Talk:Open Society Foundations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)