Talk:Clinton Foundation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091015000809/http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/press-release-clinton-climate-initiative-to-demostrate-model-for-sustainable-urban-growth-with-projects-in-10-countries-on-six-continents to http://www.clintonfoundation.org/news/news-media/press-release-clinton-climate-initiative-to-demostrate-model-for-sustainable-urban-growth-with-projects-in-10-countries-on-six-continents
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080518083124/http://www.rwjf.org:80/newsroom/activitydetail.jsp?productid=18234&typeid=109 to http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/activitydetail.jsp?productid=18234&typeid=109

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

Please restore the link to Catherine Herridge's 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)

References

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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... literally thousands of others mainstream media articles and features) . :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just ludicrous. It's a charity that promotes wellness and interdependence. The only "controversial" part of it is that Republicans hate the Clintons. Offer something useful to improve the article or say nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First, we're here to write a neutral article, not a puff piece adhering to the Clinton Foundation's narrative.

Second, there's no possible way to argue that concerns regarding the Clinton Foundation are not absolutely everywhere, from the left and right. Here's a recent piece from the Atlantic discussing it ([5]), here's a recent a recent piece from CNN discussing it ([6]), and one form the Week ([7]). Just about every major media outlet out there publishes a steady stream of articles about how controversial the Foundation is.

The article currently does not reflect the reality of this situation. Most viewers will be coming here to read about why the Foundation is so controversial, yet the article seems to go to pains to avoid it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You are deluded. The article is descriptive, with an explanation of the organization and what it does. What you are trying to do is make the article about the Clintons, instead of the foundation. Most of the so-called "controversy" comes from a book written by a right wing Clinton hater with fringe views, and the mainstream media echo chamber just amplified nothing into nothing cubed. And please stop claiming to speak for "most viewers". -- Scjessey (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. There are certain controversies, and they are described in two last sections. Should something about this be noted in Intro? Perhaps one phrase, but I am not certain because two last sections are only a small part of the page. On the other hand, the previously included paragraph in intro (now removed) was definitely POV and undue. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Deluded" this time? Enough with the schoolyard insults in edit summaries and on the talk page. You can be a passionate Clinton fan and edit his article but you're going to need to at least feign neutrality here. On Wikipedia we report, we don't serve as a promotional outlet for any specific entity. The sources I've provided above, which are one of many, are from media outlets generally perceived as both sympathetic to the Clinton campaign (many of their editorial boards endorsed Clinton) and are perfectly mainstream. The Clinton Foundation has long been considered highly controversial for a variety of reasons, one of which is the obvious possibility of influence peddling, an eternal problem for high visibility politicians. We need a section covering these controversies in depth with reliable, mainstream sources, regardless of any particular editor's politician leanings. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You have it backwards, evidently. This article is about the Clinton Foundation, but you are trying to make it about the Clintons. You are seemingly unable to edit with a neutral point of view, and you have instead engaged in agenda-driven editing. I'm not an American. I have no vote, so I have no dog in this race. The foundation has only been "long considered highly controversial" by the American right wing desperate for anything to tarnish the Clinton image, whereas a world-centric view is one of a good charity doing good things for people all over the world. If you can't edit without pushing your POV, please withdraw and edit elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No one said anything about your nationality, simply your relentlessly pro-Clinton editing that reads like a Wikipedia version of the Clinton campaign's Twitter. There's no shortage of reliable, perfectly mainstream, and decidedly non-right wing sources on this topic, whether you like it or not. While it's clear that your edits can be expected to be cartoonishly fawning over all things Clinton (anyone can click your edit history), this article—like any other article—is expected to report on what reliable sources say about the Foundation's activities. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there are many reliable sources about the controversy of the foundation and it should be represented fairly in this article.--68.2.69.42 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, there are many sources. But the controversy is already fairly represented in this section, next section, and other parts of the page (tax returns, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no specific criticisms of the article's content just a lot vague and general WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In order for the POV tag to be justified, you need to substantiate it. Which part of the article is "POV"? Absent that, I'm removing the tag. Also, please read WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you're not paying attention—willfully or otherwise. Your edits and those of Scjessey (talk · contribs)—who you often appear to edit in tandem with—appear to be relentlessly pro-Clinton. Currently this article has clear NPOV issues for reasons I've quite clearly spelled out above: it willfully ignores the numerous controversial aspects of the Clinton Foundation, namely the repeated concerns regarding quid pro quo and influence peddling from essentially anyone who isn't associated with the Clinton campaign.

And now I can see why: we've got a couple of decidedly non-neutral editors IV-ed to Wikipedia and camped out here with the goal of keeping the article as bleached and rosy as possible for a current presidential candidate. This isn't how neutrality is supposed to work on Wikipedia: we report on what reliable sources say, whether it's pretty or not. However, when you've got a couple editors with a clear political bias willing to sit around and restore one another's reverts, this is the result—a rosy puff piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who Scjessey is and I don't ever "appearing to edit in tandem", though who knows. You're just making random nonsensical accusations now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable Absence of Criticism Section Here

Similar articles often have a criticism section. Given the huge amount of, well, criticism of how this foundation operates, it's a wonder this article is missing one. That is, until the actions of embedded editors become clear. Still, there's no getting around this—the Clinton Foundation is often the target of criticism from both the right and the left, usually regarding either accusations or concerns regarding quid pro quo, gatekeeping, and influence peddling, whether bundled with concerns regarding transparency or otherwise. There are absolutely no shortage of reliable sources on this, many of them even sympathetic to the Clinton campaign. For example, recent pieces by : The Atlantic, CNN, and The Week. As it stands, this article paints a picture of the foundation as it wants to be painted—a charity that simply had some transparency issues. Making this section needs to be discussed for this article to approach neutrality. :bloodofox: (talk)

Criticism sections are frowned upon because they are examples of bad writing. Legitimate criticisms (not the garbage the right wing is peddling) should be woven into the article at the appropriate places. Criticism sections are just shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It has a big criticism section called "Transparency". My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We have many a solid article with criticism sections because, no surprise, many topics are magnets of criticism, particularly when they're associated with current presidential candidates. We have a section called transparency, which is about exactly what the topic says. Issues of transparency are simply one of a palette of issues that are regularly raised about the organization. We're going to need something more like Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Criticism to bring this article to a neutral state. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think so. The only real/documented/proven problem was about (re)filing taxes [8], but it is already prominently noted, even in introduction. Everything else is pure speculation. Note that page Donald Trump has no "criticism" section. I do not see a reason for the POV tag. My very best wishes (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, we're here to report what reliable sources sources say, not make judgment on how we feel about what those sources are reporting. Controversy regarding the Clinton Foundation is, as demonstrated above, extremely widespread on all sides of the political spectrum, including among entities that have openly supported the Clinton campaign. This isn't simply hearsay, rumor, or the attack of an opponent here, and this has been reported by reliable sources for a very long time with a notable increase with Clinton's run for the presidency. The NPOV tag is for discussion regarding neutrality concerns, which is exactly what this is. The tag is fully justified and repeated attempts at removing it is a distraction from both this discussion and this issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think that some important and factual information is missing on the page, please post it here, with supporting WP:RS. However, simply placing a list of donors and a list of accusations probably is not going to work. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about a "list of accusations" and "a list of donors" but rather reporting from mainstream newspapers all over the United States. And, considering that this article is revert-hawked by the Wikipedia version of the Clinton campaign, that is exactly what this thread is for. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't confuse "reporting from mainstream newspapers" with "reporting of fringe opinions by mainstream newspapers". And please stop disparaging other editors and questioning their motives, per WP:AGF. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is difficult to do when editors have demonstrated that they're biased and unwilling to edit in a neutral manner (were you, for example, assuming good faith when you referred to me as "deluded" and said I had a "skewed worldview" for daring to bring this issue up?).

Neutrality is the issue here—display neutrality, tuck away the Clinton sycophancy, and we can proceed with producing a neutral and informative article handling this issue. Hundreds of articles from mainstream newspapers discussing widespread concerns over quid pro quo, paid access, and influence peddling quo does not fringe make, no matter how much some extreme supporters would like the issue to go away. It's the reality of politics, folks. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, "if you think that some important and factual information is missing on the page, please post it here, with supporting WP:RS." If you just continue political rant the POV label will probably be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You just removed the tag again—hands off the tag until the discussion has ended—just like the tag says. You're not new to Wikipedia, you know how this works. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to use tags to bring attention to obvious problems on certain pages. However, if others do not see the problem (as in this case) and you use tag simply to express your personal disagreement with others, this is disruptive editing. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What the tag says is not actual *policy* (there has been some confusion over this previously and I really wish they'd fix it). The actual policy states that there must be substantiation of the tag, which entails more than just one user's WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. Likewise, your accusations of editors having an "agenda" don't really help you here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's cute—so simply revert it rather than have a discussion and simply ignore what the tag says because it's not policy. Given that we've got three agenda-driven editors here who revert on site and display the usual us-versus-them group mentality, I'm out. Hopefully you'll meet the next Wiki-gang on the block sometime soon and neutrality rather than political preference will win out. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I said you were deluded and that your worldview was skewed because your view doesn't represent the neutral mainstream. The problem here is the right wing has moved so far to the right in the last decade or so, it makes the neutral center (my view) seem left wing. With two other editors agreeing with me, it would seem there's a clear consensus here that the POV tag is unnecessary. Please abide by consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This is perhaps the funniest post I've seen during my entire decade on Wikipedia. At least I walk away with this, lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton Cash book is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Also, there's nothing "notable" about absence of a criticism section, rather the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a detailed analysis, based on hard facts and reliable sources, of why the multiple sources you removed do nt qualify as RS? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The section is pretty much based on the Clinton Cash book, which is a hack job full of conspiracy theories and the like. It is nowhere near a reliable source. [9], [10], [11].There are couple reliable sources added throughout the section but they're either 1) used for minor facts or are 2) from reviews of the book or both. EVEN FOR a criticism section this is nowhere near the level of reliability required.

Also, since, according to the guardian, "the book is an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady.", and both of these are living people, BLP applies. You cannot add this junk in without strong consensus which you do not have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an extremely well-cited section from perfectly mainstream American news media sources. It sounds like you simply don't like what you're seeing. There's no defense for the repeated rejection of widely reported and completely mainstream criticism of the foundation. But the reason is obvious: this article is regularly monitored by a handful users with pretty clear pro-Clinton bias. The idea seems to be to keep this article as whitewashed as possible and for as long as possible—regardless of source quality.:bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Clinton Cash" is anything but "perfectly mainstream American news media source". The other sources in the section cite minor details or are reviews of the book. It's not a question of what I like but a question of non-reliable sources chock full of conspiracy theories being used to push a POV. Please stop discussing other editors (including what you imagine their motivations are).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Zooming in on Clinton Cash over the New York Times and The Atlantic, to time a few sources, is a total joke. It's obvious what you're up to here. If you had any interest in maintaing neutrality rather than pushing an agenda, your complete hostility toward anything that looks like criticism—regardless of how widespread and mainstream it may be—wouldn't be a factor here. I'm no fan of Schweizer but that doesn't mean we should be censoring the article of anything that doesn't follow the Clinton family/campaign narrative: Schweizer's book was huge, had massive impact, and needs to be covered in a neutral manner. Additionally, accusations of conflict regarding the Clinton Foundation reach far beyond Schweizer and the American right and are prominent in the American left, particularly among leftists outside of the Clinton camp. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be more precise: That first paragraph could potentially remain although it's written in a POV way ("Questions have been raised..."). The second paragraph is next to useless. There's a NY Times article about "financial losses, staff conflicts, and spending excesses". So what? These aren't "Criticism of financial practices". I guess in some form this could also remain. The third paragraph is based on Clinton Cash and it just simply needs to go. The fourth paragraph is also problematic "Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion " <- uhhhh... again, so what? That's what foundations do. This, again, is NOT a "Criticism of financial practices".

So the Clinton Cash stuff needs to go, the rest needs to be retitled and rewritten if it's to stay.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I was about to explain in detail, rather than "zoom in" on anything but I hit two edit conflicts with your responses. See above. However, you really need to stop commenting on what you imagine editors are "up to" or what their motivations are or just discussing other editors in general. If you continue to do that, these kinds of unwarranted accusations will be interpreted as personal attacks, which is what they are.

(and Schwizer book was HYPED UP, not "huge". There's a difference)

Sorry, given the insults lobbed at me by your pal up there ("deluded", "skewed worldview"—in response to which you notably didn't have a word to say), I'll kindly thank you to show me how neutral you are by your actions rather than by complaining about the neutrality concerns I've raised. Right now it looks like you've got an agenda. It's a common situation on articles such as this. If it's not the case, show it.

Whether you like it or not, Schweizer's book had a massive impact and is, again, like it or not, very much a part of the American mainstream, as evidenced by its repeated invocation in any mainstream media entity you can name. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Schweizer nor his approach but that's irrelevant. Schweizer's book, for all its problems, had a notable impact on perception of the Clinton Foundation and is very much a part of its history. And it's not alone in its cricitism regarding the Foundation. The fact that any mention of it gets reverted on sight by you or your co-editors here says that this article has a serious neutrality issue at the moment and is bent severely in a pro-Clinton direction. What we need is neutrality. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a "pal" here and the fact that you perceive it as such says something about you, not me. Even if someone else made personal attacks against you that does not give you the right to turn around and make personal attacks against me. Please don't accuse me of "having an agenda". The same thing could easily be said for you, and given that you are the one trying to put in controversial material based on WP:FRINGE sources, it'd have more support that way.

And no Schewizer's book did not have "a massive impact", except perhaps in some far-right circles and among conspiracy theorists. It is not part of any "history". It is not "very much a part of the American mainstream". It's a typical election year partisan hit piece. It was heavily promoted by outlets such as breitbart with... essentially no effect what so ever. People who already didn't like Clinton thought it was great, nobody else cared much either way. The fact that any mention of it gets reverted by myself, as well as other users just reflects the fact that it's a fringe, non-reliable source, not some grand conspiracy against you. Neutrality does not mean "I get to use any junk sources I want to write an attack piece on an organization associated with a person I don't like". You should read WP:NPOV again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And again zooming in on Schweizer rather than recent reports of concerns regarding quid pro quo—Schweizer-free—reported by, say, the unabashedly pro-Clinton New York Times. It's not exactly an advanced tactic and only adds fuel to concerns regarding neutrality of this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Dude, YOU are the one who "zoomed in" on Schweizer right in the comment above to which I was responding! I've already addressed the other stuff - which you DID NOT respond to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And reading the above exchange, this comment by User:Scjessey is particularly relevant in both respects. You ARE confounding "reports from mainstream sources" and "reports from mainstream sources about fringe opinions". And they are also correct in that your contribution to this discussion consists mostly of "disparaging other editors and questioning their motives".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

CNN and NYT Fringe Now?

There's an ongoing attempt here to dismiss any concern regarding the Clinton Foundation and accusations of quid pro quo as somehow fringe or directly tied to Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer. A lot of this comes from editors with extremely pro-Clinton campaign edit histories and highly pro-Clinton social media accounts (publicly provided). However, where's Schweizer mentioned in this NYT article regarding Clinton Foundation quid pro quo concerns?

Here's another article discussing the Clinton Foundation and concerns regarding quid pro quo without mention of Schweizer—from CNN no less. According to CNN "It's the latest instance of overlapping interests between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation"—a perfectly mainstream observation—yet you certainly wouldn't know that by this rosy and perfumed Wikipedia article. Again, are these editors here to make a neutral article to maintain a promo piece? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"A lot of this comes from editors with extremely pro-Clinton campaign ... highly pro-Clinton social media accounts" - what in the world are you talking about???? Just in case, before you read that, make sure you read WP:OUTING. And you have been repeatedly warned/asked/pleaded with to stop discussing editors, making personal attacks and focus on content. See also WP:GREATWRONGS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, this guy. The users' social media accounts are available on their respective Wikipedia user pages, which isn't outing. In fact, I didn't directly link to them to avoid any drama—but here you are nonetheless. Go bark up another tree. In your case, you're clearly in the pro-Clinton camp judging by your ultra-pro-Clinton edit history alone. If you're neutral, collaborate rather than obfuscate. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) And what "Criticism of financial practices" does your CNN article actually cover? That's the section we're talking about here. The CNN article just says that a person who worked for the State Department also volunteered - her own time and money - for the Clinton Foundation. So what? What does this have to do with anything? It looks like you're now just posting random sources with the words "Clinton" and "Foundation" in it, because your previous source - the Clinton Cash book - has been shown to be fringe nutjobbery.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What guy? What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, just stop. Stop. Discussing. Other. Editors. Discuss content. It's not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out issues with neutrality and bias when I see it, thanks. Find the links yourself. Second, the NYT and CNN articles are there as examples of non-Schweizer-associated articles for a "criticism" section. Third, you're trolling regarding Schweizer at this point: I never promoted Clinton Cash, nor is it even "fringe nutjobbery"—it's simply bad pseudo-journalism. Concern and criticism regarding potential quid pro quo and the Clinton Foundation-Clinton's State Department tenure improper overlap are highly common outside of Clinton circles, both on the left and right. A neutral article demands treatment of these criticisms both from Schweizer and more neutral critics. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that you are NOT "pointing out issues with neutrality and bias", but rather you are attacking other editors.

So what you're saying is that your CNN and NY Times articles ARE NOT EVEN used in the article currently? Why are we even talking about it then? This discussion is about my removal of a highly POV section based mostly on Clinton Cash as outlined above. If you want to add some other stuff in, start a separate discussion, otherwise this is just derailing the discussion.

Please don't refer to my comments as "trolling". That is also a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And since now you're agreeing that Clinton Cash is not a reliable source (if I understand your "bad pseudo-journalism" comment correctly), can we at least agree to remove that part from the section? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yo, when you ding my talk page with unsigned, designed-to-annoy "warnings" like this in an act of child-like push back, you're trolling, plain and simple. Don't do it again.

This section is about a criticism section, a section which you're clearly eager to delete. And regarding that: nope, it all needs to be covered neutrally, whether you like it or not. Reword it and improve sources, sure. Bring in the NYT and CNN reports, sure, but your desire to keep the article free of the reality of discourse surrounding it is unacceptable. The possibility of quid pro quo is an extremely common concern—whether you like it or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a standard discretionary sanctions notifications. You can perceive it however you want, but it's not an accusation of any wrong doing and is routinely given to anyone who makes controversial edits in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, this way you can't say you weren't notified.

As to the section, you appear to agree that the source the section is based on is non-reliable but insist on keeping it anyway. That doesn't make any sense. This material - the stuff based on Clinton Cash - needs to be simply removed. If you have some OTHER material you'd like to include, you should propose this material on talk.

Finally, please note that the discretionary sanctions restriction placed on this article states that any material that has been challanged should not be reinstated without "firm consensus". I *am* and have challenged most of the material and it should not be put back in until we can agree on the proper phrasing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you were trolling—and you know it. Try to backpedal it all you want, don't do it again.

Next, I'll explicitly tell you when I agree. Clinton Cash is a popular book that that is now a part of the legacy of the Clinton Foundation—again, like it or not. We report on things that happen in a neutral manner, we don't make judgment calls on them.

You don't get to manipulate your way to your preferred version by wrangling about whatever you're defining as "firm consensus". Currently you've been reverted by one editor and I'm telling you now that I'll do exactly the same unless your edit is neutral and not some pro-Clinton censorship.

We can work together to improve the section but attempting to whitewash this page isn't going to come out in your favor in the end. It didn't work when you tried the same at the Debbie Wasserman Schultz page and it's ultimately not going to work here either. Either button up and work together to make a neutral article or you're wasting everyone's time. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself - please stop attacking other editors, please stop referring to implementation of standard procedures as "trolling". You are also now explicitly stating that you will edit war to your preferred version rather than try to establish consensus through discussion. Other editors have already disagreed with you (and in response you just threw invective and insults at them). One more time - discuss content, not editors.

To that end, can you explain why you think that we should use non-reliable sources to support a "criticism" section? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. I called you out for trolling, which you did. Either move along or apologize—keep pushing me about it and we can make a stink about you harrass-pinging me. Next, you get one revert per 24 hours. So do I. You've been reverted once by another user and if you purged all criticism from the article again, I'd do the same. That's not edit-warring, that's everyday Wikipedia editing. I understanding that given the nature of Wikipedia it can be hard to tell difference but c'est la vie.

Please—you understand me loud and clear. We report, not make judgment calls. Something notable happened, we report on it in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You "called me out for trolling" is another way of saying that you are making personal attacks rather than discussing in good faith. If you wish to "make a stink" about... well, anything, in particular, be my guest. You also shouldn't engage in "revert counting", since that's a pretty clear indication you intend to WP:GAME the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping-troll me and get called a troll. That's how it works. Next time don't act like a child. And I'm "gaming" the 1RR RESTRICTION—how many hours has it been since that last revert? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, the notice of discretionary sanctions does not imply any wrong doing. But it does establish that you have been made aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect. It's not trolling. I've been given this notice, lots of people have been given this notice, pretty much everyone who edits in this topic area gets that notice sooner or later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) I was led to this article from a diff posted by another user at WP:AE. Having looked at the sources and followed the discussion, I am strongly in agreement with bloodofox here. The material is reliably sourced and is relevant to the article. All that's really going on here is a pretty obvious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by some editors. Removing a well-sourced section in its entirety on flimsy excuses and colorful and extravagant, yet unsubstantiated accusations ("conspiracy!" "nutjobbery!", etc...) is as obvious as it gets. Edit-warring over it is deeply disruptive. Athenean (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You were led to this article because you saw I was active on it. You were led to this article because you saw it as an opportunity to further pursue your grudge against me, after failing to get your way at WP:AE. You were led to this article because you are pursuing WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. You were led to this article because you're now WP:STALKING me. You were led to this article because you saw it as an venue for you to continue to cast unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS. You were led to this article because you don't know how to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You were led to this article because you are being petty.

Except you weren't "led" to this article. You *chose* to come here and start another fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think are my motivations. The issue is, you are edit-warring to remove relevant, reliably sourced material in a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your accusations don't change that, nor will they scare me into leaving the article (I would think that by now you would have figured out that this kind of stuff doesn't work with me). Athenean (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not even denying that the only reason here is to WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Indeed, you are doubling down on it, and trying to taunt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to honor your ridiculous accusations with a denial. Btw, now would be a good time for you stop commenting on contributors, and stick on content. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed the content throughout this discussion. You just popped in to offer your unsubstantiated disagreement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you really need to cut out the aspersions and personal attacks. Athenean (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

All of my comments until you showed up had scrupulously discussed content. *You* showed up here after your attempt to get me sanctioned at WP:AE failed miserably and inserted *yourself* into a middle of a disagreement with empty assertions. *You* did not address the sourcing of the material - only asserted that it was "reliable" (it isn't, see Steve Quinn's comments below if you don't want to believe me). *You* described my comments - which discussed content - as "flimsy excuses and colorful and extravagant", despite the fact that I've taken much trouble to document and substantiated my reasoning. *You* are the one who falsely accused me of "edit warring" despite the fact that at the time of your comment I had made only one edit to the article (how the moth elf otter can you "edit war" with one edit?).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Scrupulously like this [12]? Again, not that I care the least bit what you think my motivations are, but if I were you I would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Politico has an overview article on some dubious practices and criticism of the Clinton foundation with links to other reliable media plus reactions of the foundation Politico. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I came here after having recently made minor edits to this article and to Clinton Cash, and wanted to say that the wholesale removal of any material that could be construed as negative, controversial, etc. is very strange, especially given how much these issues have been discussed by mainstream media sources (of which apparently zero are reliable - amazing); this seems less like an aim to better the article and more like a partisan cleanup job. DoubleCross (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's the same small group of editors doing it, across so many articles. I'm not sure what to do. 107.77.224.186 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as you understand that Clinton Cash is a pile of garbage, it is very easy to see why the questionable material was removed. The following section includes an excellent point-by-point analysis that explains everything. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References in the "Criticism of financial practices":

1st ref: [13] Essentially discusses Chelsea having more influence and about to take over the helm and the disagreements that might ensue with people who are used to working under Bill Clinton. Also, there is concern that if Bill retires it will effect the connections Bill has and the donors that contribute. Hence, this does not support the the assertion made by the first two lines in the section stating "Questions have been raised about the financial practices, about its fundraising from foreign governments and corporations, about the transparency of its reporting of its donors, and about possible conflicts of interest between donations to the foundation and the actions of Hillary Clinton when she was U.S. Secretary of State during 2009–13 and in connection with her subsequent 2016 presidential campaign." There is nothing in this article that supports these claims. In fact, the article is exactly about what the title says. This is pretty much synthesis so far.

The second ref: [14]. It is entitled "Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept" First, this is old news - really old news - February 15, 2015 and nothing came of this. I quote "Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations". There was no prohibition on contributions or from the donors - and nothing untoward occurred - there was no currying of favor - and no conflict of interest has been established. So, basically this is a WP:BLP issue in that these two lines attempt to mischaracterize Hilary, by tying her into "questionable", "foreign governments", "financial practices", connections to fundraising while Sec. of State, and so on. These two lines are an attempt to smear Hilary and the Foundation while erroneously tying them together and is a WP:BLP violation.

The third ref:[15] is a NYT review of a book that has been discredited by the mainstream press. And the review covers what the book says, which has been discredited, including allegations that foreign entities received special treatment from the Hilary State Dept because Bill received speaking fees. So this is not a reliable source, because it is coverage of the book contents, which has been determined to be unreliable. It could be having this as a source is a BLP violation (I will have to check).

The fourth source: Is the actual book "Clinton Cash" the NYT did a review on, and is not a reliable source, as for reasons stated above. These two lines are not supported by the cited sources and I know they can't be supported by anything found in the mainstream media because I am familiar with these issues.

That was the first paragraph.

The first sentence in the second paragraph states "In an August 2013 article, The New York Times reported on issues discovered during an internal 2011 review of the Foundation including financial losses, staff conflicts, and spending excesses. This is not remarkable and this happens to many companies all the time when they experience shifts in management or growing pains. This is actually superfluous. Apparently the same source is used here as was used as the first reference above [16]. I have summarized this article above. Also, it summarizes what I just stated: "For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in". Exactly - "has become a sprawling concern" this is what happens. And exactly -- staff conflicts with Chelsea taking on leading role, and so on... This is WP:UNDUE and does not belong in this article.

The next sentence says: "The article also discusses the changes made at the Foundation to address these concerns including installing a new CEO and more influential role for Chelsea Clinton". Yes this is true and Chelsea may even become the new CEO. How is any of this significant? Also apparently Bill discounted the described the deficits. So there is no use in having any of this in the article - it is WP:UNDUE, and a possible WP:BLP violation because this seems to be an attempt to cast aspersions onto the Clintons in a Wikipedia article.

The third paragraph is particularly WP:UNDUE because we are giving free publicity to a book's information that has been discredited, and is merely a smear campaign against all things Clinton. This is the type of smear book the emerges during presidential campaigns. Its most serious accusations have been shown to be untrue. Having this paragraph is probably a serious WP:BLP violation.

And in the fourth paragraph this will not work either for much the same reasons: "At the same time, the "overlap between the Clintons' political network and their charitable work" (mostly in the form of donors who contribute to both the Clintons' political campaigns and to the foundation),and the foundation's acceptance of funds from wealthy interests, has been controversial. Some ethics experts, such as Stephen Gillers of the New York University School of Law and philanthropy expert Joel Fleishman, suggest that an appearance of a conflict of interest (although not an actual conflict of interest) would be raised if Hillary Clinton serves as president while the Clintons continue to raise money for the Foundation, with Gillers saying that "If Bill [Clinton] seeks to raise large sums of money from donors who also have an interest in U.S. policy, the public will rightly question whether the grants affected United States foreign policy." Also, yeah, as Hilary takes the helm as president her relationship to the foundation will noticed, but not of concern unless there is some impropriety. It is doubtful that will happen because it has not yet happened.

Well, I feel obligated to remove all of this discussed material until these issues can be resolved, because BLP is of serious concern on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. After you remove the unreliable "Clinton Cash" nonsense there's NOTHING in these sources about "Criticism of financial practices".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Marek, how many hours has it been since your last revert? ([17]). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think I violated any restrictions imposed by discretionary sanctions on this article, you are incorrect. Now, notice please that I started a discussion over at WP:BLPN (see below).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll say it for you: you were slightly over 24 hours. That's right—what was that about gaming the system? And I've responded there in turn. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Really not hard to find sources critical of the Clinton foundation [18]. Lots more to come. Athenean (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. What's hard is to find GOOD sources. Anyway, what does this have to do with the present section? Is that source in there? No? Then why are you bringing it up in this section? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am bringing it, and will bring others, because the foundation has been widely criticized, and a criticism section is not WP:UNDUE. Athenean (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The article in that right-wing magazine was written by the same guy who thinks Trump is a Democratic Party plant, so I would argue the source is probably a bit suspect. Also, it is an opinion piece full of speculation and allegation, but lacking in concrete evidence and facts. The Clinton Foundation is an independent charity free to receive donations from anyone and anywhere. Just like Paul Manafort apparently did :D -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No one ever said that a criticism section would be undue. See strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Commentary (magazine) definitely passes muster. And again, it's not like finding sources on this is hard. Athenean (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

See Scjessey's comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This blog article tries to use appearances and speculation to imply evidence, because there is no evidence to support the view of this article. This is not acceptable as a reliable source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BLPN notice

I raised the above issue at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard [19].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Year founded as William J. Clinton Foundation

Was the William J. Clinton Foundation founded in 1997 or 2001?

I'm asking this because in the first sentence, "The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation, and called during 2013–15 the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code," it states it was founded in 1997.

However, later in the article it states, "Bill Clinton founded the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001 following the completion of his presidency."

So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article reads like a marketing page for the Clinton Foundation, with such great detail for each individual initiative and program (they do not all need their own sections) using positive, even flowery language. The biggest indicator being there is not even a 'controversy' or 'criticisms' section when the foundation is frequently criticized in the media and involved in controversy. WP:NPOV is not being upheld here. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --maslowsneeds🌈 22:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Same here. DoubleCross (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Athenean (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Removed several things, will stop there for now and see if people disagree. Everything was either unsourced or just had the Clinton Foundation as a source, and seemed unencyclopedic. 50m race walk (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, now I can't make any more edits as the article has been protected. 50m race walk (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction, it was semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents brand new accounts (like ones created *just today*) from editing controversial articles. I don't know if there's a level of protection specifically designed for brand new accounts created just today who immediately jump into controversy and seem to know their way around Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what controversy you're referring to, I shared my thoughts and four people said they agreed. WP:DROPTHESTICK. 50m race walk (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see, two brand new SPA, jumping right into the fire. Anyway, this was discussed above. Arguments were made. Sources were promised. But not provided. So, unless there's something specific that you wish to discuss - with sources - please see WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The cleanup is a separate issue from the addition of a criticism section. Athenean (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not according to the comment by that sleeper sock puppet of an indef banned user IP. But yeah, I guess they're separate. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

One person, not two. I made an account. Please assume good faith and relax, no need for such hostility. You wouldn't be the one who added all this marketing copy for the foundation by any chance, would you? 50m race walk (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, one sockpuppet of a banned user [20], not two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, it is interesting how a brand spanking new account knows how to remove a measured amount of material, knows how to quote policies and guidelines, try engage in consensus on a talk page, and navigate a talk page. I forgot to mention - the only editing beyond the user related pages is the Clinton Foundation pages. Under these circumstances I think content should be restored as soon as possible. I think there is something about non-controversial material allowed into articles with primary sourcing - I believe this is acceptable. That is, I mean, non-controversial outside Wikipedia Steve Quinn (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA WP:AGF. I should clarify one thing: when I mentioned the absence of a criticisms section, I was using that as an indicator of a non-neutral article. I wasn't suggesting we create such a section, at least not based on what I said alone, as I brought no sources. The low-hanging fruit is edits like those I made. Perhaps uncontroversial primary sourced info is allowed but that doesn't mean we need to include it either. As written, a good chunk of this article is not encyclopedic and barely more than marketing copy. 50m race walk (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of who is/isn't a sock puppet (I make no judgement on the matter) I do fully support this series of edits, which appeared to cut out what was mostly CF-sourced fluff. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this series of edits appear to be fluff. Wikipedia should not be used to fluff the Clinton Foundation. maslowsneeds🌈 18:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The Clinton Foundation does not need to be "fluffed". The good it does speaks for itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It can speak for itself on its own website. On Wikipedia, mission statement fluff and jargon like this is disapproved of (see WP:MISSION), and third-party sources are needed that detail the foundation's work. The article is full of primary-sourced unacceptable mission statement-speak that is empty of actual factual content or precision: wording like "an incubator for new policies and programs", "committed to", "CHAI strives", "to focus on", "convenes global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing problems"," CGI helps its members maximize their efforts to create positive change", "Commitments to Action", "notable individuals", "a program to fight climate change", "promote sustainable economic growth", "childhood obesity epidemic", "empowers children", "The foundation is also endorsing", "market-driven development that creates jobs and increases incomes", "CHMI works to activate individuals", "meet the unmet needs", etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with this. The language should be cleaned up and made encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hopefully I didn't go too far but I did a lot of cleanup. The biggest thing was putting all of the initiatives into one section. I removed a lot of unsourced and primary sourced press-release type stuff as well. I'll stop there for now. 50m race walk (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not too much so far, imo. There is still a lot of what is cliché or less than clear jargon though. "a key architect of Clinton's post-presidency" - what?; "CGI U includes two days of plenary sessions and hands-on breakout sessions followed by a day-long service project" - again what, sounds like a religious gathering?, "notable individuals" - notable in the opinion of whom?; "fight climate change" - I see no conflict infobox on the climate change article with the Clinton Foundation listed as a belligerent; "childhood obesity epidemic" - obesity is not a disease; "activating individuals" whatever that is (I'm not aware that people have an activation switch or a power down option), and so on. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

About that Missing Criticism Section

I've commented on how much of a puff piece this article has been for months now. I've even flagged it for neutrality a few times for exactly these issues (which were promptly reverted, no less, even by some now agreeing that there was plenty of non-neutral text, lol). And so I'm glad to see constructive work being done to move it more toward neutrality.

Once it no longer reads like a Clinton Foundation or Clinton campaign press release, maybe we can finally get some neutral coverage on the numerous criticisms swirling around the foundation (for example, see today's What is the Clinton Foundation and why is it controversial? from CNN or US election: Why is Clinton's foundation so controversial? from the less pro-Clinton BBC) without an edit war, name-calling, or pro-Clinton Wikipedia-campaigning.

Looking at this article, you'd have no idea any of the huge amount of controversy surrounding the foundation exists nor the role it has played, for example, during the Democratic primary and now during the general election. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not that the text is/was "non-neutral", it's just that it's written in a non-encyclopedic tone. The info itself is fine, it just should be rewritten and properly sourced. Our disagreement was over a different issue. As far as the "criticisms" section goes, the previous discussion still applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Composing a Wikipedia article as a puff piece for any organization is about as non-neutral as it gets. As for "the previous discussion still applies", I have no idea what you mean by that. If you've got a problem with the CNN or BBC references above, which would be perfect for such a section, let's hear it (or maybe write a letter to the editor). I am, however, not interested in getting into an edit-war with the Wikipedia extension of the Clinton campaign. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not interested in someone who appears to be incapable of civil discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad style, any criticisms should be incorporated into the text. For example we should explain where the money for the Haiti earthquake relief came from and how it was spent or misspent. As reported in the Washington Post, "The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy."[21] Just as this should not read as a Foundation brochure, it should not read like an article in the right-wing media either. But it should reflect how the foundation is reported in mainstream publications. TFD (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally agreed but with a comment: while we have criticisms sections in articles without any problem, bringing it into the text is also fine by me. However, the current whitewashing that this article presents has to change. The CNN and BBC articles above are great places to start. As my experience has been that my edits will simply be reverted on sight here, so the best I can do is contribute references and comments as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it must be asked : How much of all the whitewashing going on, on Wikipedia, is the work of Correct the Record ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. On other editors. Read WP:NPA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You repeat this often but seem to believe it only applies to others and not to you. As you've repeatedly attacked me on this page and now have followed me to another page to continue attacking me, including making threats, in attempt to get me to stop editing this article. 50m race walk (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not "attack" you. I've merely pointed out that you are a sock puppet of a user who got indef banned for harassment. Which is trivially easy to establish with just a few clicks. And of course you haven't even bothered denying it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet is a personal attack."Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. On other editors. Read WP:NPA" 50m race walk (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, it's WP:DUCK when it's this obvious. The SPI has been filed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

One man's whitewashing is another man's neutralization. Making baseless accusations is extremely unhelpful, and does nothing to improve the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Under no circumstances could I support a criticism section. As I have said numerous times on all the articles I contribute to, crit sections are poorly-written shit magnets. We can do better. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

:bloodofox, we do have a problem with articles that have criticism sections. Look at the talk pages of any of them and none of them achieve good article status. There is no criticism section in Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson, and books about them do not contain criticism sections. That does not mean that articles do not convey that there is nothing bad to say about them. TFD (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone actually watching the contributions of Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)? This is an admittedly extremely biased editor who absolutely should not be editing these topics. It is absurd that he is allowed to operate on this level. There is zero NPOV, yet he is lauded as a "content creator". Spin doctoring. It's not encyclopedic when it's whitewashed. Doc talk 09:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I brought the issue of the purging to the Talk page, so that others could see what was happening agreed above that this article needed a second look. I think Wikipedia is under attack. maslowsneeds🌈 10:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I had to correct a comment I thought I was making on another page. maslowsneeds🌈 17:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The personal attack made above by Doc9871 (talk · contribs) is absolutely outrageous. Please assume good faith and cut out the bullshit comments about "whitewashing" et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak for anybody, but you must admit that many politically-related articles are under attack. Editors are not under attack ; rather, it is Wikipedia, itself, which is under attack. Any reliably-sourced, fact-based citations that even remotely reflect critically on the subject are being purged. Wikipedia is being treated as a fluff farm for the subjects of articles. There is no word other than whitewashing to be used to describe what is going on -- unless you prefer the more palatable euphamism, "correct the record" ? maslowsneeds🌈 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can only speak to the articles in my watchlist, but with the years of experience I have accumulated editing political articles I can say that I see no evidence that editing behavior has altered significantly. Elections will always attract more editors trying to impose a point of view, but there are usually sufficient "regular" editors to limit these project-harming activities. On this article in particular, there was a lot of "legacy" stuff that was recently cut out - a throwback to when the article was originally written with less available sourcing. The "purge" of the last couple of days has, for the most part, done a good job of removing poorly sourced fluff. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is major change made without any actual discussion and consensus. Perhaps some changes are reasonable, but I wonder why so much relevant factual information was removed. If account who made it was indeed a sockpuppet account, I think most of these changes should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like what was removed was a bunch of unsourced (or primary-sourced) buzzwordy fluff that probably came straight from a press release. And all the different "efforts and entities" (more press release-speak) are listed under "Programs and initiatives". I agree with these all being in one section. DoubleCross (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, most of what was removed was unsourced and fluffly, and I don't recommend that anyone revert. That said, My very best wishes is correct that it would be best if editors discussed major changes on the talk page prior to removal. Majoreditor (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that some his edits are fine, however something like this looks like removal of relevant and well sourced info. This is not a bluff or buzzwords. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I just looked over that edit, and the stuff that got cut was either unsourced or (as the edit summary says) not mentioned at all in the source given. There is some buzzwordy crap in the first block of text cut too. DoubleCross (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's no secret that there are a few regular editors here who essentially edit as arms of the Clinton campaign. It's reflected in their edit histories, enthusiastically pro-Clinton comments, and aggression toward anything resembling criticism of the campaign that might be brought into the article. There's good reason that this article has remained as pro-Clinton as it is to this day: it's in the best interest of the Clinton campaign to minimize controversy and criticism as much as possible, especially now that the Clinton Foundation is more controversial than it's ever been before.

In turn, these editors are quick to revert, quick to obstruct and delay, and no comment or observation is too positive to be made about the Clinton campaign. They'll get very loud if and when you inevitably have to call them out on bias and may well attack you (or look the editor way while another editor does it). They'll attempt to sideline with policy and non-policy, but when policy or standard gets in the way, it's out the window.

Such is life here at ground zero. Following up on an earlier comment, whether some editors here are working with the campaign in some way is anyone's guess (they're not likely to admit it). However, we're supposed to be building neutral articles outside of the gravity of elections, and that's simply not happening here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)