Talk:George Soros/Archive 10
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm not really on board with
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- "has the air of validating the conspiracy theories"? *cough* — well OK then soibangla (talk) 22:45, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Why? soibangla (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
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
![]() | This edit request to George Soros has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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
![]() | This edit request to George Soros has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
![]() | This edit request to George Soros has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 2019Please 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)
Arthur J. Finkelstein campaign against SorosPlease 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
Robert Soros and Melissa SchiffRe 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019
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)
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)
Some examples of bias and editorializing that need to be addressed
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.
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)
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)
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)
Soros' Open Society Foundation found to have unprecedented influence on decision makings of the ECHRA 6-month investigation carried out by the independent organization European Centre for Law & Justice found that George Soros' Open Society Foundation had unprecedented influence on NGOs & judges at the European Court of Human Rights. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah-x3 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Matteo SalviniIt 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)
Does Trump also believe in conspiracy theories about Soros? Now I have the doubt.--Traiano91 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Moving Conspiracy theoristsIt should be a subsection under philanthropy. ToddGrande (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Liberal biasI'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)
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)
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 sectionIn reference to: 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)
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)
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]
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."[1] 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.[2] 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
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)
“Macedonia” is wrongThe 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)
SCOTUS rules against Open Society-yet another right wing conspiracy to be addedhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
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)
Disclosure of Soros ties to Wikimedia (and thus Wikipedia) fundingAs 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.[1] In addition, Wikipedia cites Tides Foundation as a donor.[2] Reuters cites Soros as a donor to Tides by way of Open Society Foundations.[3] This is listed on the Tides Foundation, as well.
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).
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)
2601:445:447F:1370:4184:2AFD:C32A:65F0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
2601:445:447F:1370:4184:2AFD:C32A:65F0 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 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)
Project SyndicateGeorge Soros is a regular columnist to Project Syndicate, this needs added to his wikipage.[1] --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)
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)
-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 FounderRobert 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)
George Soros - Education misrepresentation and falsehood/fraudThe 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)
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) ErrorThere 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 overkillThere are too many categories. I'll try to remove the redundant.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Change http:// URL to official website to https://Basically just the title. Jkhon0 (talk) 12:48, 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)
Black Lives Matter and the LGBT organizationWhy isn’t recognized his relationship with these organizations?? 2600:1700:6580:5230:BC39:D1FA:A37E:53BE (talk) 23:56, 7 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023
Please make two changes:
Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Succession and familyPerhaps 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 governmentViews 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) |