Talk:Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interesting

This is an interesting new article. I just made some cosmetic edits, and when I get a chance will look to see if there are further reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I also made some small edits to references (adding author names and publication dates). Some things I can think of for the article are, ala the email controversy article, an opening "Background" section; details on Clinton Cash and the subsequent media investigations based on it; the other pay-to-play allegations; responses/analyses by the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Republicans etc.; the DOJ-blocked FBI investigation; the joint FBI-US Attorney investigation; the IRS investigation; and so on.

The article is interesting and I agree with the subject being its own page. Not only because it's notable enough to stand on its own, but because it's also an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page. Hopefully it will help with NPOV. DoubleCross (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Tag

I've tagged the article as a NPOV violation. It appears to be something of a WP:COATRACK or a WP:POVFORK. As yet another in a long line of seemingly manufactured controversies, it's not clear that this is a notable subject at all. the article probably needs to be thoroughly rewritten so as not to be a mouthpiece for detractors' talking points, or perhaps deleted. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is about as an obvious example of a WP:POVFORK as I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's so blatant and shameless about it too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is this article a POVFORK?CFredkin (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Because we have an article on the Clinton Foundation. This is an attempt to "publish" crappy material that you, and a couple editors, know very well would have no chance at the main article. So you went and created this piece of garbage. You are engaging in transparent political POV pushing. And violating BLP to boot. You can read WP:POVFORK yourself. It describes this situation to a tee: "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Or here: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article". I mean, I could quote the whole freakin' WP:POVFORK to you since all of it applies. It's like you've read that policy and thought "oh, an instruction manual on how to engage in tendentious POV pushing, how convienient!" Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of unsuccessful attempts to publish content in this article in Clinton Foundation.CFredkin (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing freakin' WP:GAMEs and wikilaywering. You created this article as a fork of the Clinton Foundation article. There's an extensive discussion there on potential "controversies" I'm sure you're aware of. EVEN IF you never actually tried to pull this stunt on the Clinton Foundation article that doesn't change the fact that this is a god awful, obnoxious, POVFORK. How many times do I need to quote it at you:

"another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." <-- that describes this exactly.

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article" <-- Yup. This is a POVFORK.

And which part of "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" is so hard to understand???

And hey, buddy, we also have a policy called WP:BLP. Seeing as this entire thing is one big smear of a living person, it applies, and you're the one who needs consensus for inclusion here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I encourage you to provide evidence to support your claims.CFredkin (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I. Just. Quoted. Policy. Verbatim. To. You. Which perfectly describes this situation. Once again I'm going to ask that you stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not a POV fork, but more of a spinoff. The Clinton Foundation should rightly be about what they do and include any controversies. But this controversy would overwhelm the article. Similarly there are separate articles many scandals.

Besides, the tag is only appropriate when the article is written from a non-neutral point of view, and encourages editors to add proper balance. Your view is that no balance is possible, so the tag provides no useful information to editors. I will remove it. TFD (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a spin off, it's clearly a POV version of the Clinton Foundation article. That's pretty much the definition of what a POV fork is. I also fail to understand your rationale as to the tag - if the title is POV then the tag belongs, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also the lede of the article blatantly states dubious allegations in Wikipedia voice. How in the world is that not POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

More POV problems...

Ok, let's keep going. Right after the lede we have a section titled "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and warning prior to confirmation". The "warning" part is again making it sound nefarious. And official. But what was this "warning"? It was a Republican Senator scoring political points, that's all. Again, the article is purposefully trying to mislead the reader. Again, shameless POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And the other source for the text in that section is... another Republican congressman. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see your point on the section title. You can help improve this article by correcting any perceived tone of bias. TFD (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You made a cosmetic change which didn't actually address the problem. You think readers will know who "Luger" is? It's still a POV section title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

POV problems - just a starter list

• "...pursuing interests with the U.S. State Department" - this is pure original research with an obvious intent of pushing a POV of suggesting wrong doing.
• "The disclosure of interactions..." - loaded language which against is trying to suggest something nefarious, as if there was a leak or something. The "interactions" have been public knowledge since... well, since they happened.
• "raised allegations that government access was traded for money during Clinton’s time at the State Department" - there have been all kinds of crazy "allegations" "raised" by crazy or politically motivated persons during this election cycle (and indeed, previously). This sentence tries to pass off one of these allegations as legitimate. If these "allegations" were properly attributed, the game of straight up political attack would be given away.
• "there has been no direct evidence" - no kidding, there has been NO evidence. The insertion of the word "direct" is an obvious attempt to insinuate that there is some "indirect" evidence. It's basically throwing shit at a BLP hoping that some of it will stick. This is also not based on sources but just pure original research.

And this is just the lede.

Per discretionary sanctions controversial material, especially in BLPs can be challenged and cannot be restored without "firm consensus". I'm challenging all of this garbage content. Of course the problem is that this is like 90% of the lede (indeed, this is exactly the reason this WP:POVFORK was created, as a run around discretionary sanctions). So pretty much all of it needs to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. There is a difference between a Wikipedia article casting aspersions on a living person and reporting accusations. Mentioning that there is no direct evidence balances the allegations and I would suggest out of fairness mentioning that the allegations have been denied. We have in fact entire article articles about false accusations (911 conpsiracy theories for example). We have articles because they are notable topics, not because we endorse their views. TFD (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What "seems fine to you"? The whole lead is full of barely concealed innuendo, uses Wikipedia voice, omits attribution, and that "seems fine" to you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It says nothing against anyone, it merely says that allegations have been made. That clears up the BLP issue. That is not to say that the wording could be improved. Anyway, it is better to discuss whether the article is inherently POV and should be deleted at AfD. If it is not deleted then we can discuss the best wording. TFD (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It does NOT clear up the BLP issue. Where in the world do you get that from??? It actually underscores the BLP issue. It matters a ton who made the allegation. All kinds of people make all kinds of allegations for all kinds of reasons. To say "allegations have been made" is classic POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And you're acting like you never heard the dictum about accusing your political opponent of being a pig fucker, just to force them to have to deny it [1]. This is exactly what CFredkin and Anythingyouwant are doing here with this whole "it has been alleged" nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to explain what specifically violates BLP. The Julian Assange article says, "he is wanted for questioning concerning an allegation of rape. Right in the second paragraph of the lead! And there are countless other articles about living persons that mention allegations made against them. Some people, such as Dylann Roof, would not even be mentioned were there no allegations against them. Are you recommending a change to current practice?

Certainly opponents can engage in swiftboating. But we do not ignore them, we write balanced articles such as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Note it says in the lead of that article, "The group's tactics are considered an example of a successful political smear campaign for its widely publicized and later discredited claims." If you can show that there is a consensus in mainstream sources that the allegations are made up nonsense, then it belongs in the article.

Also, you should not impugn the motives of other editors on talk pages.

TFD (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"You need to explain what specifically violates BLP." - there's four freakin' bullet points which start off this section which "specifically explain" that. Please stop being obtuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the original bullets above:

• Uranium One, Algeria, and UBS are just 3 examples of entities that contributed to the Foundation while pursuing business with the State Department. These examples are all discussed and reliably sourced in the article.CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• The above statement is false. The interactions mentioned did not become public knowledge until they were disclosed in the State Department emails from Clinton's server.CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• "The suggestion that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play front that enabled Hillary and Bill Clinton to trade government access and favors for money." - NPRCFredkin (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that the term "direct" could be removed here.CFredkin (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • According to... you. Original research.
  • According to... you. Some of the "interactions" have been known for a long time and there's nothing there.
  • NPR quote. It's actually NOT a statement from NPR as you falsely pretend. What it is is NPR quoting (and paraphrasing) Trump. So in fact this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You have a bullshit accusations from Trump. There is a source which says "Trump made this allegation". And then you come running to this article and insert Trump's allegation and pretend that... it's from NPR. Please stop acting this way. It's shameful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no attribution of the statement to NPR in the content itself; NPR is the source.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the current version of the lede is pretty good, with the exception of the reference to "conspiracy theories" (which is unsourced).CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note

This may be reverted by any experienced editor with an appropriate edit summary subject to the usual restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Getting more ridiculous...

Re [2] How in the world is this "POV"? Jeez freakin cheeto. That's the opposite of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounded like an advertisement for the foundation?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like? What does that mean??? IS IT an advertisement? No. It's a rating from a highly respected watchdog group. Are you going to claim that anything that isn't scathingly critical of Clinton Foundation "sounds like an advertisement"? That's pretty much the definition of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Like I said, this has gone way beyond ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Wikidemon makes more fabulous points below: primary source and oblique. Thus, there is no consensus to add the passage to the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's somewhat relevant that an independent auditing group gave the foundation high marks. However, Charity Watch is a primary source in this context, and shouldn't be cited in the lede unless duly developed in the body. It's also a little oblique, because Charity Watch is probably evaluating it from the point of view of donors and knowing where the money goes, not the question of whether donors receive political favors. If this article were worth keeping it would be worth including reliable third party secondary sources debunking the claims, and if sourced strongly enough, mentioning in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are a political attack, a conspiracy theory, inaccurate, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you know?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's trivial to find third party sources. For example [3]. And Zigzig, stopped being playing obtuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We could certainly mention in Clinton's voice that it is "a political attack, a conspiracy theory, inaccurate", but why in Wikipedia's voice? We don't know, and we shouldn't take sides. All we know is that some suggest it is real, and Clinton suggests it is not.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not in Clinton's voice, since she's not the only one saying that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Who else is?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has a story on the comparison with the Red Cross, which has been circulated by among others by Eric Boehlert. While the rating should be mentioned in the Clinton Foundation article, the comparison with the Red Cross is synthesis since the source does not make the comparison. It would be better to use a reliable secondary source, such as the Snopes article that explains what the rating means. It refers to efficiency rather than effectiveness. So the Foundation spends a very higher proportion of its funding to delivering services rather than overheads. But it does not rate what effect those programs have or whether the money is wisely spent. So money spent on substandard trailers sent to Haiti[4] was efficiently spent. And of course it does not belong in this article, unless a reliable secondary source explains its relevance to the controversy. TFD (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

But, as you know, the principal cause of "inefficiency" in nonprofits is excessive funds spent in staff salary as compared to funds spent on program fulfillment. So to the extent anyone other than a few WP editors thinks there's a controversy I bet there's an RS comment that does indeed observe that an allegedly corrupt nonprofit would not be expected to have one of the lowest expense ratios. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lede. The efficiency of the Foundation itself is not discussed in the article. The article addresses connections between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, not what happens to the money that the Foundation receives.CFredkin (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, the article doesn't even bother to tell the reader what the Clinton Foundation is, or what it does, it just immediately launches into a full POV attack on it. No context, just smears. So please stop removing pertinent information from the article that actually does provide context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a brief description of the Foundation would be inappropriate. Please feel free to propose something in that regard. However the disputed content does not address that concern.CFredkin (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the wikilink sufficient?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In this context it does, and Zigzig20s, the answer is no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the wikilink for the USDS sufficient either? Should we add that it's been rated as fabulous by some independent organization too? Wikilinks were created for a good reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no consensus to add this advertisement. Can you please remove it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And this.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. They are relevant, although they do need better sourcing tying them to the controversy. There isn't really a consensus to say most of the stuff in this article. If it's going to be there, it needs to be in the context of the organization itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it present in the body of the text? I don't see it, but please let me know if it is. But since there is no consensus to add this, shouldn't it be removed? As for the article, consensus will be reached in the AFD, not here apparently. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

One more time, it's not an "advertisement", it's an outside review by a respected charity watchdog group. So please stop pretending otherwise. The fact that they gave the CF a good review (indeed, a very high one), and you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, is not Wikipedia's problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not relevant information. Instead, it could go in Clinton Foundation, with a beautiful wikilink. We don't have the same "good review" about the USDS, only a wikilink.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is this in the lede and not the body of the text?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should go in the body of the text if sourced and contextualized (and the sources say it is relevant to the controversy). I was arguing that it shouldn't be excluded from the article, not that it should be in the lede. If the sources do not tie it to the controversy, it would be relevant only in a brief introductory section in the body telling people just what the Clinton foundation is. If it becomes a major part of the body and is important to a short summary of the subject, it would also go in the lede. I don't think we have enough backup to put it in the lede right now. Whether we do later is hard to predict, I'd want to see how it goes in the body first. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It belongs in both the lede and the body of the text as it provides context to the accusations. The lede should summarize the text anyway so all that is needed is to add the relevant info into the body and expand it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, with all the discussion, I missed the link that Volunteer Marek helpfully provided to a reliable secondary source. Since the source mentions the charity, Charity Watch and the controversy, it could be used in this article. Note the source says, "[the rating] was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family's foundation at appropriate arm's length or provided favored access as secretary of state." If we mention the rating, we need to mention that too. Incidentally, Charity Watch is not an "auditing group." They do not conduct any investigations, but merely rely on the audited financial statements. The article is "Charity Watchdog Gives Clinton Foundation High Marks" in US News. TFD (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, when we add the relevant info to the body of the article that can be mentioned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, more editors seem to favor including this content in the body of the article rather than the lede. So I've made this change.CFredkin (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus for that, and I think that intro should be sufficiently neutral by telling essentially something like this: "yes, there was such and such controversy, but this is a good foundation" - per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for including it in the lede, either.CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Partly fixed

Okay little monsters. I've gone ahead and worked the laudatory material into the body.[5] It suffered from some weak writing, POV and WP:SAID problems ("pointed out" should be "said", etc.), and lack of context, all of which I tried to fix. I haven't yet removed or reworded the lede section out of fear that somebody would revert that. But I think the mention in the lede should be greatly cut back, to one or two short sentences at most, without the references. Something like "The Foundation has been reviewed favorably by charity watchdog groups. A Clinton spokesperson and others have dismissed the controversy as election-year politics." Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, the diff makes it look like I removed and added a lot of material in the body, but I just reordered it, and tried to improve the wording here and there, particularly the section about confirmation hearings. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and for the suggestion on the lede. That seems reasonable to me.CFredkin (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

An ethical versus a legal controversy

I notice that User:Volunteer Marek has deleted the distinction between an ethical and legal controversy, made by both Ralph Nader and by the New York Times.[6] I object, because that seems like a significant and well-documented aspect of the matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Nader's opinion are undue here. And I left the main part of the NY Times editorial just cut down some of the extraneous text which was also undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We already describe opinions from much less notable people than Ralph Nader, like Paul Reyes and Matthew Yglesias. Tell you what. If the article survives AfD, or if the corresponding material is expanded in the Clinton Foundation article, then I may write a sentence or two about the distinction between a legal controversy and an ethical controversy, and cite the NYT, Nader, and other reliable sources for that distinction, which is a real and relevant one, and hopefully the sources I cite will be sufficient so that you won't feel the need to just delete everything about this distinction. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Matthew Yglesias a RS ? He was identified by The New York Post as being one of several reporters that the Clinton campaign was going to recruit to engage in campaign-related posturing in the media.--maslowsneeds🌈 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I am astonished...

...that any Wikipedia editor can consider that this article is invalid and propose its deletion. The swirling controversy around this subject is massive. It cannot and must not be shoved under the carpet. To avoid examining it in this encyclopedia is tantamount to the very worst ostrich-like behaviour.

When working on the Panama Papers article much earlier in the year, I remember distinctly one of the most vocal editors on this talk page, who has called this article nothing more than a massive POV exercise, getting very very over-excited over inclusion of any and everything regarding Vladimir Putin. S/he was insisting that all the Putin material be included in the article, while other editors were arguing for it being unproven POV and OR stuff.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This article must be given the light of day. Boscaswell talk 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up now? Having a low threshold for astonishment can make things hard when editing politics-related articles during elections season.The deletion discussion is long over, and the outcome was no consensus to delete. The article as created was in fact a POV fork. Even in its current, far less biased version, it is one of many articles that are essentially about controversies over nothing created by political operatives to gain advantage over each other, and may not pass WP:10YT. You obviously believe that there is some truth to the scandal, but the reliable secondary sources do not back that up. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a FORK. Forks are allowed when a section becomes so large it is better to spin it off. Otherwise we would overwhelm the parent article with info about the alleged pay to play, which would be contrary to weight. I agree however with the need for editors to maintain neutrality when editing articles. Funny how many editors think that centuries of constitutional rule will come to end if the wrong person is elected. TFD (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD, they're concerned that the Republic will not thrive in the Nuclear Winter. Who knows? But it's not entirely irrational. Anyway it's only 2 centuries. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't we call it a SPOON? Forks just conjure uprisings of angry farmers. ^^ Speaking of which, does any of the story of State Dept. / Clinton Foundation / US AID blur in Haitian recovery (IHRC) belong here? (Cf. the talk pages of Cheryl Mills, Clinton Foundation, Haiti-US relations). I would like to "weave" the three talk page propositions together and add it to Haiti-US relations but have been opposed for various reasons (some good... the texts are disjointed and telegraphic because of a very palpable feeling that I needed to "write past the censor," a feeling which I hope eases up after the elections, though it might not). But this material has been rejected less roundly at Clinton Foundation, despite the latest revert by scj. My view is that Cheryl Mills is an important figure in Clinton's Americas policy. Should this be here, since Mills and Clinton were both at State while SAE and the development bank were donating to the Clinton Foundation? (cf. Caracol Industrial Park). This can wait till past Tuesday... SashiRolls (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

AP story subsection

In the Associated Press story the article says "The AP promoted its story with a tweet incorrectly claiming that". The word "incorrectly" there is out of place because it has not been explained in the article why it could be incorrect. I have just edited it to make that clear. I hope it's better now. --Ricardohz (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Small issue with Uranium One Section

In the article it states:

"According to Factcheck.org, there is "no evidence" that the donations influenced Clinton's official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal.[18]"

I followed the link to the source and Factcheck.org states:

"But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions."

I would like the article to read:

"According to Factcheck.org, The Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton's official actions."

This is a very minor change I would like to make. This page seems pretty high visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.71.160 (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Clinton Foundation

This page seems excessive. Should it be reduced in size and merged into Clinton Foundation? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Compared to the Trump Foundation article its quite brief. Batvette (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MERGEREASON does not appear to list being too long as a reason to gut an article and merge it somewhere else. See also WP:Article_size#Content_removal There is no WP:WEIGHT issue within an article. As long as the content is sourced, and written with WP:NPOV there is no reason to cut it. On the other hand a WP:SUMMARY version of this content probably should be added to that article, as it isn't covered there at all. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is not a RS

The same outlet that has promoted a range of falsehoods, hoaxes and conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a RS on anything related to Hillary Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources and WP:OR

Editor James Lambden did this edit[7], which misrepresents the NYT source, misrepresents the WaPo source and is WP:OR in its claims that the NYT source contradicts the WaPo source. Both NYT and WaPo say that the yellowcake that left the US returned to the US after processing in Canada. PBS mirrors the assessment of WaPo, saying in explicit terms that no uranium left the US. Both the WaPo and PBS sources are Oct 2017 overviews of the whole saga.

This is a misrepresentation of sources and has WP:BLP implications given that it involves accusations of wrong-doing against living person.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not correct. Please read the NYT article more carefully. It says:

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman said to the best of his knowledge most (not "all") of the uranium returned to the US
• A spokeswoman for Uranium One said "25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan"
• And the author says "The no export assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed."

James J. Lambden (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What you have is the 2015 source that first covered these allegations. The original reporting has subsequently been thoroughly contradicted by every news outlet that's covering this today (WaPo, FactCheck.org, PBS, LA Times and the list goes on). The only claim that something was exported outside of the US is by the spokesperson for the company. The NYT did not substantiate this claim nor do I find any other RS that even mention this. The only thing that NYT substantiates is that yellowcake was sent for Canada for processing and then sent back to the US; this is fact that WaPo confirms as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post's fact checker claims no uranium was "removed" from the United States. That is false according to all official sources which say uranium was removed from the US for processing.

Other sources claim that although it was removed it was returned. That is based on a 2015 statement by the regulating agency that said "most" (rather than "all") of it was returned which was further qualified in 2017 to state that none of it was shipped directly to Russia leaving open the possibility it was exported elsewhere and even indirectly to Russia.

Add to that a statement from Uranium One, the company that actually directed its export, that "25 percent [was exported] to Western Europe and Japan" and the conclusion that "no uranium was ever exported from the US" is either incompetent reporting or willful misrepresentation.

The text as it stands is contrary to fact and structured misleadingly to suggest the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman's statements were contradicted by previous NRC statements. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What difference does it make where the uranium traveled? There's no shortage of uranium in the world, and it's fungible. Like tracking US coal or vermiculite exports. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Did the company say the exported uranium was from the United States? Canada also has uranium mines, so they might also be referring to that. ^Falling_Gravity 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of Canadian or any other extraction so we must assume the journalists were referencing US extraction in their article about US extraction when they said "25% had gone to Western Europe and Japan." James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So what? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Either you're asking why the NYT reporting that uranium was exported is relevant to the claim that uranium was not exported (which is foolish) or you're trying to derail a potentially productive discussion. Neither is helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Who says uranium was "exported"? 2. why is it noteworthy? Who cares? [8] SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a quote from a journalist, it's a quote from Donna Wichers, a Uranium One spokeswoman. As such, if this is included in the article, the quote should be attributed to her. ^Falling_Gravity 21:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The text I quoted came from the article. It was not a direct quote of Donna Wichers. I agree the claim should be attributed regardless. These are secondary concerns. My primary concern is the article currently quotes Glenn Kessler [9] saying the deal "[did] not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States" which is demonstrably untrue. It should be removed from the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "demonstrably?" Sounds like OR. Shades of Murder of Seth Rich here. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Uranium One: Add paragraph about POTUS lifted "gag order" on FBI informant

I suggest to add this draft paragraph to the "Uranium One" section. About a related statement by the President of the United States (POTUS).

In October 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift the "gag order" on a former FBI informant involved in the investigation of Russian nuclear officials alleged to have purchased spent arms uranium from the Russian government, an investigation unrelated to the 2010 approval of the purchase of Uranium One to conduct uranium mining. DOJ released the informant from his nondisclosure agreement on October 25, 2017. The department indicated it had authorized the informant to speak to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Francewhoa (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - Even the text you added says the FBI investigation was "unrelated" to the Uranium One deal. At this point, the only indication that we have that this informant has information concerning the Clinton Foundation controversy is statements from Victoria Toensing, the informant's lawyer. I'd be in favor of adding some stuff about the recent investigations, but the paragraph is probably confusing for average readers. ^Falling_Gravity 01:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FallingGravity: Thanks for your reply and contributions :) I agree that some sources claim it's unrelated, while other sources claim it's related. To balance the views, the draft above includes both. How about keeping both views but somehow clarify that there is a controversy?

Interesting point you bring about Victoria Toensing. John Solomon from the Washington, D.C. based The Hill, mentioned Victoria Toensing, in his recent article from last Wednesday Oct 25th. Extracts from his article:

• "former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank and millions more in charitable donations from those interested in the Uranium One deal while his wife Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State". Including alleged corruption or bribery involving charitable donations through the Clinton Foundation, reads The Hill's article.
• The informant "work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration, Toensing said."

The Hill seems like an appropriate source about this information as they were the first to brake the news about this Uranium One controversy. Credit seems fair where it's due? Any additional source you would like to suggest?

@All :) Any volunteer(s) to draft something about the above? I suggest something that would balance the point of views about this controversy.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I cite the Hill frequently and don't dispute its RS status in general but John Solomon does not appear to be RS. It appears he somewhat of a reputation for inflating stories, here's the Columbia Journalism Review on him[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no "uranium one controversy" it's a conspiracy theory that's been debunked by every factcheck outfit that's examined it. It's like Murder of Seth Rich. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Thanks for clarifying that you're not interested in contributing in a paragraph about the POTUS lifted "gag order" on former FBI informant :)

Any other volunteer(s) interested in drafting something about this? For healthy discussions on the talk page. I would be happy to contribute text formatting.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy and I'll probably be busy over the next couple of days. I'd suggest making the paragraph about the report from The Hill and the investigations. The "lifting gag order" is just a part of those things. ^Falling_Gravity 05:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@All :) How about this draft? I tried to include both views and their respective sources.

On October 25, 2017 the FBI removed the "gag order" on their informant related to the Uranium One deal controversy. As the informant lawyer, Victoria Toensing, stated that the informant "work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration". During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were "baloney". During an interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Toensing was ask about what she may have learned from the informant, she claimed that "It’s quite significant", the informant “can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made”.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Add “See also” section?

For easier articles navigation and search, I suggest to add a "See also" section. Here is a draft:

See also

• Hillary Clinton controversies

Francewhoa (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Title

Is there a single source which talks about a, quote, "Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy", or is this entirely a Wikipedia invention? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A moot point, I think, given that this is not really a distinct subject apart from the Clinton Foundation itself. Somewhere in the reliable source universe it may exist, or may well come to exist. However, naming controversy articles is difficult. You'll find that unless a non-neologism common name has arisen, e.g. gamergate, most controversy articles reflect editors' best efforts to come up with a succinct title that explains what the article is about. I don't think RS applies to editorial decisions on how to title things, although it may apply to any factual content implied by the title. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Pay for play?" TFD (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Please don't make ridiculous suggestions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If the title is changed, I would suggest broadening it, because allegations about buying access and favors from Secretary of State Clinton are not confined to Clinton Foundation donations, but also have been tied to payments for, e.g., Bill Clinton. See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, please limit your suggestions to constructive ones. The point is to fix the POV problem, not to make it worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a constructive title change might be to something like "State Department pay to play controversy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We should include George Bush too in the title, and probably every other elected politician.[11] Nearly all have faced claims that donors get favors, and in most cases there is some truth to those claims. In fact, there ought to be an article about all of them. What I'm getting at is that the very fact that there are reliable sources that a politician has been accused of selling favors does not make those accusations notable; if they did, we would have to have an adjunct fork article most every politician and political institution. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's true though. Given that this is a blatant POV fork, it's gonna be near impossible to come up with a neutral title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're correct that campaign contributions have long been a means of obtaining access and favors. The present article title excludes such things, and so I retract my suggested alternative: "State Department pay to play controversy". Still, it may be possible to expand the scope without expanding it too far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Even article titles need to be grounded in reliable sources. Your proposal is not. It's just more POV nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no specific proposal for a title change. But this is not POV nonsense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose move to Clinton Foundation Investigation.Phmoreno (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References