Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Please be more thorough in your reading of sources. Also, please cite a relevant policy the next time you claim we can't repeat something said in a reliable source. I'm unaware of any policy preventing us from quoting expert sources simply because their words were reported in another reliable source. In fact, I'm pretty sure ] like that are explicitly ''encouraged'' by policy. And you still haven't explained why '']'' is a "weak" source. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Please be more thorough in your reading of sources. Also, please cite a relevant policy the next time you claim we can't repeat something said in a reliable source. I'm unaware of any policy preventing us from quoting expert sources simply because their words were reported in another reliable source. In fact, I'm pretty sure ] like that are explicitly ''encouraged'' by policy. And you still haven't explained why '']'' is a "weak" source. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::You really don't understand how the currency markets work -- I believe you've been forthright about that. My comment stands. None of the other stuff ] "left-wing" which is what the text stated. Close but no cigar. Big difference. ]] 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::You really don't understand how the currency markets work -- I believe you've been forthright about that. My comment stands. None of the other stuff ] "left-wing" which is what the text stated. Close but no cigar. Big difference. ]] 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::So let me get this straight: You are (aside from making yet another personal attack for no reason other than pure pettiness at this point) asserting that "...he's a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in." doesn't support a claim of "left-wing philanthropy"? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
On the effects of dumping the ERM: . Third graph and second to last paragraph. L.R Wormwood is correct. Leaving the ERM *was* good for the UK (this should *not* be generalized to the case of Brexit, which is a different kettle of trout).
On the effects of dumping the ERM: . Third graph and second to last paragraph. L.R Wormwood is correct. Leaving the ERM *was* good for the UK (this should *not* be generalized to the case of Brexit, which is a different kettle of trout).
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Hungarian government started a "national consultation" on support of "Soros Terv" (Operation Soros) with 7 yes-or-no questions. The test is sent for every 18 and up citizen by mail, but also available online ( https://nemzetikonzultacio.kormany.hu/kerdessor ). Deadline of the test-filling is 2017 November 24. User:tothaa
George Soros
Misplaced Pages has sometimes been accused of left-favoring bias. I'm undecided on the issue. However, I've noticed that if the subject of an article is a conservative and there is any controversy surrounding the person, that controversy is nearly always covered in the article. I was disappointed to find, upon reading this article about a person clearly on the left of the political/social spectrum, that the controversies were not discussed. And the reason is not because of a lack of controversy. Some of the controversy about George Soros is bogus, but some is legitimate and should be discussed.
Conversely, it might be worthwhile to have a section which tries to objectively discuss the widespread conspiracy theories about how all "liberal" (broadly construed) politicians in the world are given marching orders by George Soros. I wouldn't know where to start because I don't know where this comes from, but according to alt-right media outlets everything from the Alabama Senate election to the Canadian purchase of Australian F18s is part of some great George Soros funded conspiracy. He's become a vague boogeyman for discrediting any and all progressive governments and policies by just saying that he somehow is behind them. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:3D36:D37B:F53B:D875 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know all that much about Soros. I don't follow him in the news or anything. I haven't even read this entire article. What I know about Soros has come entirely from me fact-checking claims made by conservative/right-wing people about him. So far, every single one of those claims has turned out to be false. He doesn't own Snopes.com; he didn't help fund the Third Reich, he's not an arms dealer, etc, etc, etc.
But the level of hatred I see towards him, coupled with my knowledge of basic human nature tells me that yes, there should be some legitimate controversies surrounding him. So I believe that there are RSes documenting something that Soros apparently did wrong, or at least questionable. So please go find those sources and bring them here. I will happily help work on a "Controversies" section with anyone who can track down some of those sources. But if they don't exist, then perhaps it's time to stop wishing for a controversies section that will never exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
These are avoided on the grounds that they breach Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The existence of such sections in some articles does not mean they are admissible here. It is usual to create new sections after those already existing. For that reason I have moved your contribution. Philip Cross (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The article as it stands only mentions that Soros is disliked by European nationalists in the introduction. He is also hated by the actual left (socialists) in Europe for his subversive activities in overthrowing the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, which we should mention too. It is literally just Anglo-American bourgeois liberals and imperialists, along with their affiliaties/proxies/paid agents who are on side with him. Here is a quote from Soros mentioning this; “I have now come under attack in several countries: in Hungary from Hungarian nationalists; in Romania from the Vatra Romanesca; in Slovakia from the communist party newspaper Pravda; in the Soviet Union by the organ of the hard-liners Sovietskaia Russiya” from his book "Underwriting Democracy." Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This biography isn't the place for you to discuss your wild fantasies about "bourgeois liberals and imperialists." Unless you have a source more meaningful than a FOX News opinion column, we've no need to go any further here. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for conspiracy-mongering about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The source cited in the news article is George Soros' own book "Underwriting Democracy" and it is a direct quote from himself about which political tendencies have raised opposition to him. It is important to denote in the article that Eastern European socialists dislike him as well and are not in the same category as what the article calls "American progressives and liberals" (which I more scientifically refer to in this talk page as bourgeois liberals). As the article stands it gives the impression that only the right dislike him, which isn't the case. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(which I more scientifically refer to in this talk page as bourgeois liberals). That's a rather ignorant approach to "science". In the US, the vast majority of inner city (read: poor and destitute) residents with political affiliations identify as liberal or progressive. Even rural areas with higher poverty tend to have a slightly higher rate of liberalism than rural areas less affected by poverty. In fact, the majority of non-whites in the US identify as liberal and progressive. In contrast, the vast majority of the top 1% identify as conservative or right-wing, and those minorities who identify that way tend to be wealthier than the average resident and far wealthier than other minorities in their group.
Not to mention the variety of flavors of liberalism. There's "west coast" or "California liberals" who are the closest thing to what you describe, except that calling them bourgeois is a bit of a stretch, as they tend to be solidly working-to-middle-class. The wealthiest of them also tend to be far more libertarian than liberal. But then there's the "ghetto liberal", the "Yankee liberal", the "New Southern Democrats", the "Secular liberal" and the "college progressive", all of whom go after each other hammer & tongs every chance they get.
If you're going to make statements about American politics, you'd do best to learn a few things about American politics, first. It's an amazingly complex subject; not easily summarized or understood, and has little relationship with politics in the rest of the world because 'Murika!
That being said, I don't agree that it's "important" to draw a distinction between European communists and American liberals, but if you can find a reliable source (an autobiography won't cut it) that does so, I wouldn't object to a sentence of clarification. I don't think the distinction is a false one (American liberals tend to be economically liberal as well, unlike European leftists, for example), or even that it's a particularly unimportant one, just that it's not necessary here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"American liberals tend to be economically liberal as well, unlike European leftists, for example"
Which is the crux of the issue. American liberals are supporters of free-market capitalism, unlike socialists, who Soros states have voiced opposition to him (including in the Soviet Union when it existed). American liberals also, like Soros' Open Society Foundation, are largely in favour of advancing the cause of homosexuality, unlimited abortion and so on in foreign countries where these topics are highly unpopular (under the banner of "human rights"), which is not typically the case with socialist governments.
Back to the topic at hand. To be fair the article already does name and shame American liberals in the introduction. All I am suggesting is we give European socialists some credit in the introduction as well for pushing back against Soros, instead of giving all the plaudits to the nationalists. Another example:
"In March 1997, the Soros foundation froze all payments to Belarusan users in the light of political developments and anti-democratic reforms by the Lukashenko government. It subsequently became clear that this freezing of Soros' funds was the result of the forcible closure of Soros-Belarus by the KGB for `donating grants to people from the political opposition' (`Repression in Belarus', 1997)." - Kay, R. (2000) Russian Women and their Organizations: Gender, Discrimination and Grassroots Women's Organizations, 1991-96, Springer, 0333977750 (pg. 249)
Here it is if you missed it: Kay, R. (2000) Russian Women and their Organizations: Gender, Discrimination and Grassroots Women's Organizations, 1991-96, Springer, 0333977750 (pg. 249), oh and the other reliable source on the topic, which for some reason we are supposed to conveniently pretend isn't good enough: Soros, George (1991) Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterprise and Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe, The Free Press, 0029302854. You're welcome. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeating yourself doesn't make your proposed content any less WP:SYNTH, and I've already responded to your proposal of using an autobiography (this isn't a personal preference, but our policy). Also, I didn't thank you. I don't generally thank people for repeating themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Too little discussion of the vast number of conspiracy theories attached to Soros.
This article does need more info on the the fact that he is the subject a lot of conspiracy theories, especially from right-wing circles. We need at least a paragraph that states that he is the subject of many conspiracy theories, including many that claim he is secret part of a plot to create a new world order government. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:EC4B:36F1:FAB:62FD (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is my first time posting here on wikipedia. Hope I'm doing this right. Soros is the subject of tremendous amount of conspiracy theories, and there are many people who say this is an example of dog-whistle antisemitism. OK Sources:
Here is a recent article on Salon.com. Now... I imagine that Salon may seem to be a not-impartial source. Here is from February 20th edition of NYTimes, TITLE: Right-Wing Media Uses Parkland Shooting as Conspiracy Fodder. "They have been portrayed as puppets being coached and manipulated by the Democratic Party, gun control activists, the so-called antifa movement and the left-wing billionaire George Soros."
Here is a source from Media Matters. Showing a video from CNN, "KINGSTON: I would say to you very plainly that organized groups that are out there like George Soros are always ready to take up the charge, and it's kind of like instant rally, instant protest and those groups are ready to take it -- take it to the streets." Captain-taikongren (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Captain-taikongren: There is a discussion below about this same subject you may be interested in. Those sources look good at first glance to me. They might be useful in expanding the section under discussion below. (which is currently not present on the page, but which will almost certainly return shortly). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Could you explain why we need this section? It's redundant and the English is terrible. Soros' political views are discussed extensively, as is his status as the "bugaboo of European nationalists". FYI, the 1992 shorting on the pound was actually good for the UK economy (this isn't controversial). The source doesn't claim that it was "economy damaging", as you have. It also doesn't claim that he is an object on hatred on the right because of the Malay/UK shorting. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Literally every claim you've made here is easily disproven:
There's nothing wrong with the grammar or syntax. It's certainly not "terrible" by any reasonable standard.
Soros is the political right's preferred liberal boogyman. This is easily verified by the RSes, but not so frequently covered. Leaving out mention of this would be the definition of WP:UNDUE.
The claim in your edit summary that the right-wing conspiracy theories are adequately covered elsewhere in the article is flatly wrong.
The source plainly states that Soros' short sale "...broke England's monetary system overnight". To summarize that as "economy damaging" is perfectly acceptable.
The source plainly states that "From , he's become a singular target of unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories, in part because he has so few peers on the left. "
No-one wants to lend credence to right-wing conspiracy theories less than I (an admittedly liberal skeptic), but there's really no way for us not to cover them here. They're just far too prominent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Okay, so you don't understand monetary policy. The phrase "broke the Bank of England" refers to the UK withdrawing from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It doesn't imply it "damaged" the economy--the devaluation was actually good for the UK economy. The whole point of the exercise was that Soros identified that the rate at which the UK had been brought into the ERM was too high. I missed the connective "From there", but I strongly dispute the suggestion that the irrational animus towards him on the part of the fringe-right has anything to do with Black Wednesday. I doubt you will find any other references in support of that claim. Also, "Criticism from Right Wing" is barely English. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Since I doubt that we will agree on this, and since the talk page and the archives are littered with people asking for a "criticism" section, I would suggest that we have an WP:RFC? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The section tittle could use the word "the", but it's still perfectly legible without it. If you don't like "economy damaging", then change it. We can quote the source if you think that's better, e.g. "Due in part to his trading against the English Pound..." but I would point out that the article you linked to states that the event "...had arguably put Britain into recession as large numbers of businesses failed and the housing market crashed."
@SPECIFICO: Your edit summary is just this side of nonsensical. How is business insider a "weak source"? What statements do you think are incorrect? Please try to engage in the discussion rather than trying to instigate an edit war. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This sentence: "...had arguably put Britain into recession as large numbers of businesses failed and the housing market crashed", refers to the effects of the high interest rates before Britain fell out of the ERM, not the effects of Black Wednesday. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this is easily arguable based on a reading of some of the sources as well as this article and the black wednesday article, but as I said, I'm not opposed to changing that text to something less dire-sounding, so long as it's supported by the source. Regarding the link between those and the right wing CSes, the source makes that rather explicit. If you can find a source that contradicts that, I'd be quite happy to include a bit from that source's perspective, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
L.R. Wormwood, I apologize for not responding to the question earlier, but I'd be perfectly happy to have an RfC. As you said, I'm no expert on monetary policy, so I don't want to get too deep into an argument about that, and as I've said before, I'm neither an expert on Soros; knowing of his existence mainly through the conspiracy theories my right-wing relatives constantly try to convince me are true. From what research I've done since first starting to edit here, it seems like there really should be something about this. I suggest we title the section in question simply "Conspiracy theories" as there are no left-wing CSes about him that I'm aware of to require us to specify that it's only about the right-wing ones. Would you care to write a proposed wording for the section (there are some additional sources just added by a brand-new editor in the section directly above this), or should I? If I write it, I will use the wording "trading against the English Pound on Black Wednesday" instead of "economy breaking", since you disagree with the latter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are ample sources that say his positions may have precipitated the devaluation and its consequences. That's not the same as causing it. The conditions were preexisting, and he recognized them. This should be separated from the question of the "Left-wing" tag that was part of the bit I removed. That label is mentioned in passing in one person's words, not the journalist's even, and is not something we can say in WP's voice based on the cited source. SPECIFICOtalk23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are ample sources that say his positions may have precipitated the devaluation and its consequences. That's not the same as causing it. Um, actually that's literallythe same thing as causing it. But I understand what you're getting at (you meant he hastened or aided the devaluation), and frankly don't see the point. Have you read anything that I've said in this thread? I've already said I'm not interested in arguing this anymore and offered a compromise that doesn't say anything about the possible broader impacts of his actions.
That label is mentioned in passing in one person's words, not the journalist's even, and is not something we can say in WP's voice based on the cited source It's said or implied five times in the source. Twice by quoted interviewees, and three times by the author.
The first quoted interviewee is Joseph Uscinski, a prominent expert on conspiracy theories who mentions it in passing and both by contrast and by implication ("What makes the Soros thing interesting is that most of the conspiracy theories about rich people tend to be made by people on the left about people on the right,"). Admittedly, that's a weak mention. However, it's blatantly not the only mention.
The second interviewee who said it is Timothy Melley, a Professor of English, Affiliate of American Studies and Director of the Humanities Center at Miami University as well as the author of Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America. who said it to specify which political ideology Soros subscribes to ("It's a projection of right-wing billionaire behavior onto a prominent left-wing billionaire,").
It was mentioned in passing, and again through implication by the author ("From there, he's become a singular target of unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories, in part because he has so few peers on the left.")
It was explicitly stated once by the author ("To the left, he's a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in.")
Finally, it was implied through a simile a third time by the author ("The left's Koch brother").
Please be more thorough in your reading of sources. Also, please cite a relevant policy the next time you claim we can't repeat something said in a reliable source. I'm unaware of any policy preventing us from quoting expert sources simply because their words were reported in another reliable source. In fact, I'm pretty sure secondary sources like that are explicitly encouraged by policy. And you still haven't explained why Business Insider is a "weak" source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You really don't understand how the currency markets work -- I believe you've been forthright about that. My comment stands. None of the other stuff verifies "left-wing" which is what the text stated. Close but no cigar. Big difference. SPECIFICOtalk01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: You are (aside from making yet another personal attack for no reason other than pure pettiness at this point) asserting that "...he's a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in." doesn't support a claim of "left-wing philanthropy"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
On the effects of dumping the ERM: . Third graph and second to last paragraph. L.R Wormwood is correct. Leaving the ERM *was* good for the UK (this should *not* be generalized to the case of Brexit, which is a different kettle of trout).
Also, that one isn't necessarily a "right wing" criticism. At the time, Soros actions were criticized mostly by left wing individuals (like Paul Krugman). Only later, when the alt-right needed a fodder for their conspiracy theories did this one get thrown in with the other stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
For the third time: That's fine, I'm not interested in arguing that point. I'm not very interested in or knowledgeable of monetary policies of the UK. But the fact that Soros is the subject of numerous right-wing conspiracy theories is well-documented and the objections thus far to including material about it have been almost entirely spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.00:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
