Talk:George Soros/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Let's compare

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)

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 [1] 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)

I've been gone for awhile. Can't find those "quotes" of yours except in the clearly biased and disputed site [2]. Clearly much of this is taken out of context, misquoting for political reasons. Smallbones 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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


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)
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)


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)
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)

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


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)
I should have put a smiley face in there, huh? :-) (But www.despair.com [3] 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)

Moral Qualities

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)

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)

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)

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)

Third marriage?

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

Quotes section too long

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)


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)

Jewish American in the intro

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)


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)

The Shadow Party

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)


Political Criticsm

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)


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)

Bank of England Crisis.

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 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Chun marriage???

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)


I also read an article in a Korean magazine about this. According to the article, they had a small private wedding at Seoul Hyatt Hotel in Korea in Nov 2006. For anyone who can read Korean: http://lady.khan.co.kr/khlady.html?mode=view&code=4&artid=8984

Moral qualities of a 14 year old hiding from the Nazis

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)

I went to the Kaufmann biography and there is a fair telling of the story, which caused a sensation a few years ago, including a 60 minutes episode, and probably should be included. I think a fair discussion of Mr. Soros' wartime experiences should be included, as it is important. I added some sentences that I think are fair.--Samiharris
Looks fair to me on all 3 counts 1) reliable source, 2)not about critics, 3) meets WP:BLP Smallbones 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated. On the issue of Mr. Soros' marriages, I also went to Google and could find no reference to the lady in question being his third wife. Obviously on something like that one would need solid documentation.--Samiharris 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is greatly improved, as is evidenced by the talk section's heading. Soros was 13 when he delivered some deportation notices and still 13 when the Jews outside Budapest were deported to camps. I would add the word "quickly" preceding "started exterminating" Jews and add "outside Budapest" to indicate that, by the time Soros accompanied Baufluss to the confiscated Baron Kornfeld property, the Baron was long gone. But the work is so well done that a donation is more appropriate. Wolfsehr 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It is unfair to besmirch Mr. Soros for actions taken as a child, no matter what they were and certainly the greatest care needs to be taken.
On the issue of the "internal memorandum" regarding his vowing to fight insider trading charges in France, can't a source be cited on that? He has certainly generally denied culpability but I cannot recall any specific source or citation.--Samiharris 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

In the first paragraph, shouldn't it be "Soros" and not "Sorosh"? While the latter may be correct in Hungarian it is not the way the name is commonly pronounced elsewhere.--Samiharris 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See [4]. Marcika seems to be a real Hungarian-American Brit, so is probably correct: "Shorosh." I've spent some time in Hungary, and this is the only way they pronounce it. On the other hand, I've only heard "Soros" in the US, but I guess I've never heard Soros say "Soros."
BTW, I'm about to start a complete re-structuring of the end matter (SB "done" in an hour). It's a complete mess as far as I'm concerned, any suggestion would be appreciated.

Smallbones 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, Americans mostly say "sore-oss", but that doesn't mean it is right. Just like Budapest is invariably pronounced with a "ss" instead of a "sh" in English-speaking countries, or the German stuka etc... In my opinion, at least with proper names we should take the prescriptive rather than the descriptive approach, even if only to show respect. (And yeah, I would like for people to pronounce my name properly, too, although I have given up on it here in the UK...) -- Marcika 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks yr clarification. Perhaps it needs to be said that the pronounciation is the Hungarian one?--Samiharris 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Charges of Nazi collaboration

It is very important that the word "false" not be removed from the sentence describing the "Nazi collaboration" charges. Those charges were never sustained and were contradicted by the authoritative Kauffman biography. Please do not remove that word when writing about this person, as this is a living person and extra care must be taken.--Samiharris 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and reading the above discussions on "Moral Qualities" above indicates a basic consensus on this. The other main reason to include "false" is that without it it violates WP:BLP. Smallbones 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Wikipedia should not be a judge of these charges. This is very clear per WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental rule on wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether the charges were sustained, only that they were made. Note that wikipedia is not declaring the charges to be true either. It is simply saying that they were made. Wikipedia does not need to prove or disprove the charges (and should not), but may objectively report that they were made.
As a note, if it were a matter that required proof, I believe that Soros admitted to working with the Nazi's in two ways (or twice) in order to save his life as a teenager. This is collaboration even if it is forced upon pain of death. Volition is not necessary for collaboration.
Finally, so that my personal opinions toward him might be known and my own personal point of view may be evaluated: I really do not have much of an opinion about Soros. I have seen him in interviews and he seems like a smart and reasonable man who has done some good things for people. That's about all I can detect from having seen interviews with him. I have no problem with him collaborating with the Nazis to save his life. Most survivors did. They had to. It's probably a point of some shame for them, but I do not know what else they could do. (The works of Victor Frankl come from questions such as these.) I suspect Soros is alot like many other people I have met who are rich, in that he has both very good and very bad aspects to his history and character, but I do not know anything, personally of myself and I do not really care either. Finally, I know he dedicated much of his personal wealth to unseating Bush and failed. I do not care that he did this or that he failed. I think it is noteable though that he did it. That's about it. I feel that I have a pretty objective perspective. I also feel that most other people editing here may have a strong feeling about the subject. I don't. --Blue Tie 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No legal authority has ever "charged" Soros with being a Nazi collaborator. If he had been it would be different. What you are talking about is chatter picked up by the news media, concerning his behavior as a child in Nazi-occupied Hungary. The very term "collaboration" in such a context is not only unfair, it is libelous. When one deals with a living person it is essential that care be taken so as to not propagate slander. In Wiki policies, replicated at the top of this talk page I believe, there is a warning against "potentially libelous" material and this falls in under that rubric.--Samiharris 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the disputed quote. It is cited from a questionable political source and ultimately doesn't say much of anything. It is just used to justify a non-standard use of the word "collaberation" (see above) and seems against the WP:BLP standard of "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.... The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject " Smallbones 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant whether the authority was legal or not. A person may be charged or accused anyway. It does not matter if I picking up chatter. The fact is that this is verfiable matter. He has been charged. What is not verifiable is that these are FALSE charges. It is not libelous to say that a person has been accused, because it does not say the person did something. Because it is a verifiable matter of fact that such charges or accusations exist, it is ok to put them in here, particularly since Soros is a public figure. However, if Soros has claimed that the accusations are false that should be also asserted and cited. This is per WP:NPOV --Blue Tie 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It is simply irrelevant to say "a person has been charged." Of anything. If we're trying to paint a fair and honest picture of someone, a list of things he "has been charged with" is a list of facts that are of no use to us. Any well-known person "has been charged" with just about anything. Soros had somebody murdered just yesterday! There. I said that only for the purpose of a ridiculous example, but it is now a fact that Christofurio once typed a sentence "charging" Soros with murder. An utterly irrelevant fact, which doesn't belong in any serious encyclopedia article. --Christofurio 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be irrelevant to you. It is not irrelevant to others. To some it is extremely important. So this is a matter of judgment ... or perhaps original research. However, wikipedia is pretty clear that it is not about fairness or truth. (In fact it explicitly says it is not about truth). Instead it is about verifiability and neutral point of view. Neutral point of view means that various views are given position, as long as they meet requirements of verifiability. I realize that for things that one feels strongly about this can be frustrating. But that is how wikipedia is. --Blue Tie 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, "neutral point of view" doesn't mean that everything defamatory that has ever been said about somebody should be listed. That sounds rather non-neutral to me. And I'm hardly alone in that understanding of NPOV. To record a "charge" in the sense you give a word is to make the "judgment" (as you say) that it is relevant enough to be worth mentioning. That judgment entails a POV, and not a neutral one. This isn't about truth. It is about credibility and what does or doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That is precisely what I "feel strongly about" -- defending wikipedia from what amounts to the systematic vandalism you in effect are proposing. I don't give a crap about Soros, but I care very much about this issue. And what counts for me matters as much as what counts for you. That is how wikipedia is. --Christofurio 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


(Unindent)I agree that every defamatory thing said about a person should not be listed, but I am not sure that there is a clear wikipedia standard against it, if it is verified and noteable. If there is such a standard, I would appreciate it if you would reference it. What I suspect however, is that you are lumping noteable things with non-noteable things when you say "everything". And that isn't the case here. In this case, it is not a matter of "every" defamatory thing that was ever said. Instead, it is a matter of Soros's father, and Soros himself, making certain statements about their past which others have said illustrate a point about their morality. And not a trivial point. I have indeed made a judgment about the recording of a charge. Here it is: Someone placed it there. They found it important. Upon a review, I agree that it is an important aspect of why some people might be suspicious of him. I also agree that this isn't about truth. I agree it is about the credibility and what belongs or does not belong in an encyclopedia. But, I consider it vandalism to remove such sourced statements. Note: I did not originally propose these things, but I have defended them, even though I do not consider Soros to be necessarily responsible for something he did as a Jewish teen, at the behest of his father, to survive a Nazi holocaust. But that is my personal view and has no place here. There are people who find Soros deeply troubling. And this could well be one of the reasons. I can understand that. --Blue Tie 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"I agree that every defamatory thing said about a person should not be listed." Okay, then let's proceed from that. You had been talking as if the mere fact that some "charge" has been made by someone is enough reason to discuss it in the article. Now you seem to agree that isn't the case. That's been my point. When you discuss a particular "charge" (and I put that word in quotations because you're using it in an unusual way, to include anything anywhere) you should be willing to give a reason why it is notable. That it is about a notable person isn't a reason. Anybody can say anything. Furthermore, anybody can say anythingand then add "I think this is important." So that isn't enough either. If you include something without giving sufficient reason why it belongs, it will and should be deleted by other editors.
I've just made a slight edit which mught settle the matter. Where an earlier editor had written "false allegations," and you apparently just wanted to say "allegations" without any adjective, I've rendered it "unfounded allegations." Why? Because the allegations mentioned go beyond (I think any reasonable reader will say they twist and distort) what Soros actually said in the materials generally cited. Whetehr you like the words "twist or distort" isn't really the point here. What is the point is that the allegation, in going beyond the source material, are by definition without foundation, so they are as a matter of fact "unfounded." If we're going to mention them at all, we should say that. --Christofurio 20:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The word "charges" seems to be a problem to you. What about "accusations"? Or "allegations"? --Blue Tie 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the "questionable political source" of the Soros quote is an article DEFENDING SOROS against the charge of collaboration -- hence my decision to use it rather than one of the many anti-Soros sources that use one form or another of the quotes in question. By referring to a source that defends Soros against the accusation and gives an unedited excerpt of the Soros interview, I believe that a competent reader would have sufficient information to judge the claim for him/herself. It would appear that some of those doing the revisions and other edits don't believe that users of Wikipedia are nearly so competent -- or they are so partisan as to be willing to SUPPRESS SOROS' OWN WORDS when they are relevant to the discussion. As for the semantic difference between "charges" and "accusations". I believe that the issue is a red herring -- especially when the version of the sentence before I changed it referred to "false charges" of collaboration. Also, Smallbones, who disputed the quote -- there appears to be no dispute over the quote until you pulled it as "disputed".168.171.60.254 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)GSA