Talk:George Soros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

250k Donated to Newsom Recall.[edit]

Could you add 250k donated to stop Gavin Newsom Recall in 2021. https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/07/newsom-recall-million-dollar-donors/

Recent takeover of the polish newspaper "RZECZPOSPOLITA"[edit]

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)[reply]

Adding "political donor" to the lead paragraph[edit]

Due to Mr Soro's large and consistent donations to political organisations and figures, surely it would make sense to add Political donor to the opening of the lead paragraph. Interested to here the thoughts about this from other users. Basedosaurus (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to this. And actually it should say "political activist", as Mr. Soros has used his funds extensively to fund political actions and activities that he supports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StorG (talkcontribs) 04:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Views on a one world government[edit]

Views on the U.S.- Views on Europe- Views on relations between Europe and Africa- Views on China- Views on Russia and Ukraine-

And yet no bold category stating direct "Views on a one world order"

"Soros' vision of a "New World Order," which he has promoted for years."

https://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-new-world-order-2011-9?op=1

I came here to read the article as I'm not really aware of who the man is, but the article missing this key point makes it appear Wikipedia is falling short of being what I deemed it was, unbiased. RobertFULL30 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"False" Claims[edit]

At the bottom of the intro, none of the sources provide evidence that far-right theorists have promoted FALSE claims that characterize Soros as a dangerous "puppet master" behind alleged global plots. There are claims, but they are not verifiably false, and being that the claims themselves have not been verified true or false, perhaps it is best to remove that entire sentence due to being speculative/opinionated. Ainchamama (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Smear," "bizarre," and "outlandish" do appear in those sources. No doubt you can find something that covers the "false" if you look around. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as Reuters, Fact check: False claims about George Soros – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with @Ainchamama: here. I'd also add that the paragraph itself is unsuited for the intro as it neglects to mention that there are many controversies and legitimate criticisms of Soros that are widespread (and subsequently covered throughout the article). The paragraph is so specific and dismissive of these "far right" criticisms of Soros that it suggests he is merely a charitable philanthropist victim to smears, when the reality is there are many others who are not "far right" who would argue that's far from the truth. I think we should just chuck the whole paragraph and replace it with something like "Soros remains a figure of great controversy, with both his business practices and political funding being the subjected to a mixture of praise and criticism alike. He has been the subject of many conspiracy theories, with many fringe political groups speculating as to the extent of his global influence in geopolitical and economic affairs". --Jkaharper (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your source for that paragraph will be? HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "legitimate criticisms"? There are none that I am aware of after reading our article (you don't mean Société Générale, do you? One comment made by Paul Krugman?) that would justify such a wishy washy statement in the lead that could appear to give credence to George Soros conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this might be news to you, but when you possess the power to crash a market (or to deepen a crash by betting on it), that has repercussions for national governments and for ordinary people. There's a huge ethical debate on whether that should be possible. Plenty of criticism of him and his practices online if you just look. Try here, here, here, and here. All pass WP:RS and are mainstream sources. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clicked the first link, it starts with New York (CNN) - Elon Musk launched a baseless Twitter attack on George Soros, a frequent target for antisemitic conspiracy theories, accusing the financier of hating humanity days after Soros disclosed having sold off a modest stake in Tesla. It goes on to cite no legitimate criticism of Soros, so an odd choice by you to present this as though it does. In fact it highlights the conspiracy theories... Soros, 92, is a longtime target of right wing conspiracy theorists and of antisemites. He is a prominent contributor to Democratic candidates and liberal causes. Open Secrets, which tracks political contributions, shows he contributed $50 million to the Democracy PAC II Superpac in November, and $125 million in the fall of 2022. He is also founder and the major contributor of the Open Society Foundations, with a stated aim of working for justice, democratic governance, and human rights. It has raised the ire of some authoritarian regimes, including that of Viktor Orban, prime minister of Soros’ native Hungary. Orban is an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, accused of his own authoritarian moves in Hungary. Attacks on Soros have increased in recent years alongside a broader increase in incidents of antisemitic attacks. The ADL said that US antisemitic incidents reached their highest level last year since the group began recording them in 1979. Then it continues with the rise of the right-wing on Twitter. The Guardian starts off mentioning unspecified "failures" in their subheading, then declares It is for this reason that Soros’s failures are so telling; they are the failures not merely of one man, but of an entire class – and an entire way of understanding the world. The JC notes that Soros is partisan. Shocker. WP:NEWSWEEK is unreliable and that's noted as an opinion piece written by a conservative, Josh Hammer, again complaining that Soros is partisan.
This isn't news to me. It's not news to anybody. You know what is news to me? You need to brush up on WP:CIVIL. I'm not responding to you again with that tone. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]