Talk:Arnold Ventures LLC

Grants table
The following was added today:


 * Grants tables

The following tables list grants made by the Arnold Foundation. For each row, the recipients are shown in order of descending total grant amount (for grants considered part of that row). The top ten recipients by are shown by default, and more recipients can be shown by clicking on "More recipients". For grants given "up to" some amount, the upper limit is used.


 * By focus area


 * By year

For multi-year grants, the first year is used in the following table.


 * Focus area and year matrix

For multi-year grants, the first year is used in the following table.

Comments to follow -- Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The content above is 100% sourced to the website of the foundation. This is an abuse of Wikipedia per almost every part of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhost for the foundation or anyone else. We are not a catalog to record every grant given by the foundation. WP articles, per every policy, are meant to be sourced to independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude per WP:NOT; particularly WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for starting this discussion! I'd like a few details from you to make this discussion more productive: (1) "This is an abuse of Wikipedia per almost every part of WP:NOT" is very vague to me, and I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say. I also think saying "it violates a lot of things on this very long page" is not very useful for those who believe the tables should be kept, because it allows those who want to remove the tables to change the reason each time. Could you please enumerate all the parts of WP:NOT you think the tables violate, with reasoning for each? (2) In your original revert edit summary you cited WP:PROMO, but you did not specifically bring it up here (although it is in WP:NOT); do you believe the tables to be in violation of this or not? (3) You write "WP articles, per every policy, are meant to be sourced to independent, secondary sources". How would your views on including the tables change (direction and magnitude) if the information can be sourced to independent secondary sources? Riceissa (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The key aspects of WP:NOT that are relevant are WP:NOTEVERYTHING (what Wikipedia is actually for), and the following aspects of what it is not for: WP:PROMO (which includes WP:NOTWEBHOST), WP:NOTCATALOG specifically #7.  I went down to the ground here (what WP is for, and what it isn't) because that is the key principle.  I cannot imagine that there is any independent source that discusses all the grants, and putting them together in a table would just be WP:SYN which we don't do here.  This level of granularity is just not encyclopedic.
 * I have not yet mentioned WP:UNDUE and should have. Per the NPOV policy we assign WEIGHT based on what independent, secondary sources say, and this huge pile of content sourced solely from the organization's website is UNDUE.  Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits
This article has been substantially edited by an undisclosed paid editing company (see Yoodaba socks) as well as their IP socks on proxies. Placing UDP tag for review. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality of Article is Terrible
This is honestly one of the worst articles I've ever seen. The intro is unnecessarily verbose, the history section not only contains information that is not historical and included in the initiatives section anyway, but is also completely out of order and repetitive at points. The initiatives section reads like a paid advertisement (which, gathering from the template and talk page, it literally is), and there's no mention whatsoever of articles which question the intentions of the foundation's efforts (e.g. with "school choice").

The abundance of citations and random order that some things are in makes it difficult to edit without breaking multiple citations, but I intend on sitting down at some point in the near future and taking a proper scalpel to this article. Whoever the LLC paid to edit it was NOT worth the money. It's a total mess. Kakurokuna (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the longest "multiple issues" template I've ever seen. Go ahead and chop it down. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)