the article. Arnabdas (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)