Talk:George Soros conspiracy theories

Unrestricted Warfare

The book Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗) mentions George Soros in a rather unfavourable light. --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflating criticisms with conspiracies

This article is so clearly conflating criticism of George Soros, with conspiracy theories about him. Of course, there are countless anti-semetic conspiracies around the man, but a lot of these are criticisms. For example: "When Donald Trump was indicted by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg in 2023, numerous Republicans claimed that Bragg was "bought and paid for" by Soros. This claim was promoted and spread by Trump himself as well as Ron DeSantis, Senator J. D. Vance, Senator Ron Johnson, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, and Representative Paul Gosar, who called Bragg a "Soros D.A.".[65] The only actual connection is that Soros donated to progressive criminal justice reform group Color of Change, which contributed to Bragg's campaign. Soros was only one of many donors to Color of Change, and he had no contact with Bragg, whom he has never met.[66][67 "

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a criticism and it isn't false as clearly mentioned in the text. This overreach doesn't really make sense to me. I'm going to be deleting this part and others should work on improving this article. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that Bragg was bought by Soros. As the text you copied says, Soros has never given money directly to Bragg. Do you have any sources to the contrary?

Therealteal (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean you are being daft on purpose. George Soros is the main funding source of color of change. It is entirely appropriate to label the foundation as backed by Soros. He literally paid an institution and that institution funded Bragg. You don't see how that is funding Bragg through Soros? Don't turn the argument the other way around. Do you have evidence this is a conspiracy theory? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all WP:NPA. The onus of evidence is on those with the theory that Soros has bought Bragg, not the other way around. Without proof, it's a conspiracy theory. That's just what that means.

So like I said before, do you have reliable sources showing that Soros bought off Bragg? If yes, then make an edit

Therealteal (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You made the claim that it is a conspiracy theory. The onus is on you to prove it. The evidence you provided isn't sufficient. You are twisting the language of "bought off" to mean something sinister. The claim did not come out in a vaccum. Color of Change is an organization that includes Soros as the biggest donor. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you have reliable sources showing the Soros bought off Bragg, please let me know. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss

Therealteal (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The connections between him and Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, are real but overstated. In reality, Mr. Soros donated to a liberal group that endorses progressive prosecutors and supports efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system — in line with causes that he has publicly supported for years. That group used a significant portion of the money to support Mr. Bragg in his 2021 campaign.[1] This is not what "bought and paid for" means. Suggesting that Bragg is "bought and paid for" by Soros is WP:OR at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are ascribing ill-intent on language and labeling it a conspiracy theory. If Soros was not at all involved in any funding of Bragg, then it may be a conspiracy theory. We know Soros is the biggest donor to Color of Change. That language is entirely appropriate, and even if it were a stretch, labeling it a conspiracy theory is inappropriate to say the least. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Soros, a longtime supporter of Democratic campaigns, various liberal causes and prosecutors who favor criminal justice reform, has been a frequent target of antisemitic conspiracy theories painting the Jewish philanthropist as a puppetmaster behind various US and international events. Soros did not make any direct contributions to Bragg’s 2021 election campaign, and a Soros spokesperson, Michael Vachon, told CNN last week that the two men have never once communicated in any way.[2] Emphasis mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You can keep highlighting it, and it still won't make it true. A person can simultaneously be the target of conspiracy theories and yet be validly critisized. Do you even think there are any criticisms of Soros? If your answer is no, I demand you remove yourself from this thread permenantly. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You can demand all sorts of things, it won't make them happen. What is the basis of your criticism of Soros for donating money to Color of Change? Why is this a problem? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a place to discuss our personal opinions of Soros or Trump or whomever. So asking for either of our opinions on a situation doesn't matter. Wikipedia goes based on what reliable sources say, not my own personal beliefs

Therealteal (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you think it is a conspriacy theory to say that Trump collaborated with the Russians to win the 2016 election? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow WP:TPG. This has good advice, such as "comment on content, not on the contributor". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

what about Soros' donations to wikipedia?

Is it true or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You can Google it yourself to see that it's true.[3] So what? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the lead of the article written in a way to shield Soros from any form of criticism?

Soros is a very controversial person. He is a billionare who said that he basically made money through "not caring about social consequences" of his actions. Also, his Open Society Foundation promotes a quite extreme ideological vision which postulates that its opponents should be supressed "if necessary even by force" (a quote from Karl Popper). Basically, Soros and his ideological vision of "open society" should in NO WAY be immune to criticism. But the lead of the article is written in a way that Soros is some kind of "philantrope" (capitalist philanthropy which is just PR, to be honest) and "progressive guy", not even mentioning any controversy about him, and shielding him from any kind of criticism. It should be noted that besides conspiracy theories there is a very legitimate criticisms of Soros and his works and he should not be protrayed as some kind of "saint". 49.184.98.85 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No. JPerez90 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)