Talk:Arnold Ventures
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arnold Ventures article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
Grants table
editThe following was added today:
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)
- @Jytdog: 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
editThis 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
editThis 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)
Discussion
editHi @Marquardtika, what about this article is so promotional? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 3 years now and I know there is still more for me to learn. I've edited a lot of pages and try to help keep the platform as neutral as possible. My perspective is that this article in particular does not have promotional content, but I would also love to hear your perspective on how/why you see it as promotional. I haven't really addressed page issues/flags in the past but I would appreciate this as a learning opportunity for me to grow as an editor. Any advice/helpful tips you could offer would be appreciated. Thank you Catnapper100 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for starting a discussion. Off the bat, I noticed some WP:PEACOCK language like "a wide range of areas" "a wide range of studies" and "expert research". This type of language sounds like it should be on their own website, not in an encyclopedia article. Overall the article reads like a brag sheet of their accomplishments, how much money they have doled out, the impact they have made. Just kind of a laundry list of stuff they have done. I don't see anything about their lawsuit against their former president, for example. I'm sure there is more coverage out there that provides a broader look at the foundation, beyond just listing out individual grants they have given. Marquardtika (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Tags discussion
editHi, I am an employee at Arnold Ventures and would like to declare my conflict of interest. When I saw that there was a tag on the page for Promotional content, I thought it was time to see if I could help rid our page of promotional and inaccurate content. I have been reading the rules of Wikipedia to try to make sure that I follow the correct procedures and am transparent in my efforts. I would like to make some suggested edits to remove the Promotional content and ensure all information is factual. AL at AV (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for disclosing your COI. You can go ahead and make suggested edits here on the talk page and I'm happy to take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
COI edit request
edit| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
1) I would like to propose we remove this sentence: “The organization has funded a wide range of studies and programs in health care, education reform, criminal justice, and initiatives in open science and metascience.[2]” from the first paragraph of our page as it could be perceived as promotional.
2) Remove “efficiently and” from the end of the 2nd sentence in the History section, as it can be perceived as promotional.
3) Remove this sentence from the 3rd paragraph in the History section: “Since 2008, the organization has invested more than $1 billion in philanthropic efforts, focusing on using expert research and statistical analysis to drive systemic social change.[7]” given the numbers are outdated and could be seen as promotional. And remove this from the 5th paragraph: “In 2018, the organization donated $204.3 million.[10]” for the same reason.
5) Add this sentence to the Partnerships subsection of the Areas of focus section. I might recommend including a more recent partnership example such as Arnold Ventures’ partnership in March 2025 with Oklahoma Governor Stitt: https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/how-arnold-ventures-seeks-to-help-policymakers-implement-programs-that-work
6)And to remove the 2nd sentence: “By November 2020, the organization had committed $48 million to the partnership.[15]” which could be seen as promotional.
Thank you in advance for your review and help, and the opportunity to provide factual information. AL at AV (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi again, editors. I’m following up from May 7th to see if there are any concerns with me implementing the proposed edits I shared earlier, particularly the Partnerships subsection of the Areas of focus section and sourcing updates. I’m happy to adjust the language or approach based on your feedback, but wanted to check if I have permission to proceed or if there’s anything else I should revise before doing so. Thanks again for your time and input. @Marquardtika @Catnapper100 AL at AV (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @AL at AV: I took a look and I think we're moving in the right direction. Thanks for your work on this. I think we should try to expand the lede to give a summary of the article and of the major giving areas. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Marquardtika (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Marquardtika, following up on your suggestion to expand the lede, I’d like to propose adding one sentence to reflect Arnold Ventures' main areas of focus:
- My proposed sentence to follow the first two sentences in the current lede:
- The philanthropy funds research and advocacy in public policy areas including education[1], criminal justice [2], health [3], infrastructure[4], and public finance[5][6].
- Proposed citation for the new material:
- [1] https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/arnold-ventures-invests-35.6-million-to-ncccs-workforce-program
- [2] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/us/crime-stats-delay-fbi
- [3]https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/how-arnold-ventures-is-backing-cost-cutting-in-health-without-cutting-care
- [4]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-20/john-arnold-on-why-it-s-so-hard-to-build-things-in-america?sref=M5E7r486&embedded-checkout=true
- [5] https://qz.com/trump-republican-tax-spending-bill-cost-debt-deficit
- [6] https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-tax/2024/09/30/time-to-talk-about-baseline-games-00181611
- Thank you for this collaborative improvement to the page and to ensure this information is up to date! As you can see, there is not much on this page that has been updated in the last decade. My goal is to provide current information. AL at AV (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @AL at AV: I took a look and I think we're moving in the right direction. Thanks for your work on this. I think we should try to expand the lede to give a summary of the article and of the major giving areas. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Marquardtika (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks--I'll take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Update for Education
edit| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi again. 👋 In my posts above, I introduced myself and disclosed my COI, but in case any editors are new to this page or hadn't spotted it: I work for Arnold Ventures and am here in an official capacity to ask for edits to this page on the organization's behalf. Earlier this year, the page was cleaned up significantly to resolve some valid concerns about promotional content from before I got involved on the page. With the page in good shape after my last request above, I'd like to help provide current information to be added to the article.
In the Education section, the most recent information is from 2020, however there are education initiatives from the last several years that have been well covered. My proposed update is:
- In 2025, the organization provided a $35.6 million grant to fund a program in the North Carolina Community College System aimed at helping low-income students complete their studies if they are enrolled in programs with areas of study related to in-demand careers in the state. The NC Community Colleges Boost program was launched in 2025. It was based on a program developed by the City University of New York. The program included financial support for college-related expenses and support from academic advisors.[1][2] Arnold Ventures also matched state funding to launch a similar program in two Colorado community colleges in 2025.[3]
References
- ↑ Weissman, Sara (6 February 2025). "North Carolina Community Colleges Launch Program Modeled After CUNY ASAP". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
- ↑ Scutari, Mike (21 April 2025). "How Arnold Ventures Seeks to Help Policymakers Implement Programs That Work". Inside Philanthropy. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
- ↑ Gonzales, Jason (27 March 2025). "Colorado will bring NYC community college support program to two state rural campuses". Chalkbeat. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
Thanks in advance for reviewing this. 🤓 I'm happy to revise anything based on feedback, let me know. Thanks! 🙏 AL at AV (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Update for Data-Driven Justice
edit| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
First, 👋 I want to thank User:Likeanechointheforest for handling my last edit request. I know that non-COI Wikipedia editors are volunteers, so I really appreciate the help. 🙏 This next request is pretty similar to my previous one. I'd like to add a short paragraph to the Data-Driven Justice section about the Real-Time Crime Index, which has been covered by a few news outlets, two of which are cited below. Here's my suggested content:🤓
- Arnold Ventures provides funding for the Real-Time Crime Index, an interactive tool that analyzes crime data collected from approximately 350 law enforcement agencies.[1][2] The index contains data that is several months more recent than the data contained in regular FBI crime reports, which are more comprehensive and consequently take longer to assemble.[2] The RTCI launched in September 2024 and is operated by AH Datalytics.[1]
References
- 1 2 Smith, Carl (September 26, 2024). "A New Tool Allows Governments to Track Crime Data in Real Time". CNN. Retrieved October 15, 2025.
- 1 2 Levenson, Eric (October 26, 2024). "The FBI releases crime stats months after the fact. This new crime tracker is trying to be more timely – and the FBI is too". CNN. Retrieved October 15, 2025.
Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review! AL at AV (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Partly done but the article is trash because I only see them spend money but I don't see what the effect of their money is. Did it reduce crime? Made better school outcomes? Led to savings in healthcare costs or some innovative breakthroughs? If there is a third party source that tracks the efficacy of their interventions, these would be most welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing 🙏 and implementing my request User:Szmenderowiecki. I will look 👀 for opportunities to suggest more content that demonstrates the impact made. I'll try to make that happen via future edit requests. ✅
- One small thing: in the last sentence of the Crime section, the Real-Time Crime Index is referred to as "RCTI." Would you mind fixing that typo?
- Again, thanks very much for your help! AL at AV (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, that's my fuck-up. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 22:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Update for Health Care section
edit![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Hello again, 👋 I'm back to ask for a few additions to the Health care section, which is solid overall but doesn't contain information about some of Arnold Ventures' more recent work in the space. I've assembled a draft below. It doesn't revise any existing content. My suggested additions are highlighted in yellow.
Extended content |
|---|
|
Arnold Ventures work in the healthcare space has been focused primarily on researching ways to reduce both government spending and healthcare costs for Americans.[1] AV has financially supported organizations developing policy changes intended to bring down the cost of drugs and medical care in various states.[1] The organization has also funded research on the effects of hospital consolidation on health costs.[1] By 2020, Arnold Ventures had donated $347 million to health care initiatives, including $5.67 million to the Center for Healthcare Transparency, $23.19 million to the Nutrition Science Initiative, and $1.67 million to the Research Triangle Institute.[2] Arnold Ventures was one of three organizations that invested in Civica RX, a nonprofit focused on reducing drug costs.[2][3] Fifty large hospital systems partnered with Civica RX.[3] Arnold Ventures donated $27.6 million to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), accounting for 69% of its funding. ICER conducts cost analyses of prescription drugs and medical procedures using metrics like the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and Equal Value of Life Years Gained (evLYG). Arnold Ventures’ work through ICER has been praised for standardizing drug pricing but has faced criticism for potentially limiting investment in treatments for elderly patients or those with rare diseases.[4] In January 2021, the organization helped fund the Action Collaborative on Countering the U.S. Opioid Epidemic, formed by the National Academy of Medicine and the Aspen Institute to address the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to people with substance use disorders and chronic pain.[5] In 2025, AV commissioned a poll that found 88 percent of voters believe it is "fairly important" or "very important" for the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The poll also found that voters overwhelmingly want the government to defend Medicare drug price negotiations in court.[6] References
|
I would also like to ask about changing the section title from "Health care" to "Healthcare." I know folks write it both ways, but I feel like I see the latter much more frequently than the former. Anyway, that's a minor quibble.
If editors have any feedback for me on the draft, please reply below and I'll do my best to address your comment. Thanks! 🙏🤓 AL at AV (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Partly done: Added first highlight. Second felt too specific to be notable overall. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Adding new Sports betting subsection
edit| The user below has a request that an edit be made to Arnold Ventures. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 534 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
Hello again! 👋 In 2026, Arnold Ventures has funded quite a bit of research on sports betting, its effects on consumers, and how policymakers might go about effectively regulating it. There's now enough press circulating that I thought it might be a good idea to add a "Sports betting" subsection to the "Areas of focus" section. ⚽️ Below is a draft I put together. It cites Bloomberg, CNBC, and Inside Philanthropy, which I believe are reliable sources.
Sports betting draft |
|---|
|
In 2026, Arnold Ventures provided the American Institute for Boys and Men with $2 million for the purposes of starting a policy group focused on sports betting.[1] The organization also provided another $2.6 million toward research in this area, with the goal of providing policymakers with the data they need in order to regulate sports betting effectively.[2][3] This research includes studies on the effects of gambling and gambling advertisements on bettors' families, financial wellbeing, and mental health.[2][3]
References
Thank you in advance to any independent editors who take the time to review this draft! 🙏 Cheers, AL at AV (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC) |
