Jump to content

Talk:Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any official findings of wrongdoing in this matter?

[edit]

If there are, I'd encourage someone to add them to the article.

But seeing as these allegations are now years old, and there has been no public evidence of official charges, I suggest this edit be restored. If charges later arise, the edit can be removed. soibangla (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material -- such as facts, allegations, and ideas -- for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
"Seeing as these allegations are now years old, and there has been no public evidence of official charges" is original research. You need to find a reliable, published source that is directly related to the Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy and which directly supports their being no official charges. If the statement is true and relevant, sources should not be hard to find given the huge number of words that have been published on this topic, but you cannot just add your own WP:OR like that. You need to find a reliable source that directly supports your claim.
I know that this seems like a silly rule, but if you keep watching this page you will find someone who, by doing their own original research, concludes that Clinton is clearly guilty and should be in jail. When that happens (when, not if -- we delete both varieties of OR on a regular basis) and I or someone like me reverts the edit and tells them to find a source, you will be glad that we have the rules we have. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at this wrong. If any findings of wrongdoing have been made, someone surely would've added them to the article by now. If you have any evidence of it, I encourage you to add it. But if you don't have any, my edit remains factually correct as of the given date. I have searched and searched, and you can too, but there's no evidence of any findings. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you did original research, and you want us to stop following Wikipedia's rules on original research, which can be found at WP:OR. That isn't going to happen. Provide a source that directly supports the edit you want to make or stop pestering us. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am "pestering" no one but you are coming real close to a personal attack by claiming I am. soibangla (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just read and follow our rules, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't attempt to intimidate me, OK? soibangla (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied. If you ever think I am improperly trying to intimidate you, report me at WP:ANI. So far I have been trying to "intimidate" you into following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Again, why don't you just read and follow our rules and save some overworked administrator from having to take the time to block you from editing Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone continues to be unnecessarily confrontational and approaches the level of personal attacks, intimidation and harassment, as exemplified by your suggestion that you'll take me to court. Moreover, your assertion that merely searching for sources constitutes OR is laughable on its face, and yet you purport to lecture me on what the rules are. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop posting things that are not true. Nobody suggested "taking you to court". And you did not "merely search for sources". You asked to have a unsourced statement restored,[1] and you specifically mentioned your own original research as a reason to restore it. I am now going to ignore any further posts by you that do not contain sources to back up your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing investigation into corruption of the Clinton Foundation.[1] Also a number of whistle blowers have come forward.[2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5f60:fb10:9591:e2b3:4e6e:e67d (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Justice Department Probes Clinton Foundation, The Wall Street Journal
  2. ^ Clinton Foundation whistle blowers have come forward with hundreds of pages of evidence, Meadows says, Fox News
  3. ^ Feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing The Hill
2600:1700:5f60:fb10:9591:e2b3:4e6e:e67d|14:52, do you have any specific changes to the page (with reliable sources to back them up) to suggest? Soibangla is giving us suggested content, but can not provide a source You have provided sources (reliable? see discussion below) but no suggested content. Neither is of any use to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An investigation is not a finding. BTW, Mark Meadows and John Solomon are highly unreliable sources who are aligned with folks like Sean Hannity, who characterizes everything about Hillary Clinton as the biggest scandal in history. They routinely promote "bombshell developments" and "reliable sources" that routinely aren't. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are arguing against the sources the IP just cited, please read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." He didn't suggest any specific content, so the question of whether the sources are reliable is moot. If you are curious about whether the sources would be considered reliable if he did suggest some specific content, go to WP:RSNB, look for the "search the archives" box, and type in "Fox News" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. But the investigation seems to be ongoing. Hillary Clinton had her security clearance revoked at her request and Cheryl Mills & 4 others had their security clearance revoked (the source does not specify that this was at their request). Here's a link to a very brief, but presumably quite reliable source discussing the ongoing investigation in October 2018, which, in turn, links to primary sources. SashiRolls t · c 19:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clinton_Foundation–State_Department_controversy&oldid=1241093580"