Talk:Heartland Institute

Layout of the page

HughD Do you think that your edits to the layout of the page may put too much weight on specific incidents like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard rather than the ongoing - and surely more interesting to most readers - positions of the Institute, notably its position on climate change? Or does it not matter what order the body subheading take? Thanks Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I must agree with that. The article should have the more general sort of stuff first. Climate change is a current thing with them but there are other things too and we shouldn't be too focused on the present though it should be prominent. I don't really know quite how to put it except that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. not a scrapbook or newspaper. Dmcq (talk)

In weight discussions the length of coverage in WP relative to coverage in reliable sources is generally a much more important consideration than the order of subtopics. Part of our discipline of neutrality involves not forking material considered favorable or unfavorable, to different articles, or to different sections. The so-called "document misappropriation" is one of if not the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article. The press coverage of the event dominates coverage of the subject of this article in reliable sources. So, no, we should not position certain events at the end of an article in an attempt to reduce its weight. And I think a fact filled history section flows naturally early and should fall before any characterizations of policy positions. The policy positions and climate skepticism in particular are prominently featured in a full paragraph summary in the lede, as per our manual of style; their first mention is not buried "below the fold." Hugh (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No that is just wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be edited for readability as an encyclopaedia, it is not a ragbag with things automatically sorted to the top like some news aggregator. You are squaring the emphasis if you are sticking it at the top and having it large. The article should be presented in a logical manner. The weight comes in when comparing to other viewpoints on a subject. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the last big edits of yours to something called Americans for prosperity and I've got to say it looks like a real mess as well. You have got to think about the overall structure rather than just sorting the sections by how many citations they have in them. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dmcq. If our goal is to structure this page like an encyclopedia, then the ongoing positions/activities of the Institute should come above specific isolated events like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard campaign. As it stands now, it's like the body of the Britney Spears page leading with the time she shaved her head (to pull an analogy off the top of my head). Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a fellow fan, I see! That's great. Please note that BS artilce is well-structured, as per MOS, a good article even; the first section of the body is history, and the head shaving is included in that section, not broken out into a section at the end called "Incidents". Hugh (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've moved all the incidents after the section on positions but before the financial section. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at this section hat template and tell me what it means to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criticism_section. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Our readers benefit from knowledge of who this organization is before diving into their policy positions. WP:RF However, if you disagree, and favor history at the end, I'm very sure you would move the whole history, positive and negative. Breaking out certain historical events ad labeling them "incidents" is nothing more than a blatant POV fork. Hugh (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt our arguments will convuince you as you think we are POV pushers. I get the feeling if the consensus of 2 to 1 in this discussion changes the page against what you want then you'll just think that we're acting against policy in a POV way and you'll go and do the same sort of thing somewhere else. So here's a choice, we can discuss this on the talk page of the relevant poicy which I think would be WP:NPOVN or we could have a wider talk here via a WP:RfC on this talk page, which would you prefer or is there some other forum you believe would be better? Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me, you don't know what I think, thanks. Please don't count votes on this, that is not helpful. Policy is clear. Did you look at that template? Please convince me why someone should not slap that template to your proposed "Incidents" section, should you restore it? Please tell me, what is the principle you use to distinguish an "Incident" from the rest of the history of the subject of this article, and put it at the end, if not POV? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I will raise the matter at WP:NPOVN then since you will not decide. Dmcq (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Query raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Does_weight_mean_that_incidents_should_come_before_a_description_of_an_organisation.27s_aims.3F. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been a couple of responses at the noticeboard. I think basically they agree that we should go from the general to the particular. That before going on about documents being taken we should say what their general position and actions on climate change and various responses have been. I think that section could possibly go in the climate change position section rather than in a separate section on notable incidents but it shouldn't be before without context. 11:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the consensus of the discussion. You did a noticeboard request, very commendable, but now you are back to "I think..." Hugh (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In journalism, news style embraces the inverted pyramid, where the body is organized from most significant to least. Journalist worry about their readers "getting to" the good stuff. However, we on WP are specifically prohibited from this style by policy, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Chronological ordering of events has many advantages; it is very neutral, and most of the time an easy consensus. Think about that. Think about what the one uninvolved commenter said, "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis." Think about the conservative project's guideline. I would appreciate your collaboration on the content of the article. We are all in complete agreement that the subject of this article's involvement in climate change is its most significant aspect. That does not mean climate change is the first topic after the lede. We have a lede a paragraph for that. We have a table of contents for readers who want to skip ahead. The 5th subtopic is no farther away than the 2nd in hypertext. Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree we cannot completely isolate events to a history section. For example, in doing justice to the policy positions we will include a meeting held, or a book published, and other events that might be considered history. So like most editorial decisions we are asked to make judgements and arrive at consensus. But to break out certain events, that are for the most part independent of any particular policy position, just because in your opinion the certain events are distracting, and put them last, is not a good organization, sorry, and non-neutral. The events you seek to "demote," the 2012 document leak and the billboard, are among the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article, as evidence in the impact of those events on funding, and on the impact of those events on coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what they said about "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis"? That is why the position should be before the specific incidents. The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article. The article is strange with that being put before the context in which it happened. The first response did give one situation in which such a thing might be okay - if the notability of the article was dependent on it in a major way. But that isn't the case here. Your statement "Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia" is in contradiction with what the respondents said, and you originally objected to them being lower down because you said it broke NPOV which is the noticeboard the respondents were on, and now talk about it as demoting so you do consider order as connoting something.

If you think they meant something different respond to them and clarify there. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article." No particular impact? The severe impact of the documents and the billboard on subsequent funding is in multiple reliable sources. Those two historical events you seek to "lower" the weight of by breaking them out of the history section and place at the end of the article are the most significant events in terms of coverage in reliable sources on the subject of this article. It's sad, because I wish the subject of this article's activities with respect to climate change had as much coverage. It's sad, maybe, but coverage in reliable sources is how due weight is defined in WP. Sorry, it's not up to us to form personal assessments of significance. Hugh (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see they are receiving about $6 million now compared to about $5.5 million before that campaign in 2012 so the effect wasn't major in their history. Those were not what made the article notable. If you don't challenge the assessment at the NPOV noticeboard I will assume you recognize you don't have a case.. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not good to assume. Well then, curious, what would you consider be a major event? The good news here is that there is absolutely no need for you and I to waste time in talk space that we could be spending (in my case anyway) productively in article space, since policy provides us with a clear, unambiguous, quanititative, objective standard for deciding weight: proportionality to coverage in reliable sources. There is no mention in WP:DUE of financial impact as measured in US$. Whether you or I anyone else likes it or not, the doc leak and the billboard far and away dominate coverage of the subject of this article in rs. Hugh (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't dig in. Please I could use some help with the content. Look, once you start a history section, you're kinda committed. We're bound by the imperative not to section fork. We can't fork without being exposed to questions of POV, regardless of our intentions. If we fork the history now our GA reviewer's gonna ask us to put it back. Would you pick a couple few representatives examples of Hank VIII's wives, highlight them up front in history, and put the short-timers at the bottom? We need a very compelling reason to break an event out of the history. Here, if an event or activity makes sense in support of a particular policy position, sure. We have another imperative which is to let the facts speak for themselves. Ideally we would describe our org's activities and our readers would comprehend the positions. This org has a boatload of history that is orthogonal to the particular positions. The history should stay together, and the history should come before the policy positions. Help me take this to GA. In fact, you can nominate it. Expand one of the short sections. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no real point discussing with me, you effectively dismissed me as a POV pusher at the start but those people at the noticeboard are third parties and only people like that can be of much use for changing minds in a situation like that. Tell them your side and convince just one other person to say they think you're right, or even do that on this page, and I'll consider that you have some sort of point and stop. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to stop & go away, I want you to stay & help me with the content of this article you have strong feelings about. The slow response at the notice board was our peers telling us to work this out. Yes, early in this discussion, I raised the issue that taking certain events out of the history section and moving them to the end of the article would necessarily be perceived by our readers and fellow editors as a POV section fork, regardless of our motives; I did not intent to be accusatory or personal. I apologize for that. After further discussion, my impression is you sincerely believe that we need to get to climate change as quickly and early in this article as possible, please correct me if my impression is wrong. Let's work together in article space. How's your GA count? Hugh (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the organisation is interesting, I'm intrigued that people put so much money and effort into that sort of thing,, but I don't have strong feelings about it. I do not think the article needs to get to climate change as quickly as possible, I want it to be readable and the general basics dealt with before specifics. Personally I agree with the scientific consensus on that but I believe NPOV is the right policy for Wikipedia. I don't think there was any special message from the noticeboard except what people actually said. What further discussion are you talking about? I see no other discussion. I do want articles to be well based and readable but I'm not specifically interested in GA. I am simply waiting to see if there is any response from you about the consensus, it would be better if you could engage those who commented. Otherwise since you are an active editor I see you making lots of articles better in detail but worse in overall structure and readability. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were not two "global warming" sections to read. I think it is mean to our readers. Sorry, I would like to discuss merging them.

• History
• Global warming
  • current two small paragraphs from policy positions section serve as general comments introducing global warming advocacy activities
  • current 2nd-level subsections of "Actions on global warming" become 2nd-level subsection under "global warming"
• Other policy areas
  • current 2nd-level subsections of "Policy positions" (minus global warming subsection) smoking, healthcare, etc

Feature the most notable policy area 1st. Their 2nd most notable policy position is a distant 2nd. The general paragraphs from policy positions serve as a good introduction to the more specific events. Hugh (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One is a short description of their policy and is in the policy section. Merging would mean either removing a major part of their policy from the policy section, or sticking a very large section into the policy section which isn't about their policy but what they have done and make it unwieldy and unreadable. I think the rest oof what you've written there is you saying you want to shove the policy positions at the bottom. I think that is an extremely bad structuring of the article as I have explained to you multiple times before but you don't seem to be able to take on-board. IF you want to duplicate the two small paragraphs from the policy section at the start of the section on their actions on climate change feel free to do so but your idea here seems to be to use a tail to wag the dog. If you were really sorry you would stop persisting with thhis. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Mann jess (talk · contribs) rearranged the section about Global warming policy to put about Sanger first rather than policy and removed the link to the section about actions. I've put it back to something I think is more rational with policy first, particulars second, and reception third. I'll see if there is some tag to put the link in at the start of the section. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I have no idea why I did that. Yes, it makes sense to summarize their policy first, and get to details later, and I'm fine with reorganizing that way. Thanks Dmcq!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dmcq. Please take a breath and consider the outline suggested above. No one is "shoving" anything anywhere. The suggestion is not "extremely bad." No one is edit warring. Thank you. Now, global warming is a policy position, and so are the rest. Global warming is the most notable policy position as per vast rs. It goes first. All of it. In one place. The 1st thing readers see after history. Global warming is so notable, that it has its own section, ahead of "Other policy areas." What do you think? Hugh (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"duplicate the two small paragraphs from the policy section at the start of the section on their actions on climate change" We both see the problem, thanks. I would like to consider resolutions of this issue which do not involve duplication of content. I will edit the outline above to attempt to clarify one idea. To summarize: global warming 1st section after history, some general comments re: the notability of subject's activities in this policy area, followed by subsections on specific activities; next top-level section is "Other policy areas." What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about just stopping. I have considered your suggestion. Others have too. This whole section was started by someone else disagreeing with you and nobody has agreed with you. Hoow about actually taking ion board that your suggestion is really bad. It shouldn't be put in. You don't have consensus on your side. You should stop. You have gone on about this far too long. You shou;ld stop going on and on. This is quite enough already. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A fellow editor is attempting to dialog with you on a content issue on a talk page and all you can say is stop? Please limit your comments here to content. Thank you. The current organization of the article divides what we agree is the single most important topic climate into two pieces. The content consisting of general comments and introductory material on climate and to third party assessments of the impact of the subject of this article's activities with respect to climate is distantly separated from the particulars. This is non-neutral in that it dilutes the impact of this mutually related content on readers. The content that explains why so many 3rd parties have identified the subject of this article as a key player needs to be close to the specific reasons for those assessments. The heavy handed distinction between the "policy position" and the activities in support of advocacy of that position is harming the clarity and flow of the article. What possible reason might you have for this harsh division you have imposed? This is unfair to our readers. Cross-linking via anchors does not resolve the issue. How would you resolve this? Hugh (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We both want the same thing, global warming front & center. Anyone familiar with the subject would want global warming prominent and early and complete. Hugh (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not follow basic Wikipedia policy on consensus. You edit war trying to wear people down to shove in what you think is right. You do not seem to be able to change. You are not a fellow editor. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spent any time editing this page or participating in the talk page discussions because, frankly, politics, politicians, and organizations focused on politics bore me to tears. I have, however, been watching the edits to the page and reading the talk page comments. When it comes time to count consensus, please count me as supporting what Dmcq is trying to do here and opposing what HughD is trying to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Same issue, November

Been a while since i've looked at this page, but... there are some major issues here. No one ever addressed the coatracking on the page. Why not? For those who are unfamiliar with these issues, read WP:COATRACKING. This article currently stands as an article on the institute's controversies, not as an article about the institute. This is a problem. Someone should address it, someone who has not been blocked for making disruptive, coatracking edits, already. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposed confusion with the Heartland Film Festival

Is it really necessary to have this note on the top? It says: "Not to be confused with the institute of the same name affiliated with the Heartland Film Festival." The pretty bare entry for the the Heartland Film Festival doesn't have the word "institute" in it. So, it stands to reason there is no "institute" associated with the film festival. It is not justified and should be removed. Jlakely (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mother Jones

It is hardly surprising that Mother Jones magazine has a hit piece on a conservative organization. It is not noteworthy or surprising and I can see no reason to include their opinion piece.(By definition rankings of "disinfornation organizations" are opnions.) This isn't an attack blog, its supposed to be an encyclopedia, Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The magazine certainly has a bent but I don't see that it is so strong it would not be counted as a reliable source so I'm going to reinstate that edit. I would suggest you raise your concern about the magazine at WP:RSN. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You will note that I have not raised this as a reliable source issue. Mother Jones is entirely reliable for its own opinion, which this is. I suggest that this opinion in not, of itself, noteworthy at this article. An advocacy journal ranks its opponents? Pfftt, useless in an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a reliable source issue. As WP:RS says 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' You are disputing this is such a source. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"noteworthy" When an RS says "...is the most..." or "...is one of the most..." that is the very essence of noteworthiness. Hugh (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"opponents" How is Mother Jones magazine an opponent of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones has a long history of reactionary and poorly researched articles as well as journalistic bias. The article HughD is using (and has inserted into a number of other articles) is really a muck raking opinion article rather than a well researched article. I would question including it and suggest that if HughD wants to include the information he should use the sources the single author of the article (given the opinion type nature of the article I think the reporter's name should be included) used, not the article itself. Really that article is more like a list with an into paragraph and a reactionary title. If the WP entries in question already cover the topic of climate change etc then I would move to totally strike the MJ bit from this article (and likely the others that Hugh is trying to blackwash with the MJ article). Springee (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We agree Mother Jones magazine has a long history of bias in favor of our Mother Earth. As you know, our sources need not be free of bias, and as you know, in fact we are required to reflect significant points of view as provided by WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hugh (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No. We do not agree. Mother Jones is not a noteworthy addition to this article. It is reliable for its own opinion, that doesn't make it an important or significant addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, deliberately dishonestly summarizing the comments of others is a type of disruptive editing. Given your recent history in that area I would suggest you stick to the topic. The MJ article in question looks like an editorial article. As an editorial the author should be cited directly. It's also a source of questionable quality and in this case the opinion is not one based on fact but one based on the author's opinion. Thus it is questionable to include it at all. If the article is included it should be included as an editorial would be included. Springee (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee "Hugh is trying to blackwash with the MJ article" Your speculations about the motives of your colleagues is disruptive. Please assume good faith WP:AGF and help us all focus on article content and related policy and guidelines here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Respectfully you are reminded that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions and all collaborators are expected to demonstrate best practices. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Given your block history, edit warring and attempts to harass those who disagree with you I see no reason to believe you are acting in good faith. Certainly your reply to mine above does not reflect good faith as it tells a clear lie about my position. You have attempted to insert this MJ editorial bit into a number of articles now and 4 different editors have pulled it. This makes for a case of wide spread edit warring. I would suggest that we all steer clear of such a thing. Springee (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content and related policy and guidelines here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Other venues are available to you for your expressions of concern including but not limited to user talk pages and noticeboards. Respectfully you are reminded that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions and all collaborators are expected to demonstrate best practices. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I really do not see why there is a reluctance on the part of the people objecting to take it to WP:RSN to se whether it qualifies as a reliable source or noot. Just saying it isn't a RS question and then saying all sorts of things about it not being a good source is just wrong. That would be much more productive than personal attacks on other editors. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RS issue at all, but WP:UNDUE. Having said that, I think it can stay.StAnselm (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If the underlying reason for the objection is undue I can sympathize with that a bit. They are promoting pseudoiscience and we tend to shout the mainstream position in accordance with WP:FRINGE. However how that should be tackled I believe is for us to always give the position of the organisation or whatever in a straightforward neutral way rather than removing things. So for me the way to deal with UNDUE here is to make sure the Heartland Institute's position is stated clearly and straightforwardly without banging on about the mainstream scientific position whilst doing so. The scientific position and reception can then follow. And I think that is done here except for a couple of citations missing. Dmcq (talk)

There is no indication that this is an important addition. It is not a straight news article and in fact it can not be. Who has objectively determined this ranking of "disinformationists"? Just the Mother Jones writer not an independent org or researcher. What is the objective standards that were used? None. Rankings published by magazines are ordinarily simple opinion pieces, throw-away articles, filler. Those rankings that aspire to be more publish them annually, set objective standards, publish the standards, etc. and even then they acknowledge that the ranking is their opinion (e.g. U.S. News & World Report College Rankings). This piece is a one-off (2009), brief, poorly written, never repeated and one that that gained no broader currency in other news reporting. Its use and inclusion is most certainly undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a notable addition. The article, as used, is reporting the opinion of MJ's editorial staff. It is not being used as a factual reference. As an opinion it is being given undue weight and it isn't properly inserted as an opinion article. I agree with Dmcq's suggestions for how the information could be inserted (ie, find sources that show where THI's position is in conflict with other sources). Springee (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You're now starting to tread on the toes of WP:OR. Reporters are okay for analyzing the data and giving opinions as far as Wikipedia is concerned. When a reporter says the economy crashed that is what we say. If a reporter says a fire is huge that is what we say. What we're interested in is whether they are secondary sources, and whether a reporter is under editorial control, basically whether it is a reliable source. As to notability that applies only to creating articles, I believe Springee meant WP:UNDUE which is noted above. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. MJ is a very one sided source. When they are reporting facts the general view is those facts are generally correct. When they interpret the facts they are heavily opinionated. If you review the RS noticeboard you will find that MJ's editorializing on a subject is typically considered an opinion even if the evidence they present is considered reliable. That said, I see how you added effectively the same article to the Christopher Monckton article and I think it was a perfect way to do the addition. It removed the opinion content while keeping the facts. I would have no objection to a similar insertion here. Springee (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at RSN and I did not see quite the one sided characterization of Mother Jones you did but I'm okay with WP:BIASED being followed. As far as I can see on the article 4 people have put in the change and you and Capitalismojo have objected so I do not think there is a no consensus on its inclusion. For the moment I think I'll just wait and see what HughD's response is to your objections. And I think if it is included it should point to the specific page about the Heartland Institute there rather than just the top level list. As to the Monckton page I was just showing that the RfC had just been used to keep a hatchet job in place, the RfC was ignored despite the summary and the objections in it. I guess the people involved should have done WP:BRD rather than doing the RfC without the R part. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In 2009, an article in Mother Jones magazine identified the Heartland Institute as one of the twelve organizations most significant in promulgating climate disinformation.

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.

Support inclusion Of course you did not find a blanket blacklist of Mother Jones (magazine) at WP:RSN, because of course reliability of sources depends on the context. Here we have a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of highly noteworthy, highly significant point of view. We are obligated to include noteworthy, significant points of view by WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. In an era of crashing revenues in professional journalism and vanishing resources Mother Jones (magazine) has for years maintained a staff dedicated to investigative journalism on the beat of the financing of politics and in particular the funding of politically active non-profits, and, as you saw on WP:RSN, some would prefer to blacklist Mother Jones (magazine) for this. We don't get into this whenever we cite Fox News. To look the other way on this reliable source WP:RS is non-neutral WP:NPOV. The proposed content is not in Wikipedia voice, it is clearly attributed in-text, and perfectly verifiable and in complete conformance with WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:VER. According to WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." No valid basis in policy or guideline for exclusion of this content has been advanced. (Please this is not the appropriate venue for discussion of the content of other articles, thanks.) Also, WP:DRNC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying you want to cite the top level which has practically no content except the list rather than the actual page which describes the Heartland Institute and gives the basis for what the author says? That list on its own doesn't seem to add to what is said in the previous paragraph. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)This same source is being discussed at Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial.

For the reference to be used per NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, what is required? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Object to inclusion My objections to the MJ "12 worst" inclusions here are the same as they are going to be any of the other times HughD has attempted to insert the list. As I said at Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial, the issue with the inclusion is two fold. My primary concern is that the list and it's use here is an opinion. However, Hugh is trying to insert it as a notable fact. Second, and having just answered a question about WP:UNDUE on the Freedom Works talk page my view is the same here, the MJ list is not notable thus inclusion on it isn't notable. The facts which MJ cited as reasons for adding an organization to that list might be notable and thus could be included. Simply being on a MJ list is not. The four editors who objected to HughD's addition spans the articles in which he added basically the same information. My comment to HughD about the mater can be seen on his talk page. Note that one editor didn't remove it but edited the entry to deal with some of the issues. When HughD restored a removal he did not retain those edits. Springee (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I was questioning the point of citing the the top level page [1] which just gives the list and practically zero facts rather than [2] which is specifically about the Heartland institute. I mean so what if some redlinked author in a magazine write down a list and anyway what does 7th in a list mean? Are there lots of them or very few and it is near the end? At least the Heartland Institute page describes what the author sees as his reasons. I do wish use of the word 'notability' was avoided where it is inapplicable. Undue is the word. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and for your collaboration. Sorry I did not reply to your suggestion earlier. The source is essentially one article spanning 13 web pages. The proposed content is a paraphrase of a sentence from the lede of the source. I believe if we pointed the url in the ref at the Heartland specific page, the content would be deleted in a nanosecond as failed ver. While perhaps not the most informative url with respect to the Heartland Institute, the url of the source of the paraphrase is the correct url for a ref in support of this content. For Wikipedia purposes, the source is Mother Jones (magazine), the author is less important; regardless of the author, the source was reviewed by the editorial process at Mother Jones (magazine). Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee "HughD's addition" Please WP:FOC and endeavour to depersonalize your discussion of content and policy. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"HughD's addition" is focusing on the content. The content in question was your edit. Including the above message can be seen as a passive aggressive way to attack someone who doesn't agree with you. Perhaps you should also focus on the content. Springee (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

how about try "the above proposed addition" or "the disputed content" or equivalent? Hugh (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that seems like an acceptable alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. Springee (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the page giving details about the authors reasons would fail verification. OIt lists the complete list at the top right and it has number 7 at the top. I think I will have to object to the list itself being referred to as being just too uninformative and with too little relevance to the Heartland institute in particular. We don't need a multiplicity of sources saying the same sort of thing and the top level page does not add to the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Our source is 13 web pages. I think the best url to use in the ref in support of this content is to the very web page that contains the source that is being paraphrased. The proposed content is a paraphrase of a sentence from the third paragraph of the first page of the source: "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine." If we were to link directly to the eighth page of the article, the Heartland Institute detail page, an editor might not "read backwards" to see that the content is in fact a reasonable paraphrase of the source. Beyond the currently proposed content, if there were other content on the Heartland Institute detail page we wanted to summarize in our article, we can support that content with a ref that includes a url to that page. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They don't have to look backwards. It is on the top right of the page. I am getting to agree more and more with the idea that you are simply spamming a page of little content. The aim here is to improve the article not to disseminate some citation you like. The article already gives a couple of publications that say it is one of the main deniers, and they actually say something to back up the claim and are more reputable. We don't need a multiplicity of lower quality citations for the same sort of thing. A page which gives nothing except some redlinked reporters opinion of list is not a good quality source to add with those others. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The top right, where it says "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Denial," is that what you mean? Sorry, I missed that. We agree the eighth page of the article, the Heartland detail page, of course has more meat about Heartland. I see what you are saying, our article already identifies the subject as the primary supporter of climate change denial in the body and the lede. Either url will work for us. Thank you for your patience. Hugh (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"The dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine"? How is that not an editorial claim? Sorry, this list just isn't notable. On the Donors Trust talk page you are making the claim that a MJ comment is noteworthy because it is quoted by others. [[3]] Where is an example of other reliable sources quoting this list? Springee (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition (with revised url in ref):

A 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine identified the Heartland as one of the twelve organizations most significant in promulgating climate disinformation.

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 21, 2015.

Hugh (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't mater how it is phrased. The list is an opinion work by MJs. It also has not been show to be significant and thus inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. My view applies similar insertions of the MJ list/reference in other articles. Springee (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is not a list, it is not an editorial, it is a feature article spanning 13 web pages. The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine). The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed under "Top stories." I understand you do not like the proposed content. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Springee:If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? There is another source, a reliable source, that says this foundation is in the top dozen "disinformation" organizations in existence? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How about answering the question, noting that I wrote, "rewording to emphasize the most important aspects". --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and for repeating your question. Sorry I did not mean to step on your question with my reply below. I agree an answer to your question is key to this sad dispute. I too would like to hear an answer to your question. It is difficult to collaborate with colleagues who know only the delete key. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. May I offer a reply. The New York Times says the subject of this article is in the top one of climate disinformation organizations, as stated in the body and in the lede of our article. The proposed content supports a claim in the lede of our article and so is entirely appropriate. The proposed content and reference are entirely conformant with policy and guideline, including WP:DUE, WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:BIAS. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Gillis, Justin (May 1, 2012). "Clouds' Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters". New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 2012. ...the Heartland Institute, the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism...
2. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Routledge. 2010. p. 256. ISBN 1135998507. The Heartland Institute, a leading think-tank promoting climate change denial...
3. Michael Mann (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. p. 64. ISBN 0231152558. Many organizations have settled in the Potemkin village of climate change denial. Among them are the...Heartland Institute...
4. James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Greystone Books Ltd. p. 79. ISBN 1553654854. Similarly, the Heartland Institute, a small regional think tank in the 1990s, emerged as a leading force in climate change denial in the past decade Hugh (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that, contrary to the statement, the NYT does not use "Disinformation" anywhere in the article. None do that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion This opinion piece is most certainly undue. It's also a poorly written piece of clickbait. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Restored per above discussion and the four supporting refs added to discussion just above. Vsmith (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the reference until this discussion is complete. The issue is not if MJ's had reasonable supporting references. The issue is that the "12 worst" is a MJ editorial list and not a notable one. That has not be addressed with the above 4 references. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't see much to discuss as the 4 references listed just above rather support it (just not maybe the #12 bit) and it is attributed to a reliable source. Most of the comments against above can be summarized as I don't like it. Vsmith (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion is incorrect on two counts. First, it is clear that there is an on going discussion regarding the insertion and that consensus has not been reached. Thus, regardless of other reasons it should not be inserted at this time. Second, your summary of the above is wrong. The article is being used to express an opinion and the insertion contained only the opinion. If the reference was used as a source to support the insertion of facts, the facts on which MJ's based their conclusion, then it would be a reasonable insertion. Finally, given that the insertion was by mentioning the MJ's list, it needs to be shown that this is a significant list or even that it is significant that MJ would apply a subjective title to the organization. That has not been shown. Springee (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow ... It is a WP:RS, if you feel the wording was less than optimal - then suggest a different wording, or just reword the entry with an explanation or use one of the other reliable sources above rather than edit warring and wikilawering to keep criticism by reliable sources out. Aw well - seems it's been deleted again. Carry on. Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As a side note the RS refs above don't support or say anything about "disinformation" that I saw, they are talking about climate change denial and (in NYT) dissent. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, when I am uncomfortable with one word, I try to re-paraphrase, I don't delete a good faith, neutral, verifiable, well-reference contribution from a colleague. Hugh (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

And if I felt that this opinion piece added anything of value to the article I might just do that...Capitalismojo (talk)

• This discussion strikes me as a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Some people don't like the fact that Heartland is at the heart of the climate change denial industry, and thus oppose any content that shows this to be the case. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Heartland Institute is widely identified as a key player in promoting climate change denial, and this is a good, well-balanced source discussing that fact. Guy (Help!)

• I would disagree. I have nothing against including the actual meet of the article. The MJ article, once the reader clicks through a link, does say why it thinks this group is on the list. Those reasons could be added to the article as stand alone facts with MJ as the source (this has been suggested several times). If MJ says Heartland did X,Y and Z, include it and cite it. What is not correct is to include the opinion portion of the MJ article as if the opinion of MJ was notable on the subject. If an MIT based climate working group issued a list of the 12 worst then it may be notable because MIT is a notable source of such information. MJ is not. Dmcq expressed the issue on Aug 21st [[4]]. Furthermore, since the inclusion is currently a subject of discussion, it's inclusion should be held off until some consensus has been reached.Springee (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"I have nothing against including the actual meet of the article." Then why did you delete the content and the reference? Speaking for myself, I try not to delete references contributed by my colleagues, I try to suggest an alternative summarization. This whole sudden burst of pseudo-compromise sentiment strikes me as something of a little boomerang deflection in the immediate wake of your most recent WP:ANEW filing. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The only part removed was the MJ opinion that HL was on a MJ list as well as the associated citation. There was no other MJ content inserted. If there is other information in the link that was not previously in the Wiki article and is not WP:UNDUE then I would not object to such additions. Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Those reasons could be added to the article" I look forward to collaborating with on summarizing more content from Mother Jones (magazine) in our encyclopedia. Meanwhile, in summarizing this particular source, of course you would agree, the main point of the article with respect to The Heartland Institute is the fact that Mother Jones (magazine) included The Heartland Institute in a survey of the most prominent voices in climate change disinformation. We are asked to fairly and neutrally summarize sources. A summarization of this article which draws other content but looks the other way on the main point would be grossly non-neutral. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is covered in the discussions above. Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"notable" Of course Mother Jones (magazine) is highly distinguished for its coverage of environmental issues. I'm sorry you do not like it. We don't go through all these apoplectic objections whenever we reference Fox News. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please prove your claim that MJ is "highly distinguished for its coverage of environmental issues." Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Include Mother Jones. Mother Jones has a long history of excellence in journalism.[5][6][7][8][9] The piece in question was written by veteran reporter Josh Harkinson who is a Mother Jones staffer. The information is relevant and significant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion - It's attributed, the publication is well known, and its opinion is notable. The content is also consistent with what other RS say about the subject of this article. Yes, Mother Jones has a liberal bias - but that can be balanced with other sources. It doesn't mean its opinion is worthless or not worth noting. I'm not seeing a valid reason for excluding this beyond IDONTLIKEIT. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of MJ's opinion as a notable (but not expert) opinion. If the other sources mentioned support something similar as a fact (which I haven't checked), MJ's opinion should not be combined with it. A "top" (or bottom) 12 list cannot be used as a source of fact. In order to include the opinion, we must also include sufficient information for the reader to see it would be expected; e.g., a sourced statement that MJ is "progressive" and Heritage is (considered) "conservative". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Oppose. Some of the other sources legitimately can be used for the statement that Heritage is a climate change denial organization. MJ's opinion adds nothing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS The source for the contended content, Mother Jones (magazine) "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" is referenced by Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright in a landmark chapter entitled "Organized Climate Change Denial" in the "The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society" editted by notable scientists.

Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 9780199683420.

chapter PDF: [10]

Hugh (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I found that too, but not how it was used. Being a reference alone means nothing. It's used in the section, "Organized Climate Change Denial". --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has access, page 153 seems to reference it in a paragraph about climate denial blogs. Unless it's used elsewhere in a relevant context, this amounts to nothing. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Harkinson is cited in support of a paragraph on Mark Morano, Climate Depot, and CFACT:

...Mark Morano exemplifies the deep roots of climate change denial in conservative circles. Before setting up Climate Depot, which is modeled on the popular right-wing "Drudge Report" and supported by R. M. Scaife's CFACT, Morano - who has a BA degree in political science - worked for Rush Limbaugh, right-wing Cybercast News Service (where he played a key role in the 'swift boat' campaign against 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry), and then for Republican Senator James Inhofe.

Hugh (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You proved the point that the "dirty dozen" label and the inclusion on the list are WP:UNDUE. The MJ article is not cited by name and only cited as source of supporting facts. The opinion part that we have argued against was not mentioned at all in the pdf you included. Springee (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"The MJ article is not cited by name and only cited as source of supporting facts." It is an academic paper. Citing sources in support of facts is what they do. It has a style guide just like we do. The source of the contended content is cited by name in the references section of the article. Hugh (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: "amounts to nothing" Respectfully disagree. Dunlap and McCright is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. It is highly significant that a mainstream media article was cited in this paper before there were many academic papers to cite. Another Harkinson Mother Jones (magazine) article is cited as well. In other words, the record is clear that Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study. While this example of WP:USEBYOTHERS does not specifically support the use of this source with respect to Heartland, it speaks volumes about the significance of Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson, which some have denigrated, and it very strongly supports the use of this source and this author in our encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed way to add the MJ citation

I've added the MJ reference into the article. I hope the addition is acceptable to all so we can close this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. After the New York Times and the Economist I am somehow remonded of Pope's "Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey, Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea." Really it is just another one saying the same sort of thing. Isn't there any usable content i n it which could add to the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the MJ source simply further backed what the others were saying. However, I think that how it was added is a better way to add that content to this and the other subject articles. States clearly that MJ has noted the organization yet avoids the WP:LABELs that are emotion laden. Searching for examples of other sources citing this article turned up only a few (other than blogs, forums and other MJ pages). None used the MJ labels. Thus I feel that stating that MJ noted the oranization but avoiding the loaded terms is a good compromise for the general use of this article §as a source. That said, I have done my BRD cycle and it has ended without a strong consensus. Springee (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• The title of the reliable source is "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial."
• The lede of the source says "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine."
• The Heartland page of the source says "Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you."

How do you figure "a climate change denier" is a non-neutral summarization of this source? The source is not a list of all known climate change deniers in the world. The source is not saying that the subject of this article is merely "a climate change denier," it is saying that the subject of this article is a distinguished climate change denier, distinguished by its outspokenness. It is non-neutral for us to summarize this reliable source as you did. Of all the deniers of climate change in the world, our reliable source is very clearly saying that the subject of this article is among the most vocal climate change deniers. This type of distinction is the very nut of notability and noteworthiness. No policy or guideline including WP:LABEL in any way authorizes exclusion of this content from our encyclopedia. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, currently the consensus is no consensus to include the article in any way shape or form. My edits were an attempt to bridge the consensus gap. I referred to the article in a fashion similar to the precious few who cited it used it. The Atlantic did not mention any of the loaded words that MJ used. Your source mentioned it almost in passing. The article is hardly crossing the bar of WP:UNDUE (even that is questionable here). I would hope you try to work with this consensus view rather than sabotage it because you wish to include WP:LABELs. Springee (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"loaded words" What loaded words? I'm afraid to ask, but how are you applying WP:LABEL here? Hugh (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's first get the significance of the MJ reference out of the way: The Atlantic wrote, "Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group." Can we all agree that this new source demonstrates the significance of the MJ list? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice find. There's really no excuse for not including the original addition at this point, although we should probably attribute it to the author instead of just "Mother Jones." Both the article and other works by the same author (published in Mother Jones) have been repeatedly cited in other RS, including academic works. The source is reliable, and its content is notable (including the exact content that Hugh's been wanting to include). I see no reason for leaving this out now. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that we should include the original insertion. Despite climate change being a very hot topic and almost 6 years after the original publication of the MJ article, we have only two RSs which cite the MJ article. Neither, particularly the academic article, carry over the loaded language of the MJ reference. The Atlanitic says MJ noted these corporations (organizations since not all are companies) as climate change deniers. Both are examples of using the MJ article as a reference in a neutral tone. Given the other source such as the NYTs and The Economists which are saying basically the same thing I agree with those who feel this additional citation adds little to the overall article. To me that says the article is still on the UNDUE fence but I'm willing to side with inclusion in a way similar to how it was used by other RSs. I tried to do just that with my recent insertion of the MJ reference. Springee (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"loaded language" What loaded language? Hugh (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We are asked to fairly summarizes our sources. We are under no obligation to summarize a source the same way other sources summarize that source. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"loaded language" Please be specific, what loaded language? I see no loaded language. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see the loaded language, you have no business editing (the English language) Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

...because this ref is used on several pages. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Section is much too large

The "February 2012 document misappropriation" section now makes up about 20% of the body of the article. That seems to me to be clearly disproportionate to its importance, and thus a WP:UNDUE problem. Does anyone disagree with setting a goal of reducing the length of this section by about half? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Grossly large, and drifting into coatracking.

A lot of it is hard to follow, especially the recently restored [11] first paragraph, which I assume is trying to summarize.

I suspect if the section focused on what it means to the institute as identified by independent sources, it wouldn't be remotely as large. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I've chopped it. Notes: I took out most refs to the "climate strategy" doc because describing that accurately is hard, and not terribly relevant to the overall thing, exciting as it was at the time. I've also chopped most stuff about Gleik; this is the Heartland page. Ditto Golkany William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Great work! --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not so much. The fake "strategy document" was how the media idenified Gleick as the perpetator of the incident. It is also the heart of the matter. Respected scientist engages in fraud/identity theft to acquire documents in order to (successfully) damage a ideological opponent. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Riiiight. I'm sure you were just as outraged, if not more so, by the "Climategate" email theft. :P More to the point, though, you need to mind BLP. Gleick used deception to obtain the documents, but did not "fake" or forge any of them. If you intend to accuse him of that, then you need actual reliable sources. Consider this a gentle BLP reminder. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I accuse not at all, and I'm not outraged, I am recalling this page's previous material. We had abundant refs about his public identification via the forged document until this page was washed. We had also included the information that Heartland had demanded that the US Attorney prosecute Gleick for fraud and forgery. That has been removed as well. Moreover, Gleick was not "cleared" by any independent investigation. His board, the board that he had hand-picked, for the organization that he created and led anounced that he was cleared by their "external investigation", whatever that might mean. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

One might consider reading the Guardian ref which specifically mentions that it is unclear what the "investigation entailed" and mentions not that the document in question was not a forgery, but that his board concluded that he had not forged it. The Guardian then links to the statement by Gleick saying that he had received the "climate strategy document" anonymously in the mail and that its arrival had prompted his deception against Heartland. As editors will recall from this page previously, the metadata on the documents show just the reverse. The material from Heartland were delivered before the creation of the strategy document, and the metadata was how Gleick was identified. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Christian Science Monitor article as a reminder of how Gleick was identified, and the basics of the incident. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That article attributes the claim that Gleick wrote the document to the Heartland Institute and nebulous "bloggers". While it could be true, the source does not establish it as fact. And actually it hardly matters: Poe's Law applies, basically. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Heartland Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100804040339/http://mediamattersaction.org:80/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute to http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Heartland_Institute

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Jlakely (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)== Updates to address 2014 990 form ==

In the summer of 2015, The Heartland Institute moved out of its office at One South Wacker in Chicago to a new office at 3939 North Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, Illinois. It hosted a Grand Opening picnic at its new office building on August 22, 2015. Heartland's entry should reflect its new location.

Also: It's unclear why foundationcenter.org does not have an updated 990 form stating Heartland's revenue and expenses, but Heartland's website has the PDF of its 2014 990 form posted, showing revenue of $6,738,428 and expenses of $4,393,358.

These changes would seem to be basic and without any controversy, and should be made.

That actually seems reasonable.JohnMashey (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Heartland asking people to edit this.

See http://blog.heartland.org/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-wikipedia/ (and the linked https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/whats_wrong_with_wikipedia.pdf). That was several days ago, though, and nothing seems to have happened William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Peter Thusat claimed that Heartland did no lobbying.

"22:51, 22 February 2016‎ PeterThusat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,668 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Added historical and publications-related details, while corrected errors about "lobbying" -- which Heartland does not do."

Although my report is not claimed to be RS, it links to dozens documents in the TTID (Truth Tobacco Industry Documents) at UCSF. Those are internal industry documents, including letters from Joe Bast to tobacco companies telling them what Heartland could do for them, praising Joe Camel, etc. p.38 has a decade+ of Philip Morris funding, happily recorded by Roy Marden, PM exec who managed think tanks, and was on Heartland's Board. For example, p.40 has an image from TTID, showing what different think tanks promised Marden they would do.

Heartland: “Blast faxes to state legislators, off-the-record briefings, op-eds, radio interviews, letters."

Now, Heartland might call this "education," but others might possibly consider it lobbying in the general sense.

p.43 Bast to Marden (asking for more money): "Unlike any other free-market think tank, Heartland's primary audience is the nation's 7,500 state elected officials. We reach them more often, and generate from them more requests for research, than any other think tank in the country."

p.62 Summarizes data from 2012: Heartland was still getting money from PM (Altria) and Reynolds America.

Editors might want to read the dozen pages and check the links to assess Peter Thusat's claim. You can't cite my report, but it will save you time rummaging through the TTID looking at all the Heartland and Joe Bast items.JohnMashey (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lobbying by Heartland (?)

Looks like some of Heartland's beef is about how WP describes it as a lobbying organization. (Rather, it sees itself as independent and not working on behalf of any particular client.) What RS do we have that describes Heartland as a lobbying organization. (I note that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires federal lobbyists to register. Has Heartland done so?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

0) For the general topics (not Heartland), see Jane Mayer's recent "Dark Money" or Fallin, Grana and Glantz on ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party A big of this is also in the Oreskes and Conway book, although in less detail.

1) Please read that section of the report I mentioned above. Again, I make no claim that it is RS, but it has numerous references to internal tobacco company documents, and other sections refer to IRS Form 990s, and there is a great deal of analysis of Heartland Environment and Climate News, with examples.

2) The awkwardness of the lobbying term is that a lot of actions most people would consider lobbying are kept hidden, on purpose, which is not too hard, given the ambiguities of lobbying registration regulations. The tobacco industry in particular has long moved to using third parties. That's unsurprising: their entire business model depends on the fact that for most people, only during adolescent brain development (within ages 10-25, but at its peak 15-19) is nicotine addiction possible. Put simply, to stay in business they need to addict teenagers and kill many of them slowly. Oddly, legislators try not to be associated directly with that.

The TTID has many documents: a) Bast asking for money, touting Heartland's access to state/local governments (their focus, not Federal). b) Touting things like his article defending Joe Camel. c) Having a key PM executive on his board for a decade. d) Being asked, "what will you do to help" and responding by mentioning legislators and off-record meetings. e) Environment and Climate News had many smoking-supportive articles, and this is mailed to legislators.

Now, you can argue about whether or not TTID documents are RS for Wikipedia, although they are certainly heavily used as quite credible in court cases. If you read IRS Form 990s, you would never guess Heartland does all of the above ... but Big Tobacco pays for results, and they have funded Heartland over decades.

Anyway, much lobbying is not done by registered lobbyists, and a major function of some think tanks is do what most people owuld call lobbying, but with less traceability, bad enough at Federal level, but likelier messier in the states.≥ JohnMashey (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing “climate change denial” back to “global warming skeptics"

In the lead, this sentence is present: “More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.” Yet, for a good bit of 2015, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead read: “The Heartland Institute is a prominent supporter of global warming skeptics,[2]”

The link has always been the same, going to the internal Wiki page climate change denial. Fine. That’s the link. But why the change in language in the lead? There was A LOT of discussion about this in the talk page back in February 2015 pushing back at why editor DMCQ changed it to “denial.” He LOST that extensive debate among experienced editors. But then, suddenly, in April, it was turned back to “denial” by someone not experienced in working on Heartland’s page. The matter was never discussed again. It should be discussed.

In Heartland’s entry, below in the sub-heading of “Global warming” this is stated: “The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, but does not dispute that climate change itself is occurring.”

This is true, and cited. So why is it accurate to say — in the language of the lead, if not the Wikipedia link — that Heartland “denies” climate change? It does not, as the entry below the lead makes clear. Should the lead misrepresent what comes below? It does now, and is a disservice to readers.

The lead should say, again: “The Heartland Institute is a prominent supporter of global warming skeptics.[2]” That is fair, neutral, and objectively consistent with the details further down in the entry. Jlakely (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not defined as denying climate change. So claiming that HI doesn't deny that the climate changes is not sufficient reason to remove this label. TimOsborn (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

He LOST that extensive debate - I guess you're referring to Talk:The Heartland Institute/Archive_2#DMCQ_Edits inserting_.22Denier.22. But it doesn't obviously meet your description William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Skepticism is a critical appraisal of the evidence, requiring proponents to justify their conclusions. Denial is taking a position against something and looking for evidence to support that stance. Heartland is a major part of the engine of denial, as the sources show quite clearly. They did not look at the data and ask if it supported the conclusions, they set about manufacturing data to support a conclusion driven by ideology. And that is why denial is the correct term. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I certainly think denial is a correct summary of the sources. However I don't think 'the primary American supporter of' is supported by them, at most they say is a leading supporter of or are in the forefront of. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that "primary" is a poor term. It certainly is the case that Heartland runs the largest and most publicized climate anti-science conferences (ICCCs), produces slick newsletters (E&CN) sent to most legislators in the US, and has done us a fine service by collecting names under its Heartland Experts website.JohnMashey (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE in lede

The second paragraph in the lead focuses on 2 issues. The first is secondhand smoke, which is an old one. The second is the climate issue, which is is on-going. This paragraph needs to be re-written to be more general, to summarize what is in the main body of the text, and to be less POV. – S. Rich (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is the problem? Being "old" or "on-going" are not inherent pov problems, nor have any sources been offered to demonstrate there is a problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We should be guided by an important policy – WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question at a level of detail that anyone can respond to. Balance of what? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't "balance" fact with self-serving bullshit. The Heartland Institute is known almost exclusively for its role in protecting large corporations from necessary restriction on their ability to profit by putting others at risk. I am sure everyone there is kind to their mothers, and the group itself is strongly in favour of motherhood and apple pie, but that's not what they are known for and it's not what our readers are coming here to look up. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with the important policy of WP:BALANCE. including WP:GEVAL, I've modified the wording, splitting the paragraph so that each paragraph covers one of these main points of the article. The other lesser topics are already covered in the first paragraph. Of course if editors think they should be given more weight in the lead, they're welcome to put forward proposed wording with sources which support their assessment of the significance of these topics. Without such proposals, there's no justification for tagging the lead. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The 2014 McGann report gives HI high ratings in various categories. This is a real world indication that HI has greater impact on issues other than the old second-hand smoke controversy or later climate change issue. The article, in general, should be more informative in that regard. But we are letting POV skew our editing efforts when the lede unduly summaries the critical articles/topics. (The tagging has served to stimulate some change.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're referring to. The McGann 2015 reference, currently #38 in the references, only mentions HI as an entry in five categories and as a think tank that does not divulge its donors. I don't know how we can use this to change the pov of this article, or claim the pov needs change. We already mention it's donor policy and why. We've no other context to work from, only the categories: #28 in "Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by a Think Tank", #40 in "Best Think Tank Network", #43 in "Best Use of Social Networks", #19 in "Think Tank to Watch", #69 in "Think Tanks with the Most Significant Impact on Public Policy". Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

editing climate change language in intro and language on K-12 ed

In the body, it says (quite accurately) that the Heartland Institute "...does not dispute that climate change itself is occurring. Rather, it says that human activities are not driving climate change, the amount of climate change is not catastrophic, and might be beneficial, and that the economic costs of trying to mitigate climate change exceed the benefits."

In the intro, it says that Heartland is "a leading supporter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming, disputes that human activity is driving the warming, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy."

The intro is reductionistic, misleading, inflammatory, and inconsistent with what's in the body. I suggest this: "...a leading supporter of climate change denial. It does not dispute that climate change is occurring, but it rejects the scientific consensus on global warming; disputes that human activity is driving the warming; argues that it is not catastrophic (and may be beneficial); and notes that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy."

On education, the language is imprecise and can be improved. I suggest the following: "The Heartland Institute supports the increased availability of (public) charter schools, providing education tax credits to attend private schools, expanding federal vouchers for low-income students to attend a public or private school of their family's choosing, and the Parent Trigger reform that started in California. The Institute supports the introduction of market reforms into the public education system to increase competition and provide more options and greater choice for parents and their children."

Now what? I'm new to this, so I appreciate your patience and guidance in advance...ericatius----