Talk:Clinton Foundation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Not sure whether the revenue figures of particular years matter so much here. What matters are the links between money paid and services/connections provided. It has come out in recent days that the late Marc Rich's wife had paid to the Foundation and on his last day in office Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and let him get away with tax evasion. How much money did Treasury miss out on? This is a topic that should be monitored. 2001:8003:A0BA:4600:F8FD:4897:1D28:A050 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

This discussion is no longer about improving the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 accounts you link to on your Wikipedia user page. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC) It's not his fault. He's been conditioned to make personal attacks, because every time he does his twitter views spike, as people are led there from his social media profile user page. It's the wikipedia version of Trump media coverage. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC) How about ya'll drop it. Bloodofox, you've been warned before about making every discussion personal and attacking people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Of course, note a word from Marek about his pal's "stfu" and use of "retarded" but somehow a stab at me regarding some mysterious "warning" —business as usual here, I see. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category

Oh look! Zigzig20s created Category: Clinton Foundation to create another way to link this article to the disgraceful POV fork. How thoughtful! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Caracol Industrial Park

A new violation of 1RR from User:Snooganssnoogans (diff 1,diff 2) on this page. The user has twice deleted an in-depth article by Jake Johnston in Boston Review, a report by Gender Action, HRC's keynote address from the US State department, and articles in Reuters, and by Jonathan Katz (all from 2012-2013), replacing them with a 2016 conciliatory piece in Bezos' Washington Post, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton. This piece notably cites a 2016 Better Work Haiti report to show that 4 years o n factory conditions had improved from a previous Better Work Haiti report cited in the detailed Gender Action study. It is important to note that this 2016 report still includes a 7-page section titled "Detailed Non-Compliance" for which an overview can be found on page 10. The facts speak for themselves; a disservice is being done to Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia, not a public relations tool) by allowing this editor to continue being disruptive. SashiRolls (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There are three problems: (i) The Clinton Foundation has several projects in Haiti. There is no reason to say that CF's efforts have "in particular" centered on the Caracol Industrial Park. (ii) To also just say that Caracol is controversial is an example of weasel words. (iii) It's better to use overview pieces (WaPo fact-checker, PolitiFact) from reliable sources rather than a hodgepodge of sources (some reliable, others not) that combine cherry-picked content and then your original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To address (i) I suggest changing "in particular" to "including", restoring the references. I agree this wording would be a minor improvement. For ii, no, I don't think the word "controversial" is unwarranted. There has been very lively reporting on this... from the National Review to the NY Times with dozens of major RS in between (BR, Politico, Al Jazeera, the Better Work Haiti reports, the Miami Herald, Haiti Libre, the Nation, ...), some of which have hundreds of footnotes (Johnston and particularly the Gender Action report which documents the many demonstrations at Caracol pages 35-37). I am glad to read conditions may be improving, that said! SashiRolls (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing why this is significant. The Clinton Foundation assisted with the funding of an industrial park, but the development has failed to meet its intended goals thus far. That's basically the story, and the same thing could be said for thousands of similar projects assisted by hundreds of charities all over the world. Why is this one so special and deserving of attention? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. I'd suggest reading more about it. A tremendous amount of reliable ink is (pixels are?) being spilled (sprinkled?) over the question: (see the 150 or so page pdf produced every six months by one entity on garment-industry work (all over) Haiti). It is paradigmatic and neither good nor bad I suppose, though the return to Duvalier era industry (because it "worked" in the 80s) does make me wonder. Katz sounds guardedly optimistic in the WaPo piece, that's encouraging. SashiRolls (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The problems with this development do not seem to be a fault of the Clinton Foundation, but a rather more of a problem with the industry itself. This doesn't seem to be the right article to cover this, if indeed it is worthy of coverage at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, you might want to read up on it. Hillary Clinton gave the keynote address at the IP opening, Bill Clinton was in the audience. SAE-A, the investment bank are both Clinton foundation donors. Again, I know Clinton advocates are worried about the story, but nothing in this story indicates wrong doing, just doing. And that's why it's in the article, an encyclopedia entry on a foundation talks about what the foundation does. I imagine they were also part of the lobbying team for HELP... their relationship with US contractors via US AID (who opposed the minimum wage increase, like the state department and embassy) could be explored, etc. Of course, it is not *only* the Clinton Foundation involved, but the wikipedia text does not say they were, despite their influence...SashiRolls (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that it is mentioned (although I am inclined to think it is barely significant enough for inclusion), but how it is mentioned. Use of the word "controversial" is unacceptable, as is the use of primary sources. Please revise the article to take these concerns into account, or remove the mention completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty twisted for you wish to delete the reference cited by the WaPo journalist Snoogs added. I'm confused. Incidentally, not sure a Better Work Haiti *synthesis* can be called a primary source, nor if that disqualifies it since the WaPo journalist presumably made it notable by citing "the latest report". (edit: BWH, notability, WP:Primary, WP:BULB) SashiRolls (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history to see who added what. I just said what my concerns were, the most significant of which is the use of the word "controversial", which is an unnecessary adjective. EDIT In fact, now that I look at it again, there just seems to be way too much detail there. I think this needs to be removed until something can be worked out. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New (!)ayes welcome below.  :) SashiRolls (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Reading through the page and the talk page, it is clear that this page is a victim of systemic bias. I will take a break from the page, since my last efforts at editing the page have led to one user being warned for inappropriate behavior, and have led a number of editors to oppose RS content. I do not wish to inflame matters. I will check in to see if any improvements have been made, but would like to avoid having my time wasted by providing Wikipedia with solidly sourced information only to see it deleted because it does not fit the politics of the day. I will let the Clinton advocates show they are capable of neutral editing with the material I have provided them.

Please note, the bias tag is not to be removed until consensus has been reached that the page and page practices are not systemically biased. Please also be happy; I mean nobody any harm. SashiRolls (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I had the same experience as you several months ago. This page is being gate-kept, and even after I reported this page for its bias, the other editors just pretended like everything was O.K. Apparently, all this bias is acceptable by Wikipedia standards.--maslowsneeds🌈 19:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Rejecting election talking points such as "the Clinton foundation had three shell companies..." is not gatekeeping. Most readers would think "shell companies = evil" and picking such factoids with no explanation and analysis would introduce systemic bias. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"The bias tag is not to be removed..." Excuse me? Just because a single individual disagrees with the consensus formed over a particular editing decision, it doesn't mean that person gets to label a perfectly good article with a badge of shame. This is not your article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, this guy with this "badge of shame" claim again. Try to tag the article for any sort of issue—regardless of what it may be—and he'll simply remove it with this absurd argument. Users friendly to his ideology look the other way. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, this guy with the personal attacks again. Try to follow any sort of consensus—regardless of what it may be—and he'll simply ignore it with this absurd argument and edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This was also my experience here. There are a certain number of editors here who work to keep this article as in line with the Clinton campaign as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. This argument is really old. Try discussing the issues and comment on the content, not the editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When the issue we're discussing is systemic bias present in the article, editor behavior is most certainly on the table, and that includes your own.

This article should be far more expansive and detailed than it currently is yet it reads like little more than the Clinton campaign's talking lines. The Clinton Foundation is an exceedingly controversial topic and has long been a point of concern for the left and right for years—and especially this year—but you'd never know it by reading this article. Now I wonder why that is, exactly?

Could it have something to do with editors such as yourselves who repeatedly fight tooth and nail to get anything that might be perceived as negative out of the article? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When the issue we're discussing is systemic bias present in the article, editor behavior is most certainly on the table - well, no. "Systemic bias" refers to content. The fact that you don't like editors is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Don't like editors"—how typically cartoonish. I understand that your role here is to generally act as Scjessey's shadow and look the other way until he could use some support. However, "systemic bias" implies biased editors—and that's a problem, even when that bias results in an article that aligns with your personal political preferences. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Shadow—strikes again! [1]. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop discussing editors and your feelings about them, and discuss content. Consider this your WP:AE warning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, arbitration, an area you're familiar with. Consider your threat ignored. I will continue to call out editors who are editing in a partisan manner as I see them, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

First disruption in Haiti project

Starting at the beginning, with the establishment in 2010 of the Haiti Development Fund, LLC in Dover, Delaware, the following encyclopedic information, duly fact-checked to the primary source, was deleted seconds after being introduced [diff]. Nowhere was any claim of wrong-doing made. That the CF uses shell foundations is not a condemnation of the CF. It is encyclopedic discussion of what the foundation does. The record is "corrected". again.

In 2016, the Washington Free Beacon reported that according to the amended 2013-14 Clinton Foundation financial disclosures released in November 2015, the Clinton foundation had three shell companies in Delaware: Acceso Fund, LLC, which it used to "channel money to its Colombia-based private equity fund, Fondo Acceso", Acceso Worldwide Fund, Inc, and the Haiti Development Fund, LLC.

SashiRolls (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Not a reliable source and "fact checking" is not your job as a Wikipedia editor. Ditto for primary sources. That's original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's making sure that the secondary source is reliable for the claim made. which it is. SashiRolls (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for reverting: (i) This content has absolutely nothing to do with transparency. (ii) Undue weight: complete non-story. (iii) It implies that there is something wrong with incorporation in Delaware and doing work through subsidiaries by using language like "shell companies" and "channel money", and by throwing this under the "transparency" sub-section. (iv) Rubbish source with a record of false, exaggerated and misleading stories about the Clintons: it's unreliable, it uses awful language, and can't be used as a measurement of notability and weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with VM and Snoogans that the Washington Free Beacon is a completely unreliable, fringe source. The Clintons and their foundation are some of the most reported-on, scrutinized people on the planet. If you have to cite the Free Beacon and similar bottom-of-the-barrel sources, something is wrong. Neutrality^talk 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

NO. It's right there on page 85 of the revised 2013-2014 returns (see above). The claim is therefore reliable unless you are saying Donna E. Shalala is an unreliable source. It's good to see the source of the deletions mentioned above stopping in for a visit! Is there a hotline? SashiRolls (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making weird personal references/attacks. It's bizarre and you have been repeatedly warned about it. As for "page 85" — it's a primary source. Our preference for reliable secondary sources over primary sources is precisely to avoid the practice of plucking out facts at random from lengthy primary sources and then taking them out of context to make the article subject look as bad as possible. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that from an outsider's perspective it is very very strange to always find the same names congregating around efforts at deleting information from pages that have been identified as being fluffy. The Washington Free Beacon article is reporting the verifiable contents of the tax disclosure. I'll see if the Guardian has done the same (I know they have for the Clinton's personal shell corporations, but am not sure for those related to Guistra and Haiti). SashiRolls (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

further references to the undesirable information: Clinton Foundation, The Globe and Mail & of course wikileaks (podesta files #485). Take your pick. SashiRolls (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Free Beacon Is Unapologetically Conservative. It's Also Kind of Good. (This Mother Jones article specifically refers to Alana Goodman, who wrote the article that Neutrality claims is unreliable above, despite the cited claim from her article being confirmed by the primary source (which was provided only as a service to readers). Seeing such blatant mis-citation of wikipedia policy from an administrator is indeed troubling:

WP:Primary Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

It is primarily David Brock (of Correct the Record fame) who seems to have an issue with the Free Beacon. Also there may well be significant bias issues with the article on the Free Beacon at Wikipedia (which adroitly makes the above MJ article look like it's condemning the paper by selective citation), but I suppose that won't surprise anyone here.

Also, I've read expressed both above and below (by those speaking of elections) that readers will automatically see shell company and think BAD! Such a paternalistic view of Wikipedia readership is disturbing. Our job is to provide the facts. And it appears that the gatekeepers on this page do not wish for readers to have any information about the Clinton Foundation's involvement in Haiti or with the Haiti Development Fund, LLC registered in 2010 in Delaware. SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, running around claiming "Correct the Record! Oh noes!" is not actually an argument. It's just not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As the facts are rendered verifiable and notable by the sources, none of the arguments so far to discard hold any water. Restore/keep.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, the argument that it's not a reliable source "holds water". The argument that SashiRolls is doing original research based on their own idiosyncratic interpretation of primary sources "holds water".

Actually, Correct the Record is indeed something every editor who wants a neutral article here should be concerned about. Mocking editors who express this concern does little more than give away your own position on these issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, actually, it's a silly conspiracy theory which biased editors use to try and browbeat neutral editors with by dismissing legitimate points simply because "Correct the Record! Correct the Record!". I believe you've been warned about this as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the ever present "warnings" (read: threats) from Marek for questioning why his edits so severely skew in favor of the Clinton campaign. And, of course, certainly Correct the Record would never consider Wikipedia. I mean, that would be unthinkable. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

At the very least if you're going to make personal attacks and baseless accusations, have the courage to make them explicit. Are you accusing anyone in particular of working or being affiliated with "Correct the Record"? If no, then drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What a funny thing to say. Yet only the extremely naive (intentionally or otherwise) would assume that these Wikipedia spaces are free of individuals working for campaigns (or their Super PACs). You know as well as I do that Wikipedia does not require anyone to state conflict of interest. I'm not taking the bait and I'll decide what I discuss, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words you're going to continue to make accusations and attacks against other editors, simply because they disagree with you, without any proof what so ever, do I have that right? And actually Wikipedia rules do require editors to state their conflicts of interests. So out with it folks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nah, the reality is that there's no such policy. The reality is that it's unenforceable. But you're aware of that. Now, if I'm accusing you of something, I'll make it explicitly clear. All that is verifiable about your edits is pro-Clinton bias and a strong desire to scrub articles of anything that could be seen as negative about the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC. The same goes with your pals that hover over this article and those connected to it night and day. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If there's no evidence then please quit it with the "oh noes! Correct the Record is operating here!" garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, you're only concerned about shills and astroturfing when it's about politics you oppose. Heard it all before. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article five days. If you perceive that an edit has consensus, please propose it here using the {{Edit fully-protected}} template or employ WP:RFED. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Good call! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The violation of 1RR by Volunteer Marek despite emerging consensus has been noted here.

Honestly, for whatever reason, I forgot this is under 1RR. Yes, yes, I should've known better. It's just that usually when you make an edit to an article under 1RR a big ol' notice pops up which alerts you to the fact. Also, I don't think this article was formally placed under 1RR by an admin, someone (hell, it could've been me), just added the notice to the talk page. You do realize that you've broken 1RR as well, right? [2] [3]. You might want to hold off on running around accusing others of stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The first is not a reversion, but the introduction of a systemic bias tag which others have restored after it was (I think twice) deleted. I have made only one reversion on this page in the past 168 hours. Given that your reversion was against the emerging consensus my single reversion was -- it seems to me -- warranted. SashiRolls (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Rejecting election talking points such as "the Clinton foundation had three shell companies..." is not gatekeeping. Most readers would think "shell companies = evil" and picking such factoids with no explanation and analysis would introduce systemic bias."

"Excuse me? Just because a single individual disagrees with the consensus formed over a particular editing decision, it doesn't mean that person gets to label a perfectly good article with a badge of shame. This is not your article."

Is that suppose to be your "emerging consensus" for inclusion?

Also, as already explained, you need to ARTICULATE and EXPLAIN and JUSTIFY the tag and why there is this supposed "systemic bias". And I'll tell you right now, every single instance where I've seen someone bring that tag up, it has always been in a "They won't let me push my POV! How systematically biased of them!" situation. Keep also in mind that the tag is based on an essay, not policy. Furthermore it's suppose to be used in cases like under-representation of topics from developing countries, or marginalized cultures. Not about freakin' US politics!

Also, sign your comments, apparently you're confusing your buddies who don't know whom to agree with and who to disagree with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Man, this guy just never stops. Don't worry buddy, looks like Clinton is going to win—but is this how it's going to be until the end of this election? Is that when we can expect the end of the scorched earth edit-warring and day and night article scrubbing of anything that might be seen as negative regarding the Clinton campaign or the DNC? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (and I've been less involved in this article than other US-Pres-2016 related articles), the only sources alleging serious problems with Clinton Foundation work are WP:FRINGE. Why would we push those ideas here? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. From the RFC above: "I don't think it is WP:UNDUE given that hundreds of pages have been written on the subject in sources like the WaPO, the NYT, the Miami Herald, the Boston Review, the Guardian, the Jacobin, Le Monde Diplomatique , etc... Again, an article about a foundation should include information about what a foundation does." And then, there is the attempt to characterize the Clinton Foundation's amended tax filings signed by Donna Shalala as WP:Fringe. smh. SashiRolls (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And the legit sources largely debunk these ideas. And Donna Shalala signed amended tax returns.... so what's your point? Is that alleging malfeasance somehow? So again, what should be added? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The (single) article you cite from the Bezos-owned (and incidentally Clinton-supporting) Washington Post has absolutely nothing to do with Caracol Industrial Park points out in passing that Caracol Industrial Park was a disappointment. It is about a hospital, and debunks nothing. Please stop wasting our time. Concerning the tax returns, they show that the Clinton Foundation has 3 shell companies registered in Delaware (one of which is focused on Haiti, one on Colombia) as indicated by Alana Goodman's article in the Free Beacon. Please see WP:WIKISPEAK and WP:BULB; they will make you laugh if you are, as I suspect, someone with a bit of wiki-experience. SashiRolls (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're gonna trash WaPo, which has been doing some of the best investigative journalism of this campaign, and praise the Washington Free Beacon, then that sure explains why there's such a problem reaching any consensus here. Okay, the Clinton Foundation has shell companies. That's not illegal. The Donald shares a shell corporation address with the Clinton Foundation. Why should we include any of this? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

At the WaPo link provided by Muboshgu, debunk these ideas, there is negative info about the Clinton Foundation in Haiti following the statement, "The Clinton family’s charitable work in Haiti has been a mix of success, disappointment and controversy." So the two of you might consider working together on including that info into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The devil is in the details. The truth is far more nuanced than what either the pro- or anti-Clinton side would suggest. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I thank markbassett for his productive suggestions above (see RFC) that do exactly what Bob K31416 suggests. Personally, I think much of the exercise of exploring the details should be left to the interested reader, though I have created a page on the Association des industries d'Haïti (ADIH), as requested above, in part in an effort to contribute productively towards the Africa Project (though of course Haiti is not geographically in Africa), but also to shed light on some of those details you mentioned above. I see you've been occupied with baseball, which you seem to know something about. I encourage you to stick to it! Let's limit the comments below the outdent to productive ones pertaining to how details about Haiti should be integrated into this article please... (better yet, those comments could be included in the RfC above...SashiRolls (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In-text attribution for "Charitable grants are not a major focus"

Consider in-text attribution for the beginning of the sentence that begins the third paragraph of the lead,

According to Rush Limbaugh and The Federalist, charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

seems reasonable to me, will include with the addition... SashiRolls (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What? No way. Come on guys, at least try harder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And in case this isn't clear, that sentence just shouldn't be in there, period.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It currently is in the article without in-text attribution. I can guarantee you that I didn't put it there. SashiRolls (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• That statement does come from PolitiFact, but whether that one source can suffice for such an important statement in the lede (a statement that is easily misread, as PolitiFact indicates) is highly questionable. It certainly cannot be attributed to Rush Limbaugh, since he did not say that--he said something else, and that something else didn't exactly mean the same thing as what the article has. This needs to be removed, rediscussed, renegotiated, since it's easily read as tendentious; having it function as the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is not a good idea--esp. since it opens with a negative statement. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • At first, I was ready to oppose such an addition too, then I realized the text was already there. Could you have a look at the proposed addition please Drmies? SashiRolls (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • As an English teacher, I will repeat what I said earlier: the very placement of that first half of the sentence can be regarded as tendentious, because it can be taken in a negative way. Flip the sentence around and you have a different case--esp. if you replace "which instead" by a semi-colon or so. See, if you cite only the first half of the sentence, you have a pretty negative statement right at the beginning of a paragraph that is (objectively) quite positive. I am reminded of that sentence in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, scene 1, incorrectly criticized here, "Faustus ignores the second part of the passage; he reads 'the wages of sin is death" but does not finish it with 'but the gift of God is eternal life.'" That criticism is wrong for a few reasons we won't go into here, but my point is that an incomplete citation (which I think is what the Snopes ref was pointing at) easily leads to a perceived distortion. Again, this is not the biggest thing in the world, but this is US 2016 and we're all walking on egg shells here. My job as an admin is to help prevent egg shells from being cracked, so to speak. Thanks SashiRolls and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually for me this was a modification or a deletion. The addition I was referring to was the bit on Caracol Industrial Park, for which I started the Request for Comment above. The dissension over that RfC may have led to the page being fully protected. Marlowe died at 26 or 27 as I recall, but indeed lives on... ^^SashiRolls (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Censorship on this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is being censored by the wiki powers that be. There is no criticism section, minimal mention of the FBI investigation, and no mention of the foundation paying for Chelsea's wedding (http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation-to-help-pay-for-wedding-emails/).2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no "powers that be" censoring this article, or any part of Wikipedia. There is no criticism section because criticism sections are examples of lazy writing. Any legitimate criticism should be woven into the body of the article in the appropriate weight. The New York Post is not a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which does not hold water. The article is being censored, proven by the locked editing and arb notice at the top of the talk page.2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a cabal of editors gate-keeping all the Clinton articles on Wikipedia. I have repeatedly drawn attention to how Wikipedia is under attack by people, who are only motivated in turning all Clinton-related articles into puff-public relations pieces. But nobody does anything about it. I guess Wikipedia is now another extension of the Clinton campaign ? maslowsneeds🌈 14:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing the improvement of articles, not engaging in baseless attacks on good faith editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We will let the admins decide if the gate-keeping you do on this article, and if the harassment you engage in against other editors, have been being made in good faith.maslowsneeds🌈 14:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further effort at compromise

After MBVW's return from WP:AE, the original RfC had the following response:

5 includes + 1 include with slightly different formulation (Chris Troutman)

4 excludes (Volunteer Marek + Scjessey + My Very Best Wishes + Bob K31416)

There are also several users (3) who have said we should work on wording. (TimTempleton, Mark Bassett, CuriousMind01) This has been done at length without help from the naysayers...

Bob K31416 has specifically been concerned that one source explicitly confirm every element of the sentence (I hope I am not misrepresenting you.) Your attention to detail suggests to me that I should take another tack. Therefore, I have posted the following sentences which summarize the detailed ABC News coverage on the question, including a response from the Clinton Foundation, both of which are probably, strictly speaking, correct.

The foundation, along with several of its donors – the Inter-American Development Bank, Sae-A Trading, Walmart and Gap – have been criticized concerning The foundation has been involved in Haiti both before and after the 2010 Haiti earthquake and, along with several of its donors – the Inter-American Development Bank, Sae-A Trading, Walmart and Gap – has been criticized concerning conditions at Caracol Industrial Park, a project initially supported by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. In a statement to ABC News, Clinton Foundation chairman Bruce Lindsey wrote that the Clinton Foundation itself "did not have a role in building the Caracol Industrial Park and has never invested any funds into the park."

References

• No, this is not an effort to compromise, and this is incorrect counting of people who voted or commented in the RfC. If you want to place these disputed and arguably completely irrelevant materials back, please wait for closing by uninvolved admin. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Have updated to add your "exclude" vote. You claim the Clinton Foundation is uninvolved in Caracol. This is what the Clinton Foundation website says: "In collaboration with the Government of Haiti, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the U.S. State Department, the Clinton Foundation assisted with the development of the Caracol Industrial Park, which could ultimately create up 60,000 jobs and help to decentralize the Haitian economy. In October 2012, President Bill Clinton joined Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Martelly, Prime Minister Lamothe, and President Moreno of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for the opening of Caracol Northern Industrial Park. Today, the Korean apparel manufacturer Sae-A is the anchor tenant and will create 20,000 jobs alone. "

(For the moment it is 8-9 thousand.) SashiRolls (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• The given excerpt does not support the proposed version's claim that the Clinton Foundation "has been criticized concerning conditions at Caracol Industrial Park". For me, SashiRolls has lost credibility because of the many proposed versions that when checked out with the given sources, weren't supported. So I'm not inclined to check out any more of SashiRolls' proposed versions regarding the Clinton Foundation being criticized for Caracol. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense. From the opening lines of the article, alone: "Bill and Hillary Clinton have hailed the factory churning out Old Navy sweatshirts in an industrial park here as a shining achievement in their efforts to rebuild this island nation after a destructive earthquake in 2010.

But the garment factory has underdelivered on projected jobs. Haitian workers have accused managers of bullying and sexual harassment. And an ABC News investigation has found that after opening its factory in the Haitian industrial park — built with $400 million of global aid — the Korean firm became a Clinton Foundation donor and its owner invested in a startup company owned by Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff.

“This was ‘building back better,’ in the words of Bill Clinton,” said Jake Johnston, an analyst with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonpartisan group that has studied the earthquake reconstruction. “Haiti was going to stand on its own two feet. Certainly, by that standard, it’s been a complete failure … Six years later, it’s pretty clear that hasn’t happened.”

...

“Contributors to the Clinton Foundation benefited from the relief effort in Haiti writ large,” Johnston said. “The evidence indicates that those who were contributing to the Clinton Foundation and active in Haiti were certainly a part of that reconstruction process.” SashiRolls (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 Presidential election

There are several articles published this year in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Economist on the Clinton Foundation as an issue in the 2016 presidential election. We may want to create an appropriate section in this article, given the amount of attention the foundation garnered as a topic in the election cycle.

I've not a big fan of criticism sections. Nor should the article be a haliography. Certainly there's a way to integrate information from high-profile newspapers of record in an objective fashion.

Just wondering: does anyone believe that the Times, the Journal or the Economist aren't reliable sources for U.S. national/political news? And are there any other concerns about creating a short section (or sub-article) on the role of the Foundation in the 2016 election? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. I noticed many articles throughout the campaign which mentioned the Foundation and find it quite strange that there is no mention of that fact here. ThaiWanIII (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I found two items that are currently in the article.

"Extra attention was paid to the foundation due to the 2016 United States presidential election.^[11][12]"

"In August 2016, with less than 90 days before the upcoming presidential election, the Clinton Foundation announced that it will stop accepting foreign donations if Clinton is elected.^[76]"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• If the suggestion here is that these publications are somehow not reliable, that's a conversation to have at BLPN. In the meantime, there is no room on Wikipedia for conspiracy theories, esp. not if the net is cast this widely. This is not Facebook. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the point being made, Drmies. Majoreditor is, quite clearly in my opinion, suggesting that a section on the 2016 election should be included in the page, due to the impact the Foundation had on it, as reported by the mainstream press.ThaiWanIII (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Then again, what does "Just wondering: does anyone believe that the Times, the Journal or the Economist aren't reliable sources for U.S. national/political news?" mean? If it's a rhetorical question, asked in a collaborative project where WP:RS is sacred, the answer should be no one, meaning it wasn't worth asking. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll assume that all are comfortable with use of the aforementioned sources. Majoreditor (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the Clinton Global Initiative?

The section doesn't actually say what the Clinton Global Initiative is or does. It also refers to "the model of CGI" which doesn't make much sense on its own. Tilkax (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Text.

The Clinton Global Initiative was inspired by the annual meetings of the World Economic Forum where global leaders travel to [[4]] to discuss world affairs. On the way to one such meeting, Clinton and his celebrity planemates had a conversation about creating a Davos-like-meeting that worked towards concrete solutions. From this came the model of the Clinton Global Initiative, donors like corporations and governments would partner with the CGI to tackle a specific problem with concrete "commitment to action." According to the Clinton Foundation a Commitment to Action must be a New idea or approach to a problem with Specific and feasible objectives with Measurable Goals. The donor partners put up the funds and implement the commitment while the CGI acts as a facilitator, promotes the commitments at its annual meeting reports on the progress of committements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.23.71 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clinton Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209193623/http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10498/clinton-heaps-praise-on-band-family/ to http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10498/clinton-heaps-praise-on-band-family/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025102114/http://www.rbf.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=540866 to http://www.rbf.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=540866

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Could somebody remove the "|p=1" in the Start date and age template so its only "| founded_date = {Start date and age|1997}"? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

173.73.227.128 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Done st170e 19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal

I removed this because it tells almost nothing on the subject of this page or transparency. Yes, there were some mails. So what? The text does not explain what was in these emails and why this is interesting/important. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You vandalized the article. The info is highly relevant since the operators of jewish faith mentioned are highly controversial and shed a light on HRC's coterie. 183.86.100.119 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign donors

Since the publishers of The Observer think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't.

In February 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Australia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and a Canadian government agency that was trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline built all donated to the Clinton Foundation. Obviously, Australia and Germany don’t count as “abusive nations,” but donations from former foreign governments is strange of itself—it had always been clear that Clinton would run for president again. And the donations from Saudi Arabia were especially troubling, since Clinton claims to be a champion of women yet Saudi Arabia bans women from driving or interacting with men to whom they are not related.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to recount the WSJ's story, how about citing the WSJ story and reporting instead of the garbage that is the New York Observer? It's also bizarre to recount how "a Canadian government agency that was trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline built all donated to the Clinton Foundation" when Clinton opposed the Keystone XL pipeline. As it's written, it doesn't make clear that her position on the Keystone XL pipeline was different from that of the Canadian government agency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Using secondary sources for investigative journalism is often a good idea, because it establishes the significance of the story and what aspects are important. However the statement that the publishers of The Observer think the story is relevant is false, it is an opinion piece by a right-wing columnist published by The Observer. The description "a Canadian government agency that was trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline built" is misleading. The agency happens to be the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development[5] (now called Global Affairs Canada), which is the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. State Department. It did not donate to the Clinton Foundation, but to the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, founded by President Bill Clinton and philanthropist Frank Giustra." The department provided $5.6 billion Canadian in foreign aid that year, of which $600,000 (1/10 of 1% of its budget) went to the initiative. Guistra, who has no connection to the XL pipeline, is a Canadian entrepreneur who has pledged $100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation and received Bill Clinton's help in a mining deal in Kazakhstan. While the story can be read in various ways, the implication that the Canadian government gave money in return for approval of the XL pipeline really tenuous. If it was doing a favor at all, it was to Guistra. TFD (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RE Observer: A big German daily, Die Welt, followed up on the WSJ allegations that the German government tried to buy political influence by supporting Clinton via donations to the Clinton Foundation. Turns out the German Federal Ministry for the Environment has an International Climate Initiative which is co-financing ecological projects with the Clinton Foundation in developing countries, basically the same thing the Norwegians are doing (see Misleading information, below), with lots of paperwork - applications, grants, regular progress reports and on-site inspections. Also, RE pay-to-play: My guess is that Chancellor Merkel simply tells her staff to call the White House and arrange for a phone conversation with the President. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Misleading information

Deleted the sentence on Norway - wrong place and better sources available elsewhere in this article. The Norwegian newspaper Aftonbladet, which cites as its source the Aug 13, 2013, NY Times article, confuses the Clinton Foundation with one of its projects, the Clinton Global Initiative, while the NY Times does not (the NY Times article is cited numerous times in this Wikipedia article and contains much more information). If the 20 million Kroner figure is correct, Norway provided approx. US $2.4 million not to CGI, but to projects of the Clinton Foundation in 2013. That’s only 1.67% of the $142,885,956 in contributions and grants the Foundation received, according to their 2013 tax return. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

I need to add content critical to the true nature of the operation of this foundation. Sevaghaddadian (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Open-ended edit requests are not approved. Please phrase request in the from "change X to Y".Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Material goods versus production of reports

I have a desire to read how much of the budgets are spent on material goods such as schoolbooks, computers, pharmaceuticals, buildings, asphalt, concrete, steel, etc., as opposed to production of documents, reports, speaking engagements, mailings, recordings, public relations matters and travel expenses. I have not seen this article do much more than concentrate on funding. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clinton Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115183357/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22469/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22469/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414150833/http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/2010/clinton_global_citizen_awards.asp to http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/2010/clinton_global_citizen_awards.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185404/http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=8786 to http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=8786

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

In the Transparency section, last paragraph, there is the line that "...the State Department had approved a deal to sell American uranium to a Russian state-owned enterprise Uranium One whose chairman...", and a reference to the NYT article "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation..."; however, that wording is not only quite wrong, but is not supported by the source.

Suggest the following re-wording: "...a deal whereby a Russian state-owned enterprise would purchase a controlling interest in the Canadian firm Uranium One, which produced uranium in the U.S. and whose chairman..."

This matches the reporting in the referenced Times article, in addition to being factually correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.30.88 (talk) 16:40, October 27, 2017‎

Done This is probably sticking by head in a beartrap, but the IP editor's request is correct: the prior text misrepresented the text from the source given. Altered per BLP and ArbCom remedies.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)