Talk:Clinton Foundation

message: I saw the page, expected a controversies section in the contents (as many wiki pages about NGOs do) but didn't find one, turned out it was another page and the link fall under "See also". I think it should either be :"See also contains multiple links", or "There's only a link to Controversies and it falls under 'Controversies' "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenzhengyou (talk • contribs) 03:25, July 24, 2017 (UTC)
Zhenzhengyou (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , it is very appreciated that you explained your change in the edit summary and then further expanded on the reasons for your edit here.  Just so you know for the future, however, on a page as high-profile as this one, potentially contentious changes should probably be allowed to achieve consensus through talk page discussion first before changing the article.  I have reverted the change in section heading so that the discussion can proceed and not as a rebuke or rejection of your edit.  If no other editor objects through this discussion, you can then feel free to restore it.  Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the controversies section back. After all, there were already two main sections about controversies. --MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "controversies" should be more visable 

message: The only source is a 2005 article published by conservative think tank AEI by Resident Fellow Roger Bate who - since 2004 - had been receiving money (see section "Competing interests") from Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis which was involved in a legal battle against use of generic drugs in India with implications for other poor countries in Asia and Africa.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable source

message: Should this page acknowledge that the Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation also works for (and donates to) the WMF?  This has been pointed out in a number of venues, not all of which are RS (Wikipediocracy §§, Créoliste, prn.fm, On Contact) or non-primary (WMF sites, 990 forms, benefactors list, etc.)  It would seem drafting something transparent might be salutary for all concerned.  Anyone disagree?   — 🍣  SashiRolls t ·   c 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clinton Foundation & the WMF 

message: Where are the notations of controversies regarding her use of the foundation as a slush fund in the "pay to play" scandal leading up to the 2016 election?
Allegations of criminal conspiracies with powerful interests have not been addressed. Markvrb (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , considering that they are WP:FRINGE theories that were concocted to damage Hillary's presidential campaign, they do not need to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Nope. Your unsubstantiated claim that it is a "slush fund" is what would need verification. Because "multiple investigations through 2019 found no evidence of malfeasance." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay to play 

message: Do we know if the US based offshore? A charity owes no taxes on donations. So why not base your bank accounts in the USA?
Does offshore = no reporting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.8.146 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what you're asking. The foundation is a US-based organization. You can read their financials here. Kuru (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton Foundation