Talk:Clinton Foundation

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 [1], 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. [2], [3], [4].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 [5]? 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: [6] 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: [7]. 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:[8] 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 [9]. 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? ([10]). :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 [11]. 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 [12].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 [13], 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."[14] 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)

Indeed, you are right. It seems that the problem with puffery has now been fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Clinton Editing, Correct the Record, the Clinton Campaign, and Current Events

Inappropriate discussion about editor bias -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 and apparently they don't have to). For example, given the high profile of this article—especially right now—it's naive to rule out the activity of Correct the Record on this talk page. Whatever the case, it's no secret that there are a few regular editors here and on related articles that essentially edit as if they're 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 an article. On personal pages linked from their user pages, they gush enthusiastically about how wonderful all things Clinton are. Indeed, 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. While we're supposed to be building neutral articles outside of the gravity of elections, that's simply not happening here: reading this article, you'd have no idea that there was any kind of firestorm surrounding the foundation going on at the moment. Indeed, not a day seems to go by now without multiple mainstream media venues commenting on how controversial it is and what role it's playing in the current election (i.e., one of several from today: CNN's Clinton Foundation official plays defense over accusations). So how is this supposed to be reflected in the article without immediate reversion from one of these editors (or their pals)? Anyone want to step up and give a solid section reflecting recent media reports on the foundation a go? A lot of recent edits have removed the most blatant problems but surely we're supposed to be reporting on what's happening now? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) It's pretty clear one editor on this page is either working for the campaign or at the very least, blatantly pushing his POV across numerous articles. However outside of him admitting it, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about it. And he knows that, which is why he doesn't even try to hide it. Even cracking jokes about it on his own talk page. 50m race walk (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Should we ask for an RfC so that editors without a vested interest in this article can suggest/make unbiased edits, per Wikipedia policies for RfC ?maslowsneeds🌈 11:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC) For Wikipedia requests for comment, see WP:RFC. This might be of interest too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang The Banner talk 15:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) All of this discussion about editorial bias is wholly inappropriate for an article talk page, which is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the article only. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Entry on Incidents Page

There's an entry on the Incidents Page about how the above thread got shut down. maslowsneeds🌈 17:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

History Section Wording

the first sentence is goofy: "The origins of the foundation go back to 1997, when then president Bill Clinton was focused mostly on fundraising for the future Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas." there is no follow up to what was happening in 1997. the next sentence skips right to 2001. did he decide to start a foundation in 1997? can we get a source on that? did he raise money in 1997? can we get a source on that? otherwise i think this sentence could just be deleted or tweaked. --2600:8804:6100:6AA:F1B7:EA31:2E67:3BE1 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy‎ article

Editors here may be interest in the above-named article, and a pending deletion nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy‎. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

Add an explicit disambiguation section between the public, international charity "Clinton Foundation" (formerly William J. Clinton Foundation now the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation) and "The Clinton Family Foundation" which is a separate and distinct traditional pass-through private foundation. The Clinton Family Foundation is the vehicle for Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal charitable giving.

Some sources that explain need for disambiguation and info about The Clinton Family Foundation:

68.12.228.78 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

References

 Done. I've made the distinction in this article's lead section. Also wrote a brief section on it.  Paine  ^u/c 08:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2014 numbers

I've reverted edits that included 2014 data, primarily because they relied on a tax return (which is a primary source) instead of media reporting. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

These were amended in 2015 and are the latest numbers available. There is another reference in the info box. Not just a primary source. Glennconti (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC) http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinton-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/ Glennconti (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC) So I have just provided a media reference that lists the tax return as its source. The three refernces I provided do show the facts represented in the statement I added. These facts are signed off on by The Clinton Foundation. Are there any other Wikipedia technicalities you would like to use to suppress this information? If so let's discuss here before you revert thank you. Glennconti (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source. And please don't talk about suppressing stuff because it makes you sound like an agenda-driven editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, sorry if I suspect your motivations. Are we indeed dealing with a feature article here or a "C" article? So I provided the tax returns and two media source. Why did you revert the info I provided in the info box?Glennconti (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) That info was referenced by the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/16/clinton-foundation-amends-four-years-worth-of-tax-returns/?tid=a_inl

So the Tax Returns are a Primary Source and can't be used? Please read the following: A media outlet reports on the tax return and they are not a Reliable Source? It is my opinion that the Daily Caller is a Reliable Source because that have indeed reported the facts on display in the tax return reliably. Please use WP:COMMON. and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." The tax returns are legal documents about the Foundation's finance and therefore even more reliable than the info on their website.Glennconti (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC) This is information that the Foundation says about its self and therefore falls under an acceptable Primary Source and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Glennconti (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality What do you mean misinterpreted? The revenue of the foundation in 2014 is the revenue. The expenses are the expenses. I did not interpret anything. I just stated these two facts as they are stated by the Foundation on their tax return.Glennconti (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC) I am not spinning any statistics here. Glennconti (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Use a reliable secondary source. The AP, the Washington Post, Reuters, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. are all examples. All these outlets have extensively analyzed the Foundation, and they can be trusted to synthesize the information and report what's relevant. Even if we can accurately report information from primary sources, sometimes this presents a risk of cherry-picking numbers. If the same info was referenced by the Washington Post, then it's preferable to cite the Post directly (or to cite both the primary source and the Post, but not the primary source standing alone).

As for the Daily Caller, it is not a reliable source, particularly for Clinton-related information.

Also, when citing to a 65-page document (like the Form 990 you linked), you should cite to a specific page number. It is unfair to other editors to force them to hunt down the exact point in the reference that is supposed to be the citation. See WP:PAGENUM. Neutrality^talk 20:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your working with me. The first page of any tax return has both the revenue and the expenses. I did not feel I was imposing a hardship having editors read the first page.Glennconti (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

On page 28 of the Clinton Foundations web site https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf

They list their tax return. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says we can use financial information off of a companies website even though it is a primary source. Why can't we say what the expenses were? The Washington Post has corroborated the revenue at 177.8 million. The website says the expenses are $91.28 million. Please explain why we can't use it. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have found an aditional source http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/ that shows the Clinton Foundation expenses in 2014 were "a little over 91 million". This source is a Pulitzer Prize winning website of the Tampa Bay Times. Any good? Glennconti (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) The Tampa Bay Times is widely considered one of the Top Ten newspapers in America and has won 10 Pulitzer Prizes. It is Florida’s largest newspaper. Glennconti (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. None of the secondary sources support the numbers you have presented, and you have failed to account for the fact that expenses fluctuate from year to year based on investment. You have made it seem like the foundation is spending a large ratio of its income on administration, which all reasonable reliable sources say is absolutely not the case. Please present all future controversial changes on this talk page and seek consensus for inclusion, rather than just edit warring it into the article. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sir I don't know what you are playing at. Indeed all of the secondary sources support the simple facts that are plainly listed in the Foundation's 2014 Tax Return. From the Tampa Bay Times: "We’ll Domestic violence in lesbian relationshipsunderstanding of accounting. When you invest money it is not an expense but it is an asset to asset transfer. But the point is moot. The Tampa Bay Times says specifically the 2104 Total expenses were $91 million. This is supported by the Primary Source also. I am just including that fact in the article. This is not a controversial change. What is controversial is your motivation in continuing to revert my edits. Glennconti (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Further I have not mentioned any ratios at all. I have not made anything seem any way at all. I have simply included two facts from the latest tax return possible (2014). Glennconti (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) How Wikipedia is supposed to work is I should be allowed to make reasonable edits (which I have done) and not be continually being reverted by stone wallers in the name of consensus. Glennconti (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There are two editors who disagree with what you are doing, so that means you have failed to get consensus for your edits. You are already in violation of the discretionary sanctions documented at the top of this talk page. Your edits make it look as if the Clinton Foundation is expensive to administer, when this is patently not the case. I can only conclude this has suddenly become an issue because Reince Priebus just made it one. Please seek consensus for all future edits that are controversial, and bear in mind it is automatically controversial if someone reverts what you have done. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well do what you want. I call total bullshit on this entire article. I have primary (Foundation Tax returns signed by members of the foundation) and secondary sources (Washington Post - an irrefutably reliable source) showing the Foundation revenues for 2014 at $177.8 Million and you wont even let me edit the info box in something that is completely obvious to anyone with eyes. Shame on you. I don't know how you look yourself in the mirror. Glennconti (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this something worth arguing about? It looks like complete crap to have numbers from 12, 13 and 15 in the infobox and nothing for 14. Either delete everything besides the previous year or include data for 14. Are we really edit warring over whether WaPo is a reliable source? TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

While the WaPo is certainly far from irrefutably reliable (especially its editorial board, (cf. CNN money, the Intercept on their condemning Snowden for their own decisions...) I can only agree that this selective omission would seem very strange to someone just arriving. Interesting talk page. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My problem here is the total lack of context, and the seemingly different views of the charity watchdog organizations in relation to the amounts of money quoted. It simply isn't appropriate to equate the annual income/expenditure of a charity with the work it does. One must surely take a wider view, with a big picture over a number of years. One of the charity orgs mentioned in the article seems to do that, while the other does not. The ratio between income and expenditure does not seem at all relevant or useful. I think TJW's idea of deleting all the numbers makes more sense, but a change of that significance would need to be discussed thoroughly first. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources are good, and I see no reason to leave the 2014 revenue out of the infobox, given that the surrounding years are present. However, putting the foundation spending in the same sentence is synthesis -- inviting the reader to calculate "profit" by subtracting expenses from revenue. But this organization is non-profit, so the excess money must go into savings to be carried over, which is what we will assume happened unless/until there is a WP:RS accusing them of doing something else with it. Thundermaker (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sir, if I read you correctly, your analysis is flawed. If you take the revenue less the expenses you get how much the Foundation is spending on charitable programs not how much savings are being carried over. But that is very imperfect too. Giving two facts is not necessarily synthesis but only invites the reader to dig deeper in to the finances to get a more accurate picture of the Foundation. If I give only ONE FACT for example a person's W-2 Income only (Person's revenue), that gives a very poor picture of the persons finances. A second fact tends to make the picture clearer. For a TWO FACT example, W-2 Income of $100,000 but living in New York City, New York. Or, $100,000 living in Tupelo, Missisipi(The person in Mississippi might be having a better standard of living but at a cost of less museums and theater etc.). It just gives a frame of reference. And although, two facts gives a clearer picture than one, anyone jumping to conclusions about a person based on two facts is partially ignorant and should not be our most major concern. Our business is to provide information. Further, your argument that two facts necessarily implies improper synthesis conclusions is not necessarily correct. Just supplying one fact can lead to improper conclusions (the real gripe with synthesis) too. If people want to jump to a conclusion based on one fact they can also (Oh! He makes $100,000 - He must be rich!). But, shouldn't we be providing information? Two facts provides twice the information as one - and that is good and what we should be doing. Suppressing information because we are afraid of what conclusions people might erroneously jump to would have us providing no information at all if we were to take that logic to it's conclusion. Also, should we never use more complex sentences that have lots of information for fear of somehow being accused of synthesis? When people are evaluating a charity, one of the key metrics is the charities expenses compared to their collections(revenue). If we were talking about race cars, the audience would want to know Horsepower (of the engine) yes but even better is Horsepower AND Weight (of the car) - Two facts are better. But then again people should not be jumping to conclusions on two facts alone. Certain charities that operate in Africa have greater travel expenses getting their personnel on location if they are based out of North America. And Horse Power and Car Weight will not determine which driver wins the race.Glennconti (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Further "SYNTH is not a rigid rule. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." Providing two facts in this case really does improve the article. Glennconti (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) It has been my experience that if a sentence with good information tends to lead some readers to jump to an erroneous conclusion then a previous or subsequent sentence can be used to mitigate possible damage. Let's not just eliminate good information out of fear that outlier readers might jump to the wrong conclusion. Glennconti (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:WALLOFTEXT. TimothyJosephWood 12:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, please accept my apology. Simply stated "Two facts are better than one" and "If some people jump at the wrong conclusion based on one sentence, we have other remedies"Glennconti (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The infobox question should be fairly easy to reach a consensus on. There are only really two options. Beyond that, if you would like to submit a proposal for a section on the finances of the foundation, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to do. There are already a half dozen sources in the current infobox that can be drawn from. TimothyJosephWood 13:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The article should have whatever the most recent income is (2015 at the moment) and delete the historical income data. And since "Charity Navigator" is not currently listing the foundation, we should remove mention of it from the introduction. One watchdog is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be constructive to combine the historical data and make a subsection on finances. Funneling money is a lot of what these kinds of organizations do. Sure, Bill and Melinda can leverage their notoriety to raise awareness, but if that was all they had, I probably couldn't just say "Bill and Melinda" and be certain everyone knows who I'm talking about.

But trying to cram all available annual figures in the infobox isn't really what the infobox is for. The infobox is for a snapshot of the most important information, and everything else should go into the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a "finances" section, although this should be driven by reliable secondary sources, not raw data from primary sources. As WaPo said, the finances of the Clinton Foundation are unusual, so we must be careful to present the reader with something that is not impenetrably complicated to follow - better to have nothing at all than something confusing. And I 100% agree with what you said about the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what "unusual" exactly means in this context, but the point is moot without a proposal. I would love to add something to WP:NOTFORUM to the effect that all this goes much more smoothly when you work from actual proposals and not abstract debate. TimothyJosephWood 21:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I know, right? I've always preferred this style. A concrete proposal, even better with example text, is easier to discuss than ambiguous, nebulous concepts. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "|founded_date = 1997" to "|founded_date = {start date and age|1997}" to correspond to the Clinton Foundation's official founding date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine  ^u/c 04:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit:
It's been removed again. 108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done...again. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason for this template to be used. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The use of the template is at worst neutral, and it is a commonly used template. This is one of those time when you should pick your battles. TimothyJosephWood 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care. I just think the "years ago" template is retarded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey Watch your language. 108.45.29.72 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.29.72 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? (Personal attack removed) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's enough. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey Oh please, not in the context I'm fairly certain you're implying it in. I'd like to see you spell out that series of four letter words you implied right here and see if you can find another definition to make it appropriate to write on here. In other words, just stop and accept that the said template belongs here. I apologize for what just happened there, @TimothyJosephWood. 108.45.29.72 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, did I just witness Scjessey (talk · contribs) call something "retarded" and then tell a user to "STFU" when they were called on it? What is this, third grade? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably why he keeps popping up at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't appreciate having my comments edited. And zero ANI threads have panned out, because they are all just from right-wing agenda-driven editors attacking me in transparent attempts to prevent neutral editors from curtailing their disgraceful POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha. You are the one with the agenda. You are certainly not neutral. If anyone is pushing POV it is you. Glennconti (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no agenda. I'm not even a voter in the US election, because I'm a British citizen. I edit these articles to try to prevent the rampant POV-pushing and revisionism. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with the hagiographical pro-Clintonism displayed on the social media account you link to on your Wikipedia user page. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)