Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 7 September 2016

Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy

Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:POVFORK from the Clinton Foundation, not a notable topic on its own, and is an unsalvageable WP:COATRACK in its current form; also presents BLP concerns. — Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. This is no different from Hillary Clinton email controversy in the sense of being a perfectly valid article subject. The argument seems to be that it is a POV fork of the Clinton Foundation article but this controversy would overwhelm that article, just as it would overwhelm the article about the United States Department of State. There are separate articles about many Clinton scandals, though Misplaced Pages editors have decided that any list of them is verboten, so it's no surprise when they would try to delete articles about the scandals themselves. Good luck with that. Maybe we should delete Watergate scandal too, as a POV fork of Presidency of Richard Nixon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden WP:SYNTHESIS. The only sources really are a single AP story and then several stories slamming that AP story. And yes, the purpose of this article is solely to circumvent consensus on the Clinton Foundation article. The POV is obvious and obnoxious. As is the WP:GAMEing. This is also a cynical attempt to do a run around discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Misplaced Pages policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The email controversy is a molehill compared to Watergate (so far), and this thing is a molehill compared to the email controversy (so far), but if a molehill is big enough and covered in reliable mainstream sources enough then it's appropriate for it to become the subject of one of Misplaced Pages's millions of articles (take a look at them, there's an article for every moth and every subway stop and every athlete who ever kicked a soccer ball).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The "controversy" perhaps merits a mention - a few sentences - in the main article on the Clinton Foundation but it does not warrant its own article. Indeed, a good chunk of the content of this article consists exactly of material that was removed from the Clinton Foundation article on BLP and POV grounds... which is of course why C.Fredkin created this article (with your help) - because including that content in the original article would require firm consensus which he knew he couldn't get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And oh yeah, articles on "moths" generally aren't subject to BLP policy. Hate to point out the obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As an example, using the exact same logic, and the same kind of process, someone could create an article on, say, List of white supremacists supporting Donald Trump or White supremacist support for Donald Trump. There's plenty of sources: Wall St Journal, ABC News, MSNBC, , Politico, VF, , WaPo, and a ton more. And all of these are reliable sources (well, I'm not 100% sure about the Alaska Dispatch News one). Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How about if we let other editors get a word in edgewise?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting below. Now stop deflecting and please answer the question. Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't deflecting, just exercising my right to not read. But since you insist, no I would have no objection to an article titled White supremacists to whom Donald Trump has sold access and favors. Assuming there are any.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So you would vote "keep" for an article on White supremacist support for Donald Trump? (and your POV pushing is sort of showing through with that snark (not deflecting? You just deflected again. Come on man. You know people can read your comments right?) WP:AGENDA appears to fit)Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Too many leading questions. We two have said enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a question which illustrates a valid point. If the article of this AfD is legitimate then so is an article on White supremacist support for Donald Trump. Your continual evasiveness and refusal to actually answer the question sort of evidences the fact that you know this but don't want to state it out loud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Communist Party USA has endorsed Clinton even in the primaries. Should we write an article about that? TFD (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Except it didn't. Anyway, if you got a dozen reliable sources on the topic then maybe... as long as we can also write the White supremacist support for Donald Trump article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a very weak argument. The Wordsmith 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary. While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information. In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable sources. So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets notability. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is notable; notability is validated not merely by the amount of news coverage, but by the caliber of that coverage, articles like Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and the promises she made about it, explained, Washington Post, and From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer, The Atlantic (scroll down to Clinton Foundation. That said, we can consider what is the best title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. This page combines negative information about living person that suppose to be on page Clinton Foundation. Hence this is a POV fork of this section already present on page "Clinton Foundation" and possibly also an "attack page". And it has been created as a POV fork. According to one of users, "The article is ... an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page". My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Here is main problem with describing this controversy on this page. It creates false impression that Clinton is profiting from the organization, instead of doing charity work ("allegations that government access was traded for money"). However, in fact 80-90 percent of the expenditures by Foundation go toward charitable programs. Hence the POV and a possible attack page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to comment briefly about that. There are over 30,000 of those emails that have been made public, and they discuss an immense variety of subjects; I don't think one should delete all Misplaced Pages articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have that backwards. It should be "I don't think one should create all Misplaced Pages articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails"

And MVBW's link clearly shows, in case there was any doubt, that the creation of this article was a WP:POINTy bad faithed way to circumvent the presence of discretionary sanctions on the main article. Like I said, you're being played and I'm sure couple of the editors responsible are laughing their asses off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:POVFORK. It's not clear why this unproven allegation would need an article of its own. This sort of trash is often created during election season, and may be safely deleted. Anything useful can be put into Clinton Foundation, although editors will have to look really hard to find such. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POVFORK says: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. 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." So far, the editors claiming that this is a POVFORK of Clinton Foundation have been unable to provide evidence of a disagreement there that supposedly resulted in this article. I'll also note that the sources for this article are impeccable.CFredkin (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)CFredkin (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is that word "generally" in there. They could also arise when some editors KNOW that their preferred POV content won't be included in the main article so they go off and create their WP:OWN version. Which is exactly what happened here. WP:POVFORK also says "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" which is exactly the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, there were disagreements on main page about it, as documented here, but instead of resolving disagreements by consensus, editors created this fork page - as acknowledged here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see references to the content in this article in the link provided to the Clinton Foundation Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not "original research"; it's all over the newspapers. Also regarding, "unpublished synthesis", do we need to cite specific pages from Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash? In any case, it seems pretty clear to me that the article should be kept and improved. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. "Clinton Cash". A fringe far right conspiracy theory book. That pretty much exemplifies what kind of article we're talking about here (in fact, this article is pretty much based on that book except pains have been taken to make it look legit. Anyone familiar with the book can see right away that "Clinton Cash" served as a template).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the research from the book has been republished by the mainstream media. So, it may be inconvenient, but WP:UNCENSORED. Regarding your use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", I am not too sure; if it is published research, we as Misplaced Pages editors have a responsibility to remain neutral and not pass judgements on sources we don't like. The book was published by HarperCollins apparently, a perfectly respectable publisher. Are there reliable third-party sources suggesting this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy? If so, you could add this content to the article to expand it, not try to delete it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is highly controversial and it must be described, but it has been already described on a number of pages, one of them is "Clinton Cash". Perhaps it should be described in even more detail, but this should be done in appropriate subsections of main page about the Foundation, and such subsections already exist and describe the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The book was partisan and contained some errors which were corrected. But it is not conspiracist and was published by a reputable publisher. It is not in the same league as Citizen United's Hillary: The Movie. TFD (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We now have more than 130 pages about Hillary including pages within sub-categories . Is not that excessive? My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtless some of them are excessive, but they need to be considered on an individual basis, and also it would be interesting to know the total number of pages for other living people; is her number the highest? In any event, the many legitimate pages for this BLP subject could be more easily navigated with the help of lists (like this). And let's not forget: the number 130 is very tiny compared to the number of pages about her in reliable sources (which undoubtedly number in the millions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. This page looks like a stub for Criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is anyone who does same thing for Donald Trump? I am thinking what kind of "fun" that might be. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, obviously crossing the threshold of WP:N. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, but it is preferable to fix it than delete. The Wordsmith 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable subject widely covered by reliable sources. I agree with a cleanup and title change. DoubleCross (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename to what? Corruption accusations of Hillary Clinton? That is what this page actually about. Or maybe this should be page Corruption accusations during US presidential elections, 2016, - see this article? There are plenty of sources about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the current title is factual. There is a controversy between the USDS and the William J. Clinton Foundation. If we use the word "back-and-forth" instead of "controversy", it will sound POV (as Clinton denies it).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's make search for the current title in Google news: . It produces exactly one source. Yes, the conjecture between Clinton Foundation and State Department was made in certain sources and therefore not an "original research". However, the way it was presented here is POV, the title of the page is inherently POV (it was created to make a conjecture implicitly accusing a living person), and it duplicate content already present in other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Clinton"+"pay for play" gets 12,600 hits. Would you prefer that title? TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am only saying that current title is inherently POV. It is constructed to disparage a living person. This is not OK for encyclopedia. Several voters to "keep" suggested to change the title - apparently for that very reason (see above). This might be a good idea, but they did not explain how exactly the title should be changed, and I do not see a reasonable solution. Frankly, I think that WP should not promote propaganda about perceived, rather than actual corruption. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be a campaign controversy. The article does not mention the word "corruption", by the way. (I just did a word search.) Misplaced Pages is only relaying factual information from reliable third-party sources in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - classic WP:POVFORK created to do a run around discretionary sanctions restrictions as they apply to the main article on the Clinton Foundation. Consists mostly of material that did not/would not be acceptable on the other article. Hopelessly POV. Stuff like this and comments such as these suggest pretty clearly that this is a product of a political POV WP:AGENDA at work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This has had significant coverage in the news (e.g. ,,,,). Certainly enough that it deserves either substantial coverage at Clinton Foundation (though some editors insist they will try to remove material there at all costs, not helping their case), or its own article. If ideology is helping to generate support for "keep," it seems even more powerfully to motivate support for "delete." Significant coverage in reliable sources wins in my view. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Article is good and informative. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please explain how it doesn't violate WP:POVFORK then. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete a Trumped up welter of SYNTH, failed V, OR, and BLP smears. I understand that certain partisans may use the word "controversy" to validate the various conspiracy theories and ruminations brewed by their favorite media pundits, but this article fails the basic sourcing policies of WP. Scrape together a series of tenuous or half-accurate "facts" and then caption it "controversy" -- this is not what we do on WP. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates