Talk:Clinton Foundation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:51, 3 July 2016

Organizations C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Original formation

Disaster Relief

The entire section on Hurricane Katrina relief doesn't seem to reflect any involvement by the Clinton Foundation, only Bill Clinton himself. The cited story does not mention the Clinton Foundation at all. --209.188.41.66 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing delete

I removed the delete request. I think that, although the article was poorly constructed, the Foundation is a signicant entity. They have done a lot of work in AIDS initiatives in Africa, and also negotiated the recent agreement with Pepsi and Coke to remove carbonated drinks from public schools. I'll do more work on the article as time allows. I recommend the Foundation employee who originally wrote the article read the wikipedia stylebook. Richardjames444 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

I'm not sure what is to be gained by reverting the article to a version that was flagged for deletion and needed wikification. In any case, the original version and the revert is a cut and paste from Clinton Foundation literature and will be removed for copyvio if it is placed back in. The user who reverted the article has gone into a number of articles to add Clinton Foundation links. They're not innapropriate, but he/she doesn't own the articles, and shouldn't revert them to an inadequate format without explaining why. Richardjames444 00:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand your motivation 206.165.97.2. If you want an entry for the Foundation, you have to accept that it will be "edited mercilessly" and in the process, improved. Reverting to what was orginally a substandard article is a waste of time and resources.

Now user:Clinton Foundation is reverting the article back to the unwikified, boilerplate, possibly WP:COPYVIO form as well. Silly, silly, silly. Richardjames444 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and remember WP:OWN [18:24, July 28, 2006‎ Richardjames444]

Merge Proposal

Does anyone object to merging the article on the Clinton Global Initiative into this article? Richardjames444 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Global Initiative article and formatted it. Richardjames444 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working together

User:Clinton Foundation- Thanks for the constructive editing on this article. The photo of the Big Dog is great. I may format the text above the picture as an intro and start putting the Foundation activities under separate headings. Richardjames444 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS treatment

"Over the course of the past year, CHAI increased the number of partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium, which can purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices to 58"

58 what? Dollars? What was the original price? Harksaw 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Now I understand. I'll put in the extra comma. Harksaw 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticism?

In the criticism section it says:

On April 4th, 2008 when the Clinton's released their tax returns for the past 30 years, it was found that their charitable donations went to their own charitable foundation. [1] [16]

I don't think there is anything wrong with them doing that. The article really should mention who it was that criticized them. Besides that the criticism here is really towards the Clintons themselves, not the foundation. Borock (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salary for Bill?

I would like to post a question, which I think should be answered if possible in the article. The question is, Can Bill Clinton take a salary from the proceeds of the foundation, and does he? To me, if he does not, there is no conflict here, but if he has access to these funds, I find that this is truly a conflict of interest in his wifes position as Secretary of State. I did a quick overview of the net to find the answer to this, and found that the answer was not readily apparent. I found data from 2005, showing that salaries were about 7,000,000, but it doesn't say who received how much. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6vvun9JaB4AS6tXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MHE4Z2l1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTMjcxXzEzNA--/SIG=13a1g3ohk/EXP=1233194095/**http%3a//www.clintonfoundation.org/download/%3fguid=57e6badb-982c-102b-be34-001143e0d9b6 Also I found information showing the salaries of several of the top officers, accounting for several hundred thousand dollars, a very small percentage of the total. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-18-clinton-foundation_N.htm So once again I ask the question, does Bill and Hillary Clinton have access to this money? 68.238.224.190 (talk) 02:08, January 28, 2009

HIV/AIDS Program inaccuracies

I propose deleting the statement that says that the Clinton's AIDS/HIV Program in Africa doesn't work. How do you even prove that? Secondly the citation is from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank, which is opposed to the majority of the former President's policies. It is a biased source, just as I wouldn't use the Brookins institute to prove something. Coolmanwc4 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and objectivity

Much of this article reads like a brochure written by the foundation staff. It clearly contains rhetoric and I question the objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.101.8 (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the initial writers of the article was the Clinton Foundation, and I suspect some of the subsequent contributers may have been from there too. It's pretty typical of WP articles about foundations and charitable organizations. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including the party where it lists the baseless accusations against the foundation without saying they were baseless claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.43.1 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a better foundation

Political power is meaningless if the Clinton foundation cannot project exceptionalism against things like nepotism and cronyism and worse still tacitly supports the 3rd world political junta. I'm sure after this reminded some US politicians would buld a foundation that propounds these exceptionalist values. Meanwhile the Clintons certainly have a head start and could do the very same, trumping the as of yet organized competition though at the cost of the Presidency. This sort of 2nd liner work as as critical as the power of the president - in the form of checks and balances where all others fight for the throne these sorts are the ones who are the power behind the throne that are the essence of democracy against all term limitless, nepotistic 'political junta' (new term by moi!). Clintons ready to do the right thing or join the others in the mudfights?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/14/NY-Times-Clinton-Foundation-Rife-With-Cronyism

17:31, August 15, 2013‎ 203.106.149.205

I've incorporated at least some of the material from that NYT piece, as well as the foundation reaction regarding deficits. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the dollar figures for programs?

I don't see any dollar figures for the spending in different program areas. For example, how much are they spending in Haiti? And for what? Are they paying for the salaries of local teachers, doctors and nurses? Or are they subsidizing the construction of the Haiti Mariott hotel?

Most of this is vague and not specific. For example, "CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/AIDS around the world." How did they help? By delivering health care workers and drugs? Or by holding conferences? --Nbauman (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of their medical work

Here's the articles that have been written meentioning the Clinton foundation in the BMJ, which is a WP:MEDRS. These are written by people on the ground, not pundits in Washington or New York. They don't have a political axe to grind, they just want to keep their patients in undeveloped countries alive and healthy, and they want the aid programs to work, not get stuck in bureaucracy or corruption. Some or all of these articles should be free on the BMJ's web site http://www.bmj.com/ . Another journal with similar coverage is The Lancet.

Views & Reviews

Zimbabwe: an eyewitness account

Kate Adams

BMJ 2008; 336: 98 (Published 10 Jan 2008)

...Many people present with advanced disease-a death sentence. The HIV clinic in Bulawayo is supported by the Clinton Foundation, but a shortage of drugs and resources has meant that it has been closed to new entrants since August, except...

News

Clinton brokers deal to lower price of antiretrovirals

Seye Abimbola

BMJ 2007; 334: 1026 (Published 17 May 2007)

...reached between the William J Clinton Foundation, a charity set up to foster...countries. It will provide the Clinton Foundation's HIV and AIDS initiative...drugs to treat AIDS through the Clinton Foundation. Clinton brokers deal to lower...

News

Medical supplies are trapped in Haitian ports as NGOs struggle with paperwork and delays

Sophie Arie

BMJ 2010; 341: c3820 (Published 15 Jul 2010)

...spectacles and 12000 eye drops donated by medical organisations in the US and transported with funds from the Bill Clinton Foundation, are sitting in a container at the port in the capital Port au Prince where they arrived in early April. The Haitian...

News

Cabinet rules that South Africans must be given antiretrovirals

Pat Sidley

BMJ 2003; 327: 357 (Published 14 Aug 2003)

...by the treatment. Some of the finance and expertise, should a plan be adopted, would be supplied by the Bill Clinton Foundation. The announcement seems to bring to a close a frustrating four year period that has seen a huge increase in the...

News

Cancer doctors pledge to widen access to pain relief in developing countries

Tatum Anderson

BMJ 2010; 341: c4645 (Published 26 Aug 2010)

...president of UICC. We have models for this. The Clinton Foundation has addressed the supply chain for anti-retroviral...discounts on the total volume. That model, used by the Clinton Foundation in around 70 countries, has achieved price drops...

Practice

Improving quality in resource poor settings: observational study from rural Rwanda

Meera Kotagal, Patrick Lee, Caste Habiyakare, Raymond Dusabe, Philibert Kanama, Henry M Epino, Michael L Rich, Paul E Farmer

BMJ 2009; 339: b3488 (Published 30 Oct 2009)

...Setting Kirehe District Hospital is one site in a collaboration among the non-profit Partners In Health, the Clinton Foundation, and the Rwandan Ministry of Health. The 50 bed hospital in eastern Rwanda has six wards (one each for women...

News

Brazil and India clash with EU over seizure of generic drugs

John Zarocostas

BMJ 2009; 338: b558 (Published 10 Feb 2009)

...drugs, Mr Bhatia said, will seriously impair the efforts of organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, the Clinton Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to supply drugs and improve health in poor nations. Mr Azevedo said...

Head To Head

Should we use regulation to demand improved public health outcomes from industry? Yes

Stephen D Sugarman

BMJ 2008; 337: a1750 (Published 02 Oct 2008)

...findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_19_12/ai_n16362144 . 2 Simon M. Soda deal with Clinton Foundation latest PR stunt. 5 May 2006. www.commondreams.org/views06/0505-32.htm . 3 Office of the Attorney General...

Research

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of a simplified low cost method of counting CD4 cells with flow cytometry in Malawi: diagnostic accuracy study

Calman A MacLennan, Michael K P Liu, Sarah A White, Joep J G van Oosterhout, Felanji Simukonda, Joseph Bwanali, Michael J Moore, Eduard E Zijlstra, Mark T Drayson, Malcolm E Molyneux

BMJ 2007; 335: 190 (Published 26 Jul 2007)

...counting could therefore improve appropriate allocation of antiretroviral therapy.6 Despite initiatives by the Clinton Foundation and others to reduce the price of the necessary reagents for developing nations to $3-6 ( 2.2-4.4) per...

News

In brief

BMJ 2004; 328: 912 (Published 15 Apr 2004)

...Tuberculosis and Malaria announced last week that it had struck a deal with the World Bank, Unicef, and the Clinton Foundation to make it possible for poor countries to buy discounted AIDS drugs. GMC set to abolish limited registration...

Education And Debate

Tackling HIV in resource poor countries

J S Mukherjee, PE Farmer, D Niyizonkiza, L McCorkle, C Vanderwarker, P Teixeira, JY Kim

BMJ 2003; 327: 1104 (Published 06 Nov 2003)

...statement of donation to global fund March 2002 500m/year (in addition to US appropriation) 400 000 mothers/year Clinton Foundation February 2003 3bn/year WHO and UNAIDS July 2002 No money pledged 3 million being treated by 2005 Summary points...

--Nbauman (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a page about Uranium One, but it is outdated. This is an interesting story; it was published everywhere. Here is graphics by NY Times [1]. Another publication [2]. Russian publication: [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And know we have the Panama Papers. Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections - http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/media-coverage/mcclatchy-dc-inside-panama-papers-multiple-clinton-connections. ---79.223.0.83 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonprofit foundation" vs. "501(C)3"

An editor is attempting to change the description of the organization from "a nonprofit foundation" to "a 501(C)3 organization". While it is certainly true that the Clinton Foundation's tax status comes under 501(C)3 of the tax code, these words have very little meaning for the average reader. When you take into account that every nonprofit foundation in the United States (as well as heaps of other organizations) is a 501(C)3, it's apparent that this is not the best possible description of the Clinton Foundation for the edification of our readers. What's best, most clear, and most descriptive is what's there, "nonprofit foundation". BMK (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your link, "Foundation (nonprofit)", just leads to the proper wikilink in its first sentence.

A foundation (also a charitable foundation) is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes.

I don't see how that helps the reader, causing them to click 2 wikilinks instead of one. And just because you're familiar with IRS code doesn't mean the reader will be, hence adding a wikilink for 501(c)(3). And let's not forget that the Clinton Foundation refers to themselves as a "not-for-profit organization", not a "nonprofit foundation".

Almighty Camel (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinton Foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/#.dpuf

This is how they self-identify. Denying it is akin to calling Chelsea Manning, Bradley. Almighty Camel (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one denied it - in fact, I confirmed it. BMK (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Subpoena Revelations

Today it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation received a subpoena from the State Department in autumn of 2015. The Washington Post was apparently the first media entity to break the story: [4]. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? Taken on its own, it is unremarkable. WaPo had nothing else to report. Obviously this is a story that needs to mature before it is worth being considered for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll thank you not to edit my talk page text. State Department subpoenas are a big deal and the situation is developing. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should edit it yourself then. "Revelations" is a very non-neutral and inaccurate term. Until the "developing" situation has developed, there's nothing appropriate for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revelation is that there was a previously unmentioned State Department subpoena, which means the existence of an investigation by the State Department involving the Clinton Foundation. That's extremely notable, certainly relevant, and needs to be on this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. A subpoena doesn't mean anything. It's just an instruction to appear. Thousands of these happen to thousands of people every year. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Clinton Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCED CONTENT REMOVED by Drmies

A great deal of sourced material was removed by editor Drmies. Each sentence was sourced to articles published by news outlets as diverse as the Washington Post, Mother Jones, Fox News, the International Business Times, RT, and the Daily Caller. No transgression on Wikipedia can be more roundly rejected or ought to be taken more seriously than the removal of sourced material. The editor in question has failed to comply with the standards set by Wikipedia in its guidelines on Verifiability. This cannot stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about the discretionary sanctions in this area; the content you added was contentious and the sourcing less rigorous than you suggest. I like the caps and the hyperbole, though. Also, WP:BRD. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely absurd. Please delete the rest of the section on "Transparency" and the 2015 Subpoena and then explain how YOUR editing is not POV. The sourcing is absolutely no different. The section on ACKNOWLEDGED public corruption was better sourced than the 2015 subpoena section. The principal in question is not entitled to a separate reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.171.34 (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely contentious content using non-neutral terminology like "ethical propriety" and "public corruption" from dubious sourcing, ostensibly to create a negative-sounding narrative. One or two interesting tidbits could be worked into the existing body of the article, but Drmies was right to revert this approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The edits were WP:SYNTH. Keegan (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the link to Catherine Herridge's^[1] article in that case, which is certainly much more than an 'interesting tidbit,' e.g. it would qualify as a 'shocking revelation,' irrelevant to politics but highly relevant to 'reality.' Please also restore the link to IBT articles concerning arms deals. This was picked up widely and contains information that can be confirmed by anyone. There is no reason for its removal, and I submit that the editors are projecting political concerns onto what ought to be considered reality, viewed objectively.

We don't do "what ought to be considered reality, viewed objectively". Heck, there's nothing remotely objective about one considering what others should view as reality. We do neutral point of view, no undue weight, no synthesis, no words with bias, verifiability, not truth, etc. No, your edits cannot go into the article, and that's why. Keegan (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track. Fox News. January 11, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html Retrieved March 15, 2016.

The material in the Transparency and Ethical Propriety section looks on-point and well sourced. The second section is not sourced to mainstream sources and honestly appears to be unsourced in the sources ("some guy said it looks hinky" kind of things). I'd favor keeping that first part, though I'm willing to hear what objection people have to the material/sources. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors section

It is highly irregular for a Wikipedia article on a 501(c)3 organization to have a list of contributors/donors. I think the entire section should be removed, particularly because it is festooned with a veritable plethora of redlinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go because it's either a name em and shame em list, or a look who loves us list. Regarding it as just neutral is odd since, as Scjessey notes, we don't typically do this. Besides, the entire list is sourced to the foundation's website, and that website is already linked, so... Drmies (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it doesn't belong and should go. It's basically just a Pandora's box section. Also, as I mentioned at your talk, I wonder if the article might require some level of protection at this point. X4n6 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a massive BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a huge edit zeroing in on criticism of the foundation. The reality is that the foundation is very widely criticized from the left and right today—calling it "controversial" would be soft. I suggest you state the reasons for your edits on the talk page to make it clear that you're not moving to turn the article into a puff piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The reality" is that what I removed was based on a bunch of junk sources. WP:BLP applies to this page. There's obvious POV in the lede, and it doesn't summarize article content. I am NOT turning it into a "puff piece" I'm just making sure that it's not an "attack page". Again, BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed stuff which was only tangentially related, like the stuff about Stephanopolous - that doesn't belong here, maybe in his article. That whole section looks like someone's following the "let's throw everything and the kitchen sink at it and see what criticism sticks". That's fine for shitty tabloids and conspiracy rags but not for an encyclopedia that has a WP:BLP policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make edit summaries like ""

I am not really familiar with the subject, but have seen this publication in NY Times. Does it worth including somewhere on the page? My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag: Article Currently Looks Like A Puff Piece

This article currently reads like a Clinton Foundation puff piece. We all know that the Clinton Foundation is most famous for one thing and that's accusations of corruption via quid pro quo donations. There are articles about this from mainstream media absolutely everywhere. However, the lead has been entirely scrubbed about the extremely controversial status of the Clinton Foundation and the body contains pithy mentions of this raging controversy. Exactly why is this article so scrubbed? It's definitely not due to a lack of sources out there expressing concern, especially since Clinton is now the presumptive Democratic nominee (NY Times, Forbes... literally thousands of others mainstream media articles and features) . :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track. Fox News. January 11, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html Retrieved March 15, 2016.

[1]

@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 :::"The reality" is that what I removed was based on a bunch of junk sources. WP:BLP applies to this page. There's obvious POV in the lede, and it doesn't summarize article content. I am NOT turning it into a "puff piece" I'm just making sure that it's not an "attack page". Again, BLP.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 19:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 :::I also removed stuff which was only tangentially related, like the stuff about Stephanopolous - that doesn't belong here, maybe in his article. That whole section looks like someone's following the "let's throw everything and the kitchen sink at it and see what criticism sticks". That's fine for shitty tabloids and conspiracy rags but not for an encyclopedia that has a WP:BLP policy.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
+::::Make edit summaries like ""
 ::I am not really familiar with the subject, but have seen [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1 this publication] in NY Times. Does it worth including somewhere on the page? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
+== NPOV Tag: Article Currently Looks Like A Puff Piece ==
+This article currently reads like a Clinton Foundation puff piece. We all know that the Clinton Foundation is most famous for one thing and that's accusations of corruption via quid pro quo donations. There are articles about this from mainstream media ''absolutely everywhere''. However, the lead has been entirely scrubbed about the extremely controversial status of the Clinton Foundation and the body contains pithy mentions of this raging controversy. Exactly why is this article so scrubbed? It's definitely not due to a lack of sources out there expressing concern, especially since Clinton is now the presumptive Democratic nominee ([http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/politics/election-clinton-foundation.html NY Times], [http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/04/28/clinton-foundation-controversies-and-hillarys-campaign/#99fbc7531b59 Forbes]... literally thousands of others mainstream media articles and features) . [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)