Talk:Open Society Foundations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open Society Foundations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 180 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Open Society Foundations is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eastern Europe (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Open Access Low‑importance

Open Society Foundations is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Jonathan Birchall (talk · contribs) has been paid by Open Society Foundations on their behalf. COI declared:[1][2][3].

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Johanna Chao Kreilick (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Open Society Foundations profile ([4]))

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Criticism section

I find it very strange that this page has no controversy/criticism section as is typical on organization pages. For reference: World_Health_Organization Clinton_Foundation

To ensure neutrality and ward off claims of bias I propose we rename the section head to 'controversies' as is the general practice-moving positive commentary to another section as required.

--103.42.218.196 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSECTION, we should avoid sections on negative criticism. Where other articles include them, it is bad practice that should be removed rather than spread into better-structured articles. Ralbegen (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting the WP:CSECTION. It clearly states- in bold- that criticism sections are entirely appropriate for pollitical and philosophical topics. You may note that most articles on wikipedia relating to political groups have a "controversy" or "criticism" section, A good example might be the Bill and melinda gates foundation which has a 'criticism and reform" section.

the term "reception" is only generally applied to works and publications, not to organisations- in that context it functions as a euphemism.

As it appears there is a long running edit war about the approprietness of a "criticizm category" and all editors seem partisan I'm throwing this out for comment

--Willthewanderer (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to state all viewpoints. It doesn't have to be criticism, just difference (that may involve rewording). Information leaving out viewpoints, is lacking and biased. 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:BDD4 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...
— User:AndyTheGrump

In this case, that means paranoid conspiracy theories about Soros. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively chosen article, only to drag in Trump Admin

Why is this included on this Page? "In 2017, Open Society Foundations and other NGOs that promote open government and help refugees have been targeted for crackdowns by authoritarian and populist governments who have been emboldened by encouraging signals from the Trump Administration''. Several politicians in eastern Europe, including Liviu Dragnea in Romania and typically right-wing figures Szilard Nemeth in Hungary, Macedonia's Nikola Gruevski, who called for a "de-Sorosization" of society, and Poland's Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who has said that Soros-funded groups want "societies without identity", regard many of the NGO groups to be irritants at best, and threats at worst.[36]

There are many article written that talk about all the reasons other governments have wanted to crackdown on OSF, yet only this article is chosen, as if to drag in the Trump admin. This is selective bias even though you don't want to admit it. This is the type of crap that makes people say Wikipedia is biased. There is no reason this amount of detail from only 1 reference needs to be included here - unless it is for political purposes.

I'm not going to let this go. I'll appeal to the highest I have to. 2001:569:FB72:8F00:B495:C542:1A69:D4AA (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who is the highest? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Dragnea: it was empty rhetoric, he just knew his prison sentence was coming. It is empty rhetoric because several prominent members of his party benefited from OSF sponsorships. And no, Romania does not have a problem with refugees, since usually they don't want to remain in Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xref “Open Govt” Talk pages re adding, increasing technological advances

Following is the copy of my comments on the referenced Talk page: I have to ask, have you looked at whitehouse.gov recently? I have noticed a great deal of info available to public under (oh my, dare I utter it?) the Trump Administration. I would also hope mention is made of the serious dangers to U.S. security and protection of the American ppl if EVERYthing, esp re U.S. military were transparent to the public. It seems all too obvious with recent events, and historical ones, that plenty of ppl in and out of the U.S. are ready and willing to use/sell/do anything that might damage the U.S. in any way. That’s why our military is set up such that even the President is not made privy to the most sensitive info, for his or her protection as well as the protection of the country as a whole. So I just hope that the info HERE includes that side of the thinking that must go into expanding transparency of govt, ESPECIALLY w/regard to using technology to expand it, or expanding the technology used. The entire concept of technological help in U.S. govt transparency is potentially extremely dangerous to the entire population, given that technological access to sensitive info increases the possibility of access to the very ppl who would use the info to do harm. Hackers don’t just all hang together and advertise their skills. They’re not listed in the yellow pages. They live and work among us all, and those with deep pockets can find them and pay them any amount to find out anything and everything there is to know to decimate us—quickly or slowly, any way they can. So plz find & incl sources for that kind of content as well. Dbreyna (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbreyna: I think you are confused. "Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media." I can see no relationship between your comments (wrong about the president by the way) and this article. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News since 2018

The last grants listed on their website are from 2018, and the news on this page also stops at 2018.

I'm still seeing new accusations against these people fly wildly. Is there any new information on what is going on for them? 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:BDD4 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]