Talk:Open Society Foundations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Open Society Foundations[edit]

OSI is now called the Open Society Foundations http://soros.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwoodstock (talkcontribs) 10:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this name of the page needs to be changed to reflect the organizations new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheena J (talkcontribs) 00:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Anomie 00:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of open and democratic[edit]

Soros opponents accuse him of being anti-democratic. Let's collaborate on writing about these accusations. To be fair, let's be sure not to exclude anything his supporters say about openness or democracy. Perhaps they two sides are using different Definitions of democracy. --Wing Nut 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really are serious about wanting to write about these accusations, let's quote the Investor's Business Daily's editorial, The Soros Threat To Democracy. Asteriks 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That Investor's Business Daily editorial is just that - an editorial. A poorly written and reasoned one at that. If there is any substance to the anti-democratic accusations then there has to be a better source than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.208.39 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

internal link error?[edit]

Trying to click on a link as below: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worldwide_Initiatives_for_Grantmaker_Support&action=edit

at the page link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Institute#See_also

but does not open - suspect because of the bit that reads &action=edit ?

thanks, jason avaiki 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs controversy section[edit]

Hi. I am not an expert on OSI. I'm probably not going to edit here. But an observation I have made is this article looks nearly totally absent of any controversy, except for one external link. It's really odd -- other wiki pages pages on such organizations have such controversy sections, whatever they may be named. But on this page such a section is strangely absent. Now I'm just looking at this as one slice in time so maybe it had one once and it was recently cut. Who knows. Anyway, that's my opinion, and I think a controversy section is warranted. According to that one external link to the IBD editorial, OSI is secretive about what it does about American policy--there is no reason Wikipedia needs to remain secretive about OSI as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing secretive about lack of criticism, you your self said that you will not take the time to add any. Although your comment is two years old, it is still relevant, I will participating in this article and encourage anyone interested in developing a criticism section to do so.Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Any report on controversies must contain plenty of and correct details plus the 'other side' defending themselves. This is too much for here, especially as these things happen and change every day. Add to that the necessity to translate events and statements from the various language environments they operate in and it becomes an impossible task. Use search word combinations to find out activities but keep in mind that events which nobody bothered to translate will not reach you.
The controversy lies in the fact, me thinks, that the foundation seeks to change societies, therefore operates in the political landscape, a mission that should be the domain of political parties and more openness than NGOs generally engage in. The addresses of their organisations in the former East Block countries are on this Canadian (ICOM International Council of Museums) page (!?). Remove & because it did not save. http:/&/www.maltwood.uvic.ca/tmr/contact.html

58.174.193.2 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of activity[edit]

Based on the encouragement of Zzzmidnight I've added some controversial points back into the article after they were systematically removed by Xenophrenic across multiple edits:

  • In this edit he removes content about Malaysia and states "mvd to criticism article". I could not find any prominent link to a "criticism article".
  • In this edit he removes the notable Glenn Beck quote with the comment "please justify your new addition in the Talk page rather than edit war".
  • In this edit he removes the Glenn Beck quote with the comment "rmv 'Criticism' header for reasons explained in WP:CSECTION; +wording per cited sources".

Nice try, Xenophrenic but I've just added all that notable controversy back into the article. Lets see what long-winded WP policy you quote this time to justify the removal of notable controversial information.

According to WP:CSECTION I've included the events into the timeline instead of creating a new "Controversy" section. Is that unsuitable too? Then feel free to restructure the information in any way to see fit.

Wonderfl (reply) 11:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wonderfl.
"Nice try"? "systematically removed"? "Lets see what long-winded WP policy you quote this time"?
Thank you for the polite suggestions and kind words. I'm sure User:Zzzmidnight would be pleased, if he existed. Did you mean User:Rolyatleahcim? Regarding your three bullet points: the Malaysian blurb was actually moved to the Maria Chin Abdullah article. It is unfortunate that you had trouble discerning that. The Glenn Beck conspiracy cruft was indeed removed pending discussion to establish justification for inclusion of that weirdness. Editors concluded its inclusion wasn't justified. Discussions between Beck-fans and legitimate Wikipedia editors are all over this Talk page. The Beck content did, however, maintain a presence for a time at the George Soros conspiracy theories article, but that was deleted.
As for your concerns about "long-winded WP policy, I can't help you with that. You might try leaving suggestions on how to shorten them at the specific Talk pages for those policies. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Puff Piece[edit]

This whole article sounds like one big PR statement. This organization is controversial, but you don't even get a hint of that here. It needs to be re-written, badly. DesScorp (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are notes from Glenn Beck's critique that should cover some of the criticisms of the OSI: [4] - At the London School of Economics, Soros discovered the work of philosopher Karl Popper, whose ideas on open society had a profound influence on his thinking. He was attracted to Popper's critique of totalitarianism,QUOTES FROM “The Open Society and Its Enemies: Hegel and Marx,” by Karl Popper (Vol. 2), by Karl Popper - The development of capitalism has led to the elimination of all classes but two, a small bourgeiouse and a huge proletariat: and the increase of misery has forced the latter to revolt against its exploiters. The conclusions are, first, that the workers must win the struggle, secondly that, by eliminating bourgeiouse, they must establish a classless society, since only one class remains. (pg 151-152) - But all over the earth, organized political power has begun to perform far-reaching economic functions. Unrestrained capitalism has given way to a new historical period, to our own period of political interventionism, of the economic interference of the state. Interventionism has assumed various forms. There is the Russian variety; there is the fascist form of totalitarianism; and their s the domestic interventionism of England, of the United States, and the “Smaller Democracies” led by Sweden where the technology of democratic intervention has reached the highest level so far. (pg 155) - Admittedly, increasing misery must produce resistance, and it is even likely to produce rebellious outbreaks. But the assumption of our argument is that the misery cannot be alleviated until victory has been won in the social revolution. (pg 163) - I am not in all cases and under all circumstance against a violent revolution. (pg 166) - …the working of democracy rests largely upon the understanding that a government which attempts to misuse its powers and to establish itself as a tyranny (or which tolerates the establishment of a tyranny by anybody else) outlaws itself, and that the citizens have not only a right, but also a duty to consider the action of such government a crime, and its members as a dangerous gang of criminals. (pg 167)


MORE ABOUT KARL POPPER http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8018 - George Soros, who first encountered The Open Society as Popper’s student at the London School of Economics, founded the Open Society Institute to propagate Popper’s ideas, particularly in Eastern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talkcontribs) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.soros.org/about. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Look now and understand the marxist logic, deviod of logic or reason. Democracy is a sham, two wolves and one sheep. Nothing else needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.143.32 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Karl Popper[edit]

From Karl Popper: Among Popper's students and advocates at the London School of Economics is the billionaire investor George Soros, who says his investment strategies are modelled on Popper's understanding of the advancement of knowledge through the distinctly Hegelian idea of falsification. Among Soros's philanthropic foundations is the Open Society Institute, a think-tank named in honour of Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, which Soros founded to advance the Popperian defense of the open society against authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Seems this should be incorporated here Redhanker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Some people don't like OSI but I don't see any specifics here as to why. Controversy is fine and indeed welcome, but to say that "this article is written like an advertisement" without any backup does not add to the discussion. Talk about Glen Beck & Karl Popper is irrelevant. What is right or wrong with their actual programs? Yes, Soros has given money to liberal causes (Democrats, not Republicans) in the U.S., which automatically earns him many enemies. Is he or isn't he supporting democracy abroad, with more impartiality than the U.S. government? Explain please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towsen (talkcontribs) 02:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Trade unions?[edit]

the development of civil society organizations (e.g., charities, community groups and trade unions) I didn't know the OSI gave money to trade unions, it seems unlikely given the nature of the organisation. I'd like to know the source for that statement and have put a citation needed tag on it. Extua (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did some brief searches of their website, and didn't find references regarding support for trade unions. I removed that part from text until a more concrete source is located. It appears the "Trade Union" example may have come straight from the Civil society page, but I'm not seeing the source for it in that article either. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding reference replacement[edit]

This edit claims that the reference replacement does not cover all the content. Which content is the reference citing that it covers? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A prior edit summary indicated which. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The word "unitary" does not show up anywhere in the source. So we can revert and remove unitary entirely? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, we convey the meaning from sources, not the exact words (unless we are quoting), lest we run afoul of WP:COPYVIO. Would you prefer a different word that has substantially the same meaning? "Singular", perhaps? What is your objection to the word "unitary"? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer a word that actually reflects what's being said. Given that the reference is entirely to the text of Beck's show in this instance, I'm happy with whatever can be found in his statements, given that we're working off of his beliefs. We must be very careful about deriving what we believe he means when we have clear statements about what is actually being said (another reason to avoid using biased/partisan sources when possible). Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Shows, not "show". And we shouldn't look at primary sources of his statements (transcripts, for instance) and derive what we believe he said from them, which is why we rely on secondary sources. Citing primary sources in addition to secondary sources is okay, however. If you are fine with wording that reflects what was said, then I do not see what objection you have with words like "unitary". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unitary wasn't said, that's my objection, nor is it used in the link you added back. I agree that we should not derive anything from the primary sources: it's why I replaced the link with a transcript and we should go with perhaps a more direct quote. Is that a problem? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unitary was conveyed. Hard to say if there is a problem until I see the quote you are proposing. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We remove the words "unitary global government," unless you can show where it was conveyed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you bother to read the cited source? I think you are fixated on the word "unitary" and missing it. What wording would you prefer to use? He's been accused of getting rid of individual governments with the intention of establishing a unitary global government, so how would you prefer to convey that accusation? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have read the source, yes. My preference is that we quote Beck directly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hard to say if there is a problem until I see the quote you are proposing. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd simplify the last paragraph: "Former Fox News host Glenn Beck has accused Soros of using his Open Society Foundations to intentionally undermine societies, arguing that the Open Society Foundations have too much control over academics and media, and in some countries have obtained political power that qualifies them as "shadow governments"." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not simplification; that completely removes the intent Beck ascribes to Soros' alleged undermining of various societies. Why do that? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where I do that, seeing as "intentionally undermine societies" is in the text. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. "intentionally undermine societies with the intention of establishing a unitary global government" is in the text. You completely remove the intent Beck ascribes to Soros' alleged undermining of various societies. Why do that? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is "unitary global government" in Beck's text? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe those words are in Beck's text; it's a close paraphrase by a WIkipedia editor(s). At Wikipedia, we convey the meaning from sources, not the exact words (unless we are quoting), lest we run afoul of WP:COPYVIO. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not use the word "unitary" unless somebody actually said it. The idea of a "unitary world government" has been thrown around so much by right wing nuts, that it has gained a meaning that has nothing to do with Soros. If Soros has said he wants a "unitary" world government, or even if some responsible person has said that he believes that Soros wants a "unitary" world government, then we might use it, but until then we can very reasonably use some other word.

As far as right-wing nuts goes - I have to say that I don't believe that Fox News or many of the Murdoch outlets qualify as reliable sources, certainly not when looking at their editorial positions regarding liberal causes and politicians. As Mike Royko said many years ago "No self-respecting dead fish would allow himself to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper." There's a special article for much of this: George Soros conspiracy theories. Beck is certainly borderline as far as the facts, but if we can allow him to state his own opinions here, without magnifying the seemingly nut-case items, then there is no reason not to let him stay on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Glenn Beck[edit]

Should Glenn Beck's emotive utterances be properly understood as criticisms? Isn't there a more credible person to represent conservative criticisms of the OSF? Compared to the Left criticisms, this seems more like an attempt to make Right criticism seem frivolous--i.e. a Straw Man.

169.231.3.170 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Soros Foundation be merged into this article. I can't ascertain a meaningful distinction between Soros Foundations and Open Society Foundations. They both seem to refer to the network of philanthropic activities funded by George Soros. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also do not see a major distinction between the two articles. In fact, the "official website" link at the Soros Foundation article already maps to the official website for this article. It's a sound proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Having worked there I'd say that there is a difference technically speaking similar to the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, even though in both cases the terms are often used interchangeably. Soros Foundations is not the legal entity but refers to all the Soros related entities in the vast network. Open Society Foundation is a legal 501c3 entity and there are individual Open Society Foundations in different countries operating as legal entities specifically engaged in this kind of [open society] work. So Open Society Foundations are a subset of the Soros Foundation Network just as Great Britain is a subset of the United Kingdom. The analogy isn't perfect but reasonable enough to explain the fact that the Soros Foundation Network is more than just the Open Society Foundations. Jpeizer

If we keep the two pages, I'm having trouble seeing how we would decide which content goes where. Any suggestions on what would make sense in that regard? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead with this merge. Feedback/comments welcome. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the available evidence we have I think the merger was appropriate. Thanks Safehaven86 for executing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify on the name question above (I work there),"Open Society Foundations" has been used since at least 2010 to refer to all the foundations that form part of George Soros' global Open Society network. But OSF is not a legal entity itself, as erroneously asserted above: in the United States, the legal identity (501c3) is known as Open Society Institute, [1] the name previous given to the whole network. In Ukraine, the local foundation is known as the International Renaissance Foundation.[2] In the U.K., it is the Open Society Foundation(singular) [3]. In Kazakhstan, the entity is the Soros Foundation - Kyrgyzstan [4].Jonathan Birchall (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Jonathan Birchall

New Section[edit]

First, big apologies for making changes to article without understanding COI protocols. As declared above and on my user page I work for OSF. I have done some reorganizing for clarity and added some info on expenditures and history that are detailed in the history. I would say that the only controversial element is the clarification on the $33m for US rights and justice work in 2014, based on the Daily Beast article. I will now follow protocol for any additional edit requests. Many thanks for your patience, and again, my apologies. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Jonathan Birchall

History Updates[edit]


First, big apologies for making changes to article without understanding COI protocols. As declared above and on my user page I work for OSF. I have done some reorganizing for clarity and added some info on expenditures and history that are detailed in the history. I would say that the only controversial element is the clarification on the $33m for US rights and justice work in 2014, based on the Daily Beast article. I will now follow protocol for any additional edit requests. Many thanks for your patience, and again, my apologies. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Jonathan Birchall

No worries, and thanks for complying with the COI procedures. I appreciate your disclosure. What specifically do you think should be clarified about the $33m civil rights expenditures? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to look at this, and for the changes. The previous version seemed to me at least to give the impression that a significant part of this $33m somehow supported protests in Ferguson etc., which seemed to reinforce the conservative assertions that Soros' money somehow created Ferguson protests and Black Lives Matter movement. But the $33m figure cited by Washington Times story covered all our US civil rights/justice funding in 2014, including established groups such as the ACLU, NAACP and issues including drug policy reform and reducing incarceration rates (as noted in Daily Beast story). The two Missouri grassroots organizations cited in the entry did not receive any OSF funding until after the protests, and the money wasn't approved until end 2014; details can be found here: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/healing-wounds-ferguson-and-staten-island. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Separately, the Foundation Center report that cited OSF as top human rights funder was also funded by Ford, Oak and MacArthur foundations (it seems only foundations will spend money to find out about this:)!). Is it still WP:RS problem? I understand the logic regarding sourcing- only in this case, I can't imagine how this figure, which says a lot about OSF activities, could be found anywhere else, and the joint funding (with the other 3 "rival" foundations not coming first) might ensure that it is a fair account. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Activities[edit]

Would there be any objections if I were to propose expanding the activities listed here? The current selection is rather random, and doesn't give a realistic overview of the range of work Open Society Foundations is involved in. I would propose text to briefly note (with appropriate published references): work with Europe's Roma minority (OSF is the largest funder of Roma advocacy groups); support for global drug policy reform; work on access to healthcare for disadvantaged groups such as LGBTQI people; and winning cases before various human rights tribunals, on issues including CIA torture/rendition. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Birchall Everyone is welcome to make proposals and all proposals get evaluated in the same way. Just make them, or if you need more information to get started, just ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan Birchall Thank you very much for the clear declaration of conflict of interest both here and on your user page. You're clearly following the spirit of the rules. I assume however that you are being paid, so please see WP:Paid for the technical requirements. Take your time, maybe a full day - we follow the spirit of the rules rather than technical requirements most of the time. In the meantime, maybe we can help each other with a more complete, orderly list of projects for this article. Is there any sort of "official list" published by the foundations, say for the last 4 or 5 years, so that we can say with some authority what the main projects are. Is there any journalism, e.g. New York Times, where similar information is reported?
BTW, I might have to declare a pretty minor COI here. About 8 years ago I left a position at a project that was (is?) mainly supported by OSF. No connection now though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both for comments. I have inserted the Paid Contributor alert at top of talk page, and will see what we can find to support improved activities summary. Jonathan Birchall (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of any good independent source that gives an overview of OSF's work - media coverage tends to focus on specific issues as they come up. One way of giving a fuller picture of activities would be to use the breakdown of the expenditures since 1983 from the website[5], a source already used for the 2014 expenditure figure:

$1.6 billion on democratic development in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; $737 million for public health issues such as HIV and AIDS, TB, palliative care, harm reduction, and patients’ rights; $214 million to fight discrimination and advance the rights of Roma communities in Europe; $2.9 billion to defend human rights, particularly the rights of women, ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, and often marginalized groups such as drug users, sex workers, and LGBTQ communities; $2.1 billion for education projects ranging from preschool to higher education reform; $1.5 billion to promote reform in the United States on issues such as criminal justice, drugs, palliative care, education, immigration, equal rights, and democratic governance

Thus possibly: "Open Society Foundations' work since 1983 has included spending: $2.9bn to support human rights groups working with minorities, including drug users, sex workers and LGBTQ people; $2.1bn on access to education projects; $1.6bn on democractic development in countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; $1.5bn on policy issues in the United States, including criminal justice and drug policy reform; and $737m on public health issues including responding to HIV and AIDS and TB. The foundations have spent over $214m to support Europe's Roma minority."[6]

There's a more specific breakdown of the 2014 expenditures, although only into broad categories: Education and Youth $91,736,000 Governance and Accountability $238,030,000 Health $59,983,000 Media and Information $43,750,000 Rights and Justice $277,345,000 Administration $115,972,000 Total $826,816,000

Separately, I would propose highlighting OSF's highest-profile human rights litigation cases:

"Its litigation program, the Open Society Justice Initiative, has also successfully filed cases before the European Court of Human Rights against Poland and Macedonia over their support for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's program of extraordinary rendition and torture in the aftermath of the September 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on the United States." [7] [8]

Does this seem reasonable? Many thanks!

Jonathan Birchall (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Birchall Most of this is in conflict with Wikipedia community contribution guidelines. In short -
  1. Every statement added needs a citation
  2. All citations have to be from reliable sources
  3. Any source written by the subject of the article does not meet reliable source guidelines
The content seems like a good start. Can you find other sources presenting this information and cite them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten (or simplified a bit) Birchall's first suggestion. Yes, this is a primary source, but those are allowed within limits. I've specifically identified the source in the text as well as in the footnote. This solves the problem of miscellaneous bits and pieces being reported but not the big picture, so should b allowable. I leave the second suggestion for tomorrow. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the content is fine, but I'm concerned about the lack of secondary sources. Secondary sourcing helps us figure out which activities of an organization are notable enough to be covered here--largely it's a product of which of an organization's activities have been discussed in secondary sources. If we allow too many primary sources, an organization's Wikipedia page can easily start to resemble the organization's own web page. An organization's own thoughts about what makes it notable are not nearly as important as what secondary sources have said on this matter. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I am also concerned about the lack of secondary sources, but not about notability. By one published source (please check the source and my rewording of our text on it - it's still not quite right) the Foundations are the 2nd largest philanthropy in the US. Many pieces of budget are notable and referenced by reliable sources. I think it would be a misuse of WP:Notinherited to conclude that the breakdown of the budget can't be included if the overall amount and many pieces can be included. How to find outside sources for the breakdown? @Jonathan Birchall: do you know of anybody that publishes the overall breakdown? Maybe the Chronicle of Philanthropy? (I don't have a subscription). Maybe you could even suggest that they publish one! Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work, and thinking, on this. Let me see if I can find corroborating sources and report back next week. 63.173.78.131 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Marked edit requests as answered; no response from OP since December 2015. Altamel (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should this material be included...[edit]

This seems to be pointed at 2 comments sourced to Nicolas Guilhot, 1 included, one edited. I don't know how important the merger was with the 1966 organization. I don't think that it should be identified as the origin of the Open Society Foundations (plural) however, using a 1991 date.

This was also removed.

"Critics on the left have argued that the Open Society Foundations serve to perpetuate institutions which reinforce the existing social order. Nicolas Guilhot, writing in Critical Sociology..."

It seems like a silly criticism to me - since OSF was actively assisting in tearing down the existing social order of communism. Beck, on the right, also has a pretty silly criticism: "New World Order" can mean anything or nothing, or is just a conspiracy theory. But to the extent that these criticisms were popular and actively pushed by various media, they probably should be included. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that edit summary refers to, but it doesn't refer to my last edit which removed the recently introduced silliness by Glenn Beck. I've removed it pending discussion establishing why it is in the article at all. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As an additional point of clarification, the above argument by Guilhot wasn't removed. The "Critics on the left" verbiage was replaced with his name, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I checked the sources and think they are valid even if biased (e.g. FoxNews). However, that was not proper summary of the content provided by the sources. Consider this discussion. A proper summary to be included in this page? Glenn Beck has accused Soros of using OSF to intentionally undermine societies with the intention of establishing a unitary global government.?. No, Soros simply did a lot of philanthropy to influence world's events, as one could conclude after reading this. I realize there could be different interpretations of the source. However, maybe this is because the source was a transcript (a primary source), and we should only use secondary RS on contentious subjects in BLP? My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is about the Glenn Beck paragraph(s)? I thought it was about Guilhot! I feel the same way about this as I feel about George Soros conspiracy theories - which I nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Soros conspiracy theories, but bow to the views of a consensus. If we don't include notable criticisms somewhere, we are going to encourage people to put it in the wrong place, but we have to be very careful where it goes and how it is stated. BTW, the section above has similar discussion going back at least a year. It also mention my very minor, long ago COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a valid source yet. What you describe as a biased 'FoxNews' source isn't actually a 'FoxNews' source at all; it's a transcript of a Glenn Beck show (a non-reliable source for anything approaching assertion of fact) hosted on the FNC. There's a significant difference. I also see a citation to a HuffPo piece which doesn't even mention this Foundation, so that's a non-starter. At least Guilhot appears to have, at first glance, some credentials which might justify adding his critical opinions to this article. Opinions of Beck, on the other hand (and I haven't re-read them in the past 2 years), really need to be conveyed by a more suitable source - if one exists which share those opinions - before they get replicated in this article. (They already take up far too much Wiki-real-estate, in my opinion, here.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. And remember that primary sources where someone promotes his conspiracy theory (such as this transcript) are not appropriate for our purposes. We need a secondary source where someone else/3r party with a good reputation tells: "here is such and such conspiracy theory" and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and ambiguous support for claims within them[edit]

This is regarding the following part of the Activities section:

"OSF has been a major financial supporter of U.S. immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and net neutrality."

I will edit this to remove 'net neutrality' for two reasons: one, net neutrality is not related to immigration reform, so it should be mentioned in a separate sentence, and two, the link in the citation is unreliable - and still does not support the claim.

As for its unreliablity: it leads to a conservative tabloid-style publication with clear bias and disregard for objectivity, and within the article, it quotes from a report written by a conservative think tank (Media Research Center) - and the quote itself is by the author of another report by another conservative think-tank (American Commitment). This is close to self-quoting, and it does not lead to any objective evidence to support the claim.

117.18.65.62 (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the quote from the cited source uses weasel tactics to tie together two separate foundations, the Ford Foundation and OSF:

"“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets." and: "Groups funded by Soros and Ford include the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Media Matters for America. They received a total of $54,226,097 from the Ford and Open Society Foundations."

Based on those quotes, it is impossible to even know how much they are claiming the OSF and Ford each contributed to net neutrality.

117.18.65.62 (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)