Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Hello Kaihsu, it is not clear: what is the relationship with Soros to Project Syndicate? Thanks. -- Viajero 15:43, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's "partly" funded by his Open Society Institute. That's the only connection I see. A-giau 08:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would dispute that the following sentence is NPOV, which, given the lack of cited sources, is a bit of a worry: These (Soros' organisations) encourage political activity to focus on small-scale volunteer work, promote hierarchy and secret decision making, and discourage civil society from considering fundamental or systematic changes to the free market economic model. -- Pratyeka 13:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree. Although I had been watching this page, I missed that addition. I have moved the whole civil society from considering fundamental or systematic changes to the free market Pratyeka 00:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Two dates are given for the book The Bubble[[User:

Apart from the fact that some Americans consider it to be a derogatory term (!), I really can't see that it wouldand his views on capitalism as a way to empower the populac, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His name in Hungarian is Soros György [read:SHOW-rosh DYEORDY]. (In Hungarian the surname is mentioned first.) - Marcika 16:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reflexivity link goes to "Reflexive relation" which is really nothing to do with the George Soros usage of reflexivity. At the moment it seems that Wikipedia has no definition of reflexivity as would apply to George Soros.

How was George Soros 14 when Germany occupied Austria, 'at the end of the war?' Austria was one of the first occupied countries, and he was 9 when the war broke out. So, if this is all correct, he was trading foreign currency as a 'young man' at the age of 11ish? Someone needs to recheck their facts. 128.194.54.175 19:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully - Hint: Hungary is not the same as Austria (not since WWI, in any case). -- Marcika 22:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have the reference, but in his biography (book by former NY Times reporter and OSI employee) it was stated that the family changed its name to Soros only near the end of WWII.

make that 1936 (as in current text)

Hi... isn't the second half of the quote from Victor Niederhoffer (in the "Philosophy" section) somewhat irrelevant? It is no longer about Soros but about Niederhoffer's personal views on the market. Thanks. -- md

I agree, and I've removed the second half. -Willmcw 03:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fluterst, there are many many sources for Soros' involvement (not just financial) in the Georgian revolution. Just google for it or search on LexisNexis and you'll find a number of newspaper articles describing his involvement.

• "It's generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who planned Shevardnadze's overthrow" (Globe and Mail, Nov 26, 2003) mirror of the article
• "Former President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze has accused American financier George Soros of organising the events that led to the coup d'etat in that Caucasian republic." (Pravda.ru reports about Rossian TV interview, Dec 01, 2003, [1])
• "The foundation’s activities have included organizing training programs for new council members; building democratic relationships between representatives and constituents; encouraging transparency and accountability; raising public awareness about human rights; educating young people as leaders..." Soros Open Society website Georgia

I edited the family section. Mr. Soros only has five children. Paul is his brother, not his son; nor does he have a child named Paul by Susan. He only has two children by Susan. Friend of the Family

I think the new section on opposition to the Soviet Union is great, but it is obviously POV. Some of the facts should go in other sections, maybe a link to the New Stateman with the quote. In short something should be done in that section, but I don't know what.

There's a minor problem with pronounciation. Soros uses the Hungarian pronouciation in Hungary (show rosh), but (sore oss) elsewhere. BTW, the name means "beer" in Hungarian and is unique to his family.

I never heard him use "sore oss". Other people who do not know how to pronounce it use it that way. BTW, the name does not mean "beer" in Hungarian (that would be "sör" or "sörös", notice the umlauts). -- Marcika 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the Schwartz spelling of his original name is correct when used in the US, but probably incorrect in Hungary. These all might be too complicated and minor to include in the article.

Since Schwartz is a Yiddish name, the spelling is probably correct. (It might be "Schwarz", but I couldn't verify it over the web either way...) -- Marcika 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re last edit. In Hungary the family name is always first, so his birth name really is Schwartz Gyorgy. The derivation of his new family name as coming from the Esparanto "we soar" is undocumented and I think it's proper to remove it until it is documented. There are several possible sources where this might be discussed, e.g. in the 2 long biographies. I'm pretty sure it's not in one of them and there was a fairly long dicussion on the choice of the name. Smallbones 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about reversing the names...I assumed it was a typo. I had no idea that Hungarians put the family name first. Who'd've thunk it?

With respect to the Esperanto reference, I checked an on-line Esperanto dictionary (there are such things) and "soros" came up blank. I'll check this further.

Adam Holland 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this paragraph back to the paragraph about insider trading, even though... The French insider trading conviction looks pretty bogus to me (e.g. so many years after the fact, no jail time, "minor" fine, and who else have they ever convicted?) but it does need to be covered. The Famous partners stuff is interesting, but not well done yet, e.g. V.N. is probably one of the most interesting, most intelligent, and most modest traders of the century, but not one of the greatest! I don't think he was a partner. Smallbones 10:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous Partners Soros has had three main partners at Quantum fund during his career. The first Was Jim Rogers, the cofounder of the fund, the Second Victor Niederhoffer, one of the greatest traders in history, the third Stanley Druckenmiller, who ran both Quantum Fund and his own fund Duquense. Currently his two sons are in command at Quantum."

Moved from top of the talk section

Since mention is made of Soros's Jewish origins, and his criticism of Jews and Israel, I thought it part of the story to mention his lack of involvement in the Jewish community and his failure to contribute to Jewish charities. Incorrect 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted the edit because it's unverifiable. (It's also, in my opinion, not notable, even if true.) If you have a reputable source for this, and think it's relevant, feel free to put it back in. dbtfz^talk 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the source is the opinion journal sectin of the wall street journal of 3/3/2004 as follows: No less pertinent in this connection is Mr. Soros's problematic relationship to his own Jewishness. Though he often claims authority for his views by invoking his experience under the Nazis--he confided to the Washington Post that some of the things President Bush says "remind . . . me of the Germans"--he is strikingly aloof from his Jewish origins. None of his vast philanthropy has been directed toward Israel, and his coldness toward the Jewish state has on occasion shaded into outright hostility: in a speech last May to the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research, Mr. Soros likened the behavior of Israel to that of the Nazis, invoking some psychological jargon about victims becoming victimizers.

It is not only Israel that Mr. Soros abjures but Jewish charities in general, an attitude he attributes to his observations of the Judenrat, or Jewish council, that the Nazis created in Budapest, for which he worked as a courier, and by a rather weird experience with the Jewish Board of Guardians during his years in London. If blaming Jewish organizations--or Israel--for the works of the Nazis is hard to fathom, his attitude toward the Board of Guardians is no more explicable. It seems he appealed to it for financial support after breaking a leg, but the board arranged instead for him to receive a British government stipend. When he wrote an aggrieved letter deploring this as a tawdry way for "one Jew [to] treat . . . another in need," the board backed down and provided him with a cash allowance for the duration of his recovery. Later, he would confess insouciantly to his biographer the reason he had been so angry: He had already arranged to receive the government payment and had hidden this fact from the board in the hope of receiving duplicate benefits. It was, he said, "a double-dip," and one that "solved all my financial problems." "My Jewishness [does] not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty," Mr. Soros explains. About this he is certainly correct. "I [take] pride in being . . . an outsider who [is] capable of seeing the other point of view." About this he is correct as well, if by "other" we understand "adversary." In any event, this flight from Jewish particularism into a willed universalism is itself a familiar reflex, if not a full-fledged syndrome, among many Jews in the modern era, one of whom, a Yiddish-speaking philologist, was sufficiently inspired by it to invent Esperanto. In Mr. Soros, it has been taken to a startling extreme.

I believe the above has now properly sourced the statement which I will, without objection, reinstate - if anyone wants to delete it again, feel free, I'm out of here, getting into editing wars is not my idea of fun. Incorrect 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this seems POV, e.g. the word "abjure" which is something like "a solemn rejection." I haven't read the WSJ piece, but I'd think that plain old critisizm of Isreal wouldn't qualify as "abjuring." Also critisizing somebody for not giving charity to a specific group seems to me to be POV all in itself. Who should we mention this about and who would we leave out this information about. Everybody doesn't donate to some group. For instance, why aren't you donating to Inuit charities? I'll strip the current comment down to what seems like plain facts. Smallbones 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage now reads: "He does not provide philanthropy to the state of Isreal or to causes that are exclusively Jewish. (See his commentary in the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2004).". The piece cited is not by Soros; it is an anti-Soros opinion piece by Joshua Muravhcik of the American Enterprise Institute. Also, it is real wrong to spell it "Isreal". I'm not going to edit the passage myself because that would suggest endorsement of it being in the article at all. Personally, it strikes me as a weaselly way of calling Soros a self-hating Jew. dbtfz^talk 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking that some of this could be taken at face value. Obviously not. Stripping it down to the bare facts, just showed that they raelly aren't facts at all. Smallbones 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I think removing the edit was probably best. There is a fact here, namely that someone claimed in an opinion piece that Soros "abjures" Jewish charities. But if that were stated clearly, it would not seem particularly relevant or notable. It appears that Soros has written about this matter somewhere, and it could very well be worth noting in the article, but someone should take the time to do the actual research and cite Soros himself. dbtfz^talk 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous that he hates Israel and isolates himself from Jewish organizations. A man with great power, he is a total waste to Jews. Alexisrael

Seems I once read somewhere, Soros was a Reagan supporter, but his views have cahnged over the years from Center-Right to Center-Left and some would argue "far Left", any documentation on this? Seems he became active due to his opposition of Bush?

- Soros has always been committed to open societies (as per Popper's concept), and this has been a hallmark of both his philosophy and his philanthropy. I don't think it's too difficult to see Soros as supporting Raegan (in a fight against closed societies in formerly communist countries) and opposing Bush due to seeing him as a fundamental threat to open society (e.g. the Patriot act in the US with increased surveillance of US citizens, increased police and government powers with no oversight, deliberately supporting the shredding of the geneva convention by instructing senior counsel to find ways around it, by advocating US use of torture, by setting up US torture facilities in Gauntanamo bay etc, by escalaating the use of extraordinary rendition and the use of torture in allied countries rather than on US soil, etc) in this light. It seems entrely consistent to me - Soros has been committed to the same principles in an ongoing fashion - an open society. Raegan was for it, Bush by his actions seems to be clearly against it. In short, Bush seems to advocating and doing exactly what Soros spent his life fighting, due to his former experiences in Europe. LMackinnon 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The possessive should be "Soros's" not "Soros' ", see Apostrophe. This is especially so, if the last s in the name is pronounced sh as is proper in the Hungarian. Occasionally some authorities allow Charles' instead of Charles's, but nobody would say goulash' instead of goulash's

The guide I use allows omission of the apostrophe only for Jesus and Moses. Maybe Soros supporters think he's as good a man as these biblical figures. --Wing Nut 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives oppose Soros for his liberal activism:

• From abortion rights groups to drug reform initiatives, Soros' domestic funding generally ends up in the hands of liberals. [2]
• Soros ... has expressed outrage at the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially its decision to invade Iraq.
• The self-proclaimed atheist also created the Project on Death in America to generate debate about the dying process and "alleviate unnecessary suffering."
• Among the beneficiaries of Soros' largesse is the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group
• Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, an authority on Christian values, said Soros wants to destroy the values on which the United States was founded. Williams called Soros "morally bankrupt".

  "He hates God and his biblical principles. He hates everything that's godly," Williams said. "He's jumping up and down at the thought that same-sex marriages could happen in this country. It's a direct assault on the church, the institutions that restrain and restrict our behavior and remind us of the standard of morality and moral absolutes."

• "No one knows what demons drive Mr. Soros to consistently fund anti-family agendas," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America. "But he seems determined to turn the world upside down and replace morality with immorality."
• Robert McGinnis, a former vice president of the Family Research Council who researched Soros' philanthropy while working there, said

  "U.S. citizens need to be wary of the fact that he is embracing a pro-drug, anti-life agenda."

• The Capital Research Center, which tracks philanthropists like Soros, found that the Open Society Institute has a pattern of giving to liberal groups that support drug legalization, euthanasia, immigrant entitlements and feminism.

  "There is a consistent thread through everything he does," said John Carlisle, editor of the center's Organization Trends and Foundation Watch. "He's a devout secular ideologue."

Some of the above should go in the criticism section. --Wing Nut 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a strident attack on Soros by Michael Savage (commentator):

• "So this man compares the death of 3,000 Americans to radical Muslim hijackers and murders, to the humiliation of a number of Iraqi prisoners, by a very small number of American troops. This is called the big lie. And if you tell a big lie often enough it will become the truth. That's what Goebbels, Hitler's media man, said, and that's what Soros and the others at this Communist rally yesterday, call Take Back America or doing. It's unbelievable to me. And he keeps doing it, and doing it, and doing it. And this does remind me of a very dangerous time in the past. This man is a clear and present danger to America. He's declared war on America ..." [3] --Wing Nut 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you a right wing nut or a left wing nut?? Smallbones

Who exactly made Armstrong Williams "an authority on Christian values"? Armstrong Williams, I'm guessing. More disturbingly, somebody put "Jewish" in front of "financial speculator" in the introductory statement about Soros' notability.

This isn't a matter of simply including the fact of Soros' ethnic Jewishness in the story. That fact already was where one would naturally expect it, under the heading "family"! The tactic of inserting "Jewish" as an adjective in front of "financial speculator" is a matter of playing to deadly stereotypes. --Christofurio 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to revert back to my previous edits, but did so in this case because the edits by Eppeflesh strike me as being anti-Jewish. I know this is a sensitive issue, so I'll ask other editors to take a look and see if I'm missing something or reading something in that's not there. Personally, I'm a non-practicing Espiscopalian.(Is that redundant?) Smallbones 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I am Jewish. The edits are not anti-Jewish. They simply reflect the fact that Soros is, perhaps as a result of his background, disinclined to support Jewish causes. If I were to seek to put in his anti-Jewish quotes, I would put in the one about his view that Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism.

All in all, I appreciate your sensitivity, but would ask that you put back the language that you just took out. Thanks.

Epeefleche --Epeefleche 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So for example, that language about how a father's effort to save his family's life was a "charade" was necessary to show why that father's son doesn't support Jewish causes? No sale. --Christofurio 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase charade is not important. What is important is that he, from an early age, had to conceal the fact that he was Jewish to survive. Nothing anti-semitic about that. That sentence can be revised as follows if you think for some reason that it is anti-semitic (which I, frankly, do not see).

"The Soros family pretended to be Christian, splitting up with forged papers to protect them from discovery, to survive the Nazi search for Jews."

The complaint above was that the entry was anti-semitic. I hope this addresses those concerns.

BTW, this is a fact pointed out in many writings on Soros, including p. 27 of Robert Slater's biography of him. --Epeefleche 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "charade" is pretty important, in that it indicates bias. If Robert Slater's biography uses that word in this context, then shame on him. Also, to say that the Nazis were just "searching" for Jews rather understates the reason for the forgeries, doesn't it? What did they plan to do when they found a few? Pass out dreidels? There's much else that's wrong with this passage, and if you can't see it than I understand why you couldn't even see the problem with the word "charade." --Christofurio 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=====================

How about helping me by "fixing" it then?

I believe that is what wilkipedia suggests.

I expect that the phrase "to survive the Nazi search for Jews" might, in the mind of some, suggest that the search was for a reason other than passing out dreidels. But feel free to amplify, if you believe that that, coupled with the other references to the Holocause earlier in the paragraph ["... Nazi Germany ... started exterminating over 440,000 Hungarian Jews"] is not enough.

I don't have a quarrel with making sure that this is not anti-semitic. But it would perhaps be of some small assistance if you were to provide suggestions.

--Epeefleche 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Smallbones, I would respectfully request that you undo your revert in accordance with the below Wikipedia policy:

"Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. "

I think I'm avoiding a problem by calling in other editors. The tone of this and a couple previous edits seemed to me to be somewhat aggressive, as if you are trying to prove some moral point. If it's just the 3 of us here to decide, I think your edit stays out. There are some facts that can be put in - without loaded language, maybe "To survive the Nazi hunt for Jews, the Soros family split up, used forged papers, and pretended to be Christian." I'll let others decide. Smallbones 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me for that sentence. There certainly isnt any intent here to be anti-semitic. Just to point out the important points that he avoids supporting Jewish causes and Israel with his philanthropy, and an important part about his past that relates to how he had to distance himself from his Jewishness to survive. Shall we now revert? Thanks. --Epeefleche 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Whoops .. and oh ... the Wikipedia suggestion, unless I misread it, is to first take the approach I quoted above, rather than revert the language and then call in others. Thanks. --Epeefleche 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might quote the pertinent language from the Robert Slater biography you've cited as your source. We can work from that -- without committing copyvio, of course. --Christofurio 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we shouldn't leap from the premise that someone doesn't contribute to a certain cause to the inference that this person avoids contributing to that cause. Maybe he just has other things that strike him as more pressing. That hardly requires psychoanalysis. There are more than a billion things that even a billionaire could contribute to, so inevitably there are some he doesn't. Until you quote the specific wording of the Slater passage you've referenced, I can't say that you've made any kind of a case for this sort of thing at all. I bet he hasn't contributed any money to, say, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. This doesn't mean he's anti-SETI or really ... anything. Doesn't warrant grubbing in his youth for traumas that he can supposedly "avoid" by not giving money to SETI. So at best this all still sounds irrelevant, and at worst it still sounds like, "Gee those sneaky people, look at what they did to avoid being murdered. What charades!" --Christofurio 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tied up for the moment, but will try to handle next week. As to whether that inference is any leap of faith, you might find this interesting. There is a lot of this stuff out there, from both the right and the left, the jews and the antisemites, if u take a glance at the web. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10781 --Epeefleche 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "lot of stuff out there" in general that out to be kept out of encyclopedias. --Christofurio 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two versions of a paragraph that has been undergoing much back and forth revision. Let's please compare them and see which best represents the facts as they can be documented. I believe that the only documentation relevent here is from George Soros's own writings. If he hadn't written on this, nobody would know anything about it. So it seems that a citation from one of Soros's books or interviews is required, in order to keep this at all. Smallbones 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. One of the many false identities later reported by George, was the role as the son of a Hungarian official named Baumbach, who, according to George, delivered deportation notices to Jews and confiscated their property, while at the same time protecting George. This particular false identity is used by Soros's political opponents [4] to critisize his current political beliefs.

B. To save his family, Tivadar gave his children false identities and bribed Hungarian Christians to present them as their own children. George took the role of the son of an official of Hungary’s fascist government named Baumbach. According to George, he went with Baumbach to deliver deportation notices to other Jews and helped him confiscate their property.

The main difference is the last sentence in B. Can you document that Soros said that he went with Baumbach in order to deliver the notices and to help him confiscate the property. This is quite different from accompanying Baumbach, while Baumbach did these thing. Time to cite your source! The last sentence in A. seems to be obviously true and is documented. Other differences relate to repetitions and emphasis. Is there any reason (or even documentation) to say that Baumbach was Christian? Any reason to repeat that Hungary's government was Fascist (any documentation that Baumbach was Fascist?)? I do believe that it is important (in A.) to state clearly that Baumbach "was at the same time protecting George" i.e. that the adult was in charge.

There is more than just a difference in the last sentence. The whole paragraph is different. For example, your paragraph says that there were many different identities. I can only find one. Where do you find a source that says he had many identities?

As for a cite here are the quotes:

Quote #1 

Question: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Soros: Yes. Yes.

Question: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Soros: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

(George Soros interviewed by Steve Kroft, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 December 1998)

Quote #2 

Soros said that Baumbach’s “job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity.” (Interview with George Soros, Adam Smith’s Money World, Public Broadcasting Service, 15 April 1993)

Quote #3

"He posed as the son of a Hungarian government official, sometimes accompanying the official as he delivered deportation notices to Jews, or took possession of property owned by them.” (Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros”, The New Yorker, 23 January 1995, p 58)

As for fascist issues, I do not know if Baumbach was fascist, but I did not write that he was. I wrote that he was an official of the fascist government. THAT is a statement of fact and it is not a repetition -- it had not been said before. Maybe you think that it being a puppet government of the Nazi's would be sufficient to append that label, but I would point out that Vichy France was a puppet government and sympathetic to Germany but it was not actually fascist. Moreover, mentioning that the Hungarian government was fascist explains how Baumbach would have an official duty and authority to mistreat some citizens. (Rather than it being an official sort of mob or criminal activity). As far as Baumbach being Christian, Soro's father in his biography, says Soros posed as his "godson". Godparenting is a Christian institution.

It is a redundancy to say that he is protecting Soros because, after all, it was already said that he was bribed by Tivadar to do just that. It would be noteable if after being bribed to protect the boy he did not do so, but it is redundant to say that he did so after being paid to do so.

So your revert was wrong --Blue Tie 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone for awhile. Can't find those "quotes" of yours except in the clearly biased and disputed site [5]. Clearly much of this is taken out of context, misquoting for political reasons. Smallbones 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh.. you are not being fair. First you wanted sources so the facts could be determined. Then when three sources are given you reject them. That is not appropriate discourse. --Blue Tie 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the source so that I could evaluate it. The source cited is a right wing website called shadow party. It is clearly biased.Smallbones 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question MUST be removed. Not only do the quotes cited (see above) not support the claims in the paragraph (regarding intent), but it is clearly a biased, 3rd hand source (a promotional review of the book "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party") and is PLAGIARIZED directly from the website word-by-word.

From the website: "When the Nazis came in 1944, Soros’ father saved the family by splitting them up, providing them with false identities and bribing Hungarian Christians to take them in. Young Soros posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary’s fascist government."

By Wikipedia rules and US law, we MUST remove this paragraph. Smallbones 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no statement of intent. As for quotes, it can be fixed with a citation, although I believe it was not (and now is not) a word for word recitation. --Blue Tie 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarizing isn't illegal. Copyright violations are though. I reworded the paragraph. No plagiarism or copyright violation. --Tbeatty 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you plagiarize without a copyright violation? More seriously, I think you missed the point about intent and bias - the biased paragraph says that he intended to - based on disputed cites that just say that he was there. I think this is an important distinction when you are taking about a 14 year old kid. Smallbones 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism, in a nutshell, is using an idea of someone else without citing it. The only way facts can be plagiarized (i.e. things that are not "ideas") is in the presentation of the words (i.e. the "esxpression" of the facts). And even then there are only so many ways to present facts so it is questionable. Copyright is only exact reproductions of words or other works with0out permission of the copyright holder. Even if you cite the source, you can have a copyright violation if you don't have permission. So you can have plagiarism without a copyright violation simply by stealing the idea and you can have a copyright violation without plagiarism by not having permission. They are completely different things and it is important for you to know these if you are going to cite them as reasons for removing content. --Tbeatty 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if the fact that the ideas are found elsewhere is plagiarism, then wikipedia needs to shut down. --Blue Tie 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia sources it's facts and writes articles in it's own NPOV voice. Rewriting factual content into Wikipeida's own voice is neither a copyright or plagiarism problem. I'd suggest you read the articles and policies regarding plagiarism and copyright so that you understand the differences and the implications. You talk about shutting Wikipedia down for plagiarism, but plagiarism is not illegal. It is frowned upon in academia and is itellectually dishonest but it is not against the law. Besides, wikipedia should cite all it's material. By definition, giving credit to the source of the idea is not plagiarism. --Tbeatty 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Whoah! Settle down! I was agreeing with you, if you did not notice! --Blue Tie 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised by how many people are confused enough by plagiarism and copyright that would have written the exact same thing you did with the exact opposite conclusion.--Tbeatty 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have put a smiley face in there, huh? :-) (But www.despair.com [6] has the copyright I think, so better not use it or be in violation of wikipedia policy!)--Blue Tie 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to delete this sentence:

Soros's critics contend that this event is an indicator of the quality of Soros's morality.

It may be true that they say this, but it is a bit like innuendo smears by proxy. --Blue Tie 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the world now knows of this event solely because Soros has told the story himself might be an indication of a high level of candor, but somehow I don't think that whoever wrote the sentence you quote had that particular inference in mind. Furthermore, this stuff about "moral qualities" isn't really supported by the source to which we're linked, where Horowitz et al talk about how they AREN'T making a moral judgment of the choices Soros made as a child. And, indeed, they seem at one point to be praising him for his candor as an adult. --Christofurio 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the repeat of all this under "critics" which is very badly sourced, pretending to be from 60 minutes, with the actual source being a clearly biased web-site. Frankly, the folks who are putting all this stuff in, seem to be acting in bad faith. Smallbones 13:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For several reasons the above sentence ought to be either modified or eliminated. In sum, the critics are inaccurate and extremely unfair. The link shows the critics in the most favorable light. Only when one goes to the Media Matters site, does one see what these people will say to influence an audience.

First, although Horowitz says Soros's "choice" indicates a dark moral tendency, on the 700 Club program he makes outrageous claims. He claims that Soros was a young man. Soros was not yet fourteen when he left the protection of Baufluss, who it turned out was not as good a protector as it had at first seemed to George's father. Baufluss had a Jewish wife. (page 117 Masquerade) Baufluss's daughter by his wife's first marriage was having to wear a star. The first Nazi concentration camp was built when George was three years old. When he was five, it was clear what was being done and what would be done to Jews. Tivadar, George's father, who had already survived Soviet concentration camp imprisonment, (Masquerade page 155) describes his method of survival as Mimicry. As the name suggests, Tivadar's method was to "hide" in the open. This could require looking like a Nazi or Nazi supporter.

Second, Horowitz says that Soros participated in sending Jews to death camps. Although Soros in his recollections does not make a distinction in this regard, it is apparent from the historical facts and his father's memoir (Masquerade, 1965) that when Soros went with Baufluss to the country estates of Jews, the owners had already been sent away or had fled. Tivadar Soros, George's father, even gives the name of the owner of the estate (Baron Moric Kornfeld) George visited with Baufluss. Baufluss was there to inventory property, not to evict or even take possession.

Third, having said that many others in Europe, who were the same age as George was, fought in the resistance, Horowitz ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews adult or child did not join resistance fighting groups. If Horowitz and Poe were at all even handed, 1300 Jews who worked for Oskar Schindler would be treated to the same smear as they do Soros. There were Jews who survived the Holocaust because they worked at pulling the gold out of the mouths of the victims of the Nazi crimes. Others, such as those who worked for Schindler, made munitions used to fight the liberating allies. Horowitz and Pat Robertson do not condemn the huge number of survivors who made the same choice, to survive as best they could. George followed his father's instructions concerning the Nazi threat, which arose when George was a baby.

According to Tivadar Soros (pages 17-18 Masquerade, 1965) George told people not to obey the summons of the Jewish Council to report to Rokk Szilard Street (for internment). Tivadar's account includes his observation that some of those who became Arrow Crossers to hide their Jewishness helped to save Jews from the Nazi machine. George Soros participated in dangerous schemes his father concocted to save lives of others threatened by the Nazis. The smearers, Horowitz and Poe, for what they have done to Soros, don't deserve the designation "critics".

I would appreciate suggestions concerning a fairer more accurate reference to this aspect of Soros' life. Wolfsehr 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2006 edition of Forbes Magazine lists George Soros as "Twice divorced, remarried" - I have been unable to confirm a third marriage, however.

This looks like a real mistake by Forbes (unless it is breaking news), or just an over-literal statement that has been misinterpreted. He has been divorced twice and remarried once, which if you do the math, means that he is not married now.

Smallbones

I think the "Quotes" section has grown out of hand... Wikipedia is not Wikiquotes (and we already have a link to the Wikiquotes page). Anyone else for transwiki-ing the bulk of quotations? -- Marcika 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ok so far. It is not too big yet. But I would not want to see many more. --Blue Tie 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Jewish-American financial speculator" in the intro has some very questionable overtones. There's no question that each of the 4 parts is correct, the only question is whether they are important enough to be put in the intro. It's something like a woman who would not want to be introduced as "Mrs. Thomas Smith." Is the fact that she's married to a guy named Thomas a defining characteristic? For Soros it's obvious that 'financial speculator' is a defining feature, American? probably not, Jewish - certainly not for me. Smallbones 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is required per wikipedia Manual of Style (biographies). Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. So "American" must be included. The question is: Should "Jewish" also be included? I do not know. --Blue Tie 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic that we are arguing whether Soros should be identified as Jewish. Heretofor totally without concern for Israel or Jews, he has now been identified in various articles as a participant in setting up an anti Israeli charity, perhaps similar to "Peace Now". It would seem the correct description of the man is billionaire self hating Jew.

I feel that a section in criticisms should be added about the book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, a book by far right authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe. The book outlines a near conspiracy theory about George Soros's plot to take over the world via the American Democratic party. Someone who has read the book should write a NPOV section about its points.

209.6.134.68 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no mention of Soros circumventing the spirit of campaign finance reform through 527 groups. Should it be put in?Decato 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could put in an accusation to that effect. But probably shouldn't spend too much time on it, after all, there is no non-neutral view of what the "spirit" of the law is. The letters simply allow what they allow, and one either breaks a law or complies with it. The "spirit" is best left to exorcists. --Christofurio 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone elaborate on how Soros actually undermined the Bank of England in the 90s? Some info /research on this please.

Fascinating story. There are lots of good sources for it. Here's a link to a discussion at the BBC website, for example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2259648.stm Am I helping somebody with their homework here? Never mind. You might look up Soros' name in the index of the book Inside the House of Money a collection of interviews and connecting material. The interviewer is Steven Drobny, who heads a macroeconomic research and consulting firm. The interviewees are a variety of influential people within the hedge fund industry and related fields.

Soros is not one of the book's interviewees, but several of them have stories to tell about him that bear on your question.

Any way, the gist of it was this. The UK was at that time part of the European Rate Mechanism, the system that evolved into the single currency, the euro. In accord with the ERM, the Bank of England was committed to keeping the value of the pound within a certain fixed trading range vis-a-vis the other currencies in the same system -- in particular, the Deutschemark. The result was that if the pound was in danger of falling out the bottom side of the band of permissible values, the Bank was committed to buying pounds, thereby increasing demand for them and pushing the price back into the band. Or (what amounts to the same thing) to raising the overnight interest rate.

George Soros decided that the pound was over-valued, and the Bank of England couldn't keep supporting it. One important consideration was that about 90 percent of the country's mortgages were linked to the overnight rate. If the Bank of England raises the rates on Wednesday, homeowners would learn about it in a very non-theoretical context, by Friday. This persuaded Soros that it would be plitically impossible for the Bank to do what it had to do to keep within the ERM.

So he sold the pound short. The idea was apparently that of a Soros employee named Stanley Druckenmiller. Soros embraced it, and pressed Stan to take a really big position -- so big that if the Bank had won, if the pound had gone up in value toward the high side of the band and Soros had had to cover his position, it is unlikely he'd be notable enough for an encyclopedia article today.

But the Bank lost. It had to stop buying, and let the pound fall out of the ERM. This probably prolonged the recession the UK was in at the time, but there have been good effects, as the BBC page I've linked you to above explains. And most Brits to whom I've spoken about the matter are happy that the pound still exists, and they aren't doing business in euros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christofurio (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just noticed this: "George Soros has been married three times, to Annaliese Witschak and to Susan Weber Soros. He is now married to violinist, Jennifer Chun." from a few days ago.

Does anybody know this is true?? It's not in his bio at http://www.georgesoros.com, but that might be out of date.

I googled "Jennifer Chun" and soros and got 5 or so mentions of them as a couple, but no marriage announcements. I'll delete this in a few days if there isn't any real confirmation. Smallbones 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences on the 14 year old Soros pretending not to be jewish have always bothered me, and others as well (see above). I have removed them for 3 reasons: first it seems to be based on info directly from Soros himself, but reprocessed through some very questionable sources, second it seems to be more about his critics who are questioning the morality of a 14 year old kid who is hiding from the Nazis under his father's orders, and third I don't think it meets the standards set by WP:BLP. Smallbones 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the original, but I believe there are references to it the episode in the authorized biography by Michael Kauffman. Certainly a tasteful and nonjudgmental reference to that sad episode belongs in this article.--Samiharris