Talk:The Heartland Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Signpost[edit]

Greeting, I am an In the Media editor for the Wikipedia Signpost and I ran across the Institute's October 19 press release. I am interested in any comments from either side on what the controversy is (and it appears to be long running), please feel free to discuss at my talk page or contact me via email at milo_went at yahoo dot com.--Milowenthasspoken 14:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the press release in question? Jlakely (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Heartland logo removed, put picture up instead?[edit]

I got a notice that the Heartland Institute logo has been removed for copyright reasons. Fair enough. However, I have put a photograph of the front of Heartland's headquarters (where I work) in Wiki commons for fair and free use. Perhaps someone would consider putting it up in place of the removed logo?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heartland_Sign_1.jpg

--Jlakely (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly okay to have a logo on the article that a logo refers to, just it can't be used elsewhere except in special circumstances and it can't be saved in Commons, it has to be kept in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Logos for the full business of fair use of logos and other copyright symbols. I'd say that picture looks better anyway though, covers the business and has less problems, so I don't want a change back. Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Earlier discussion of bibilography copied here[edit]

From two years ago:

£Hi. I would like to open a conversation in regard to building an accurate bibliography, from a catalog such as WorldCat [1], citing some of the Heartland Institute's major books. Inclusion could be based upon the number of libraries owning. What do the Gods of the Copybook Headings think?Roseoilpicnic (talk) 1:31 am, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1)

I'm not sure of what general consensus there is for including lists of publications. Perhaps others are more familiar with what guidelines and general consensus that applies. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY covers layout and structure. The problems to avoid are NOT (WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIR) and WP:NPOV. Given that publishers regularly give donate to libraries, the number of libraries that hold the books seems problematic, echoing the pblishers' marketing efforts, and so a SOAP violation. --Ronz (talk) 5:22 pm, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1) I think one can apply a fairly low standard to that, I'd be happy with a list of any their publications that some secondary source somewhere has ever mentioned unless the number of them starts making the article lopsided. Dmcq (talk) 6:52 pm, 29 March 2016, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC+1)"

Pinging the editors above and those involved now. @Srich32977, Dmcq, Ronz, Roseoilpicnic, and JesseRafe:. My own opinion is that a small selection of books about the Institute might be encyclopedic, but not their publications, that's what their website is for. If there's been in depth discussion of any of their publications, a reflection of that discussion might (or might not) be appropriate in the article. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically the same as I thought back then. They are self published books of no intrinsic note unless mentioned by someone else, and certainly not just a catalog which lists everything a library is given. So if somebody mentions them fine, but and accurate bibliography?, I think that would verge on making Wikipedia into a sales brochure for their products. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. From what discussions I've seen in the past two years, there seems to be less tolerance for such lists due to NOT and POV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above, removed them recently because it was long, presented without context, and seemingly non-notable/indiscriminate. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree. But with a slightly differing rationale. If the authors or works are WP:NOTABLE or best-sellers, or widely cited, then the works are WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be mentioned. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
If the authors... How is a book due mention just because of a notable author? --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the books, since we don't agree on inclusion criteria at this point.
I'd guess that there are third-party references available listing the periodicals and how they're distributed to legislators. If so, we need to include such references. Otherwise, I'm leaning toward removing the periodicals as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Restoring book mentions per WP:NOTEWORTHY. The fact that these notable authors choose to publish via Heartland is enough justification. The WorldCat listings for the periodicals suffice as third-party sourcing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the rationale and their inclusion on their face. However, as a modest list of 5 items, they demonstrate the type of publications printed, and would be OK as exemplars, with the clear understanding that it is not meant to be presented as an exhaustive list. Better still, would be if any news source or book review mentioned these titles and commented about Heartland in the review/critique, not just listed its publisher. JesseRafe (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that these notable authors choose to publish via Heartland is enough justification. That's simply WP:SOAP and OR on your part, without independent references.
We already describe what topics they promote, so why the examples? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not SOAP at all. The mere listing of publications, independently referenced through WorldCat, is helpful to the readers IAW readers first. Also, the limited listing complies with WP:YESPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Also, please note that I added a link to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast which is very critical of Heartland. 04:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV describes presentation of opposing views. It says nothing about listing publications. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Without any independent sources demonstrating encyclopedic value, we only have their need for publicity and editors' personal opinions driving inclusion.
The lack of direct responses to simple POV/SOAP concerns is damning at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The limited listing helps build WP and complies with WP:ENC. Compare, the Demos (U.S. think tank) article has a listing of its various programs and that listing does not have or need "independent sources". Raising POV/SOAP concerns, and then expecting a response does not confirm the concern – these discussions are meant to reach consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So ignore NOT and POV, and point out that other stuff exists is the best argument we have for inclusion? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete the "Heartland Film Festival" disclaimer at the top.[edit]

There is no reason to confuse The Heartland Institute with the "Heartland International Film Festival," and it is rather ridiculous that this "clarification" still exists, as it has for years.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, is a well-known think tank that has garnered copious media attention around the world. The Heartland International Film Festival (mislabeled on Wikipedia, by the way) was started in 1992 and has attracted little public attention outside its genre and the film world of the Midwest. Besides, the film festival's Wikipedia site — nothing but a brief description and a list of outdated winners of their awards — has not been updated about its core purpose (giving our awards) since 2013.

The Heartland Institute is regularly reported upon in the mainstream media, including a story in the Associated Press published on May 25, 2018 which was posted in nearly 1,000 media outlets across America. This is hardly the only time this year Heartland has made news. Again: Is it not clear that few have heard of the "Heartland Film Festival" and no one would conflate "Heartland Institute" with "Heartland International Film Festival"? Why is that ridiculous "disclaimer for readers" still at the top of The Heartland Institute page?

It is hard to believe this designation remains up there for any other purpose than to suggest that the well-known Heartland Institute is on par with something so obscure. That's clever, insidious, and with the intent to diminish The Heartland Institute.

I await a good argument why it should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlakely (talkcontribs) 05:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If the link is removed than a link to Heartland for WP:Disambiguation should be put in instead. This would make finding the Heartland Film Institute after having put in Heartland Institute rather a bit longer. And in fact I can't see Heartland Film listed there at all which I think is a problem. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"due to the leak of their climate change strategy"[edit]

This is not a forum for discussion of something that might or might not have happened. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The article currently says, "In 2012, a large number of sponsors withdrew funding due to the leak of their climate change strategy and the controversy over their billboard campaign."

Actually, the "climate change strategy memo" was not leaked, it was forged, by Dr. Peter Gleick.

That's how Gleick got caught: Berkeley Earth's Steve Mosher and others recognized Gleick's distinctive writing style in the forged memo.

I'm sure the partisans here won't let that sort of inconvenient truth into the article, so I'll settle for just deleting the false statement about "the leak of their climate change strategy." NCdave (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP, and either offer a far better reference or refactor your comments. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
They said there was no evidence that Gleick had forged it but it is pretty well accepted the 'climate change strategy' document was forged. I agree that is a bad reference, if it is to be changed to say 'forged' a third party reliable source should be used. Otherwise I would support just removig the statement as outlined above or putting in 'disputed'. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I changed it t simply refer to the section heading where people can read more about it as we don't have a well recognized name. Dmcq (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I can accept that.
It is certainly true that the "strategy memo" document, with its stated goal of "dissuading teachers from teaching science," was forged, not leaked; here's a Reliable Source (The Atlantic): https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
When someone is caught distributing a forgery, that's prima pacie evidence that he is the forger, or at least complicit in the forgery. It is surely rare for someone to distribute a forged document who had no involvement in the forgery.
Even Gleick doesn't claim that the forged "strategy memo" was actually from Heartland. Gleick's story, now, is that he received the forged document anonymously, and wondered about its authenticity, and that curiosity was what prompted him to steal the other documents from Heartland. (But that doesn't explain why Mosher and others were able to identify Gleick from his distinctive writing style, in the forged document.)
Heartland produced this presentation, as part of their attempt to persuade the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to prosecute Gleick:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/criminal_referral_of_peter_gleick.pdf
Their attempt was unsuccessful. The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute, and the statute of limitations has now run out. NCdave (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Gleick's name was in the document - that could explain why Mosher thought it was him. I'm not saying you're wrong but I can't see that there is enough to say much more about Gleick without going against WP:BLP. I'm not too keen on insinuations of improper behavior against an attorney. And insinuating Obama had anything to do with it is diving into conspiracy theory territory. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@NCdave: Once again, please be far more cautious with statements about living persons. Multiple ArbCom decisions apply. This is not an article where promotion of conspiracy theories will be taken lightly. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Dmcq: & @Ronz:, please refrain from speciously accusing fellow Wikipedia editors of "promotion of conspiracy theories." That is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
Gleick is a public figure, so the the fact that various parties, including the victims of the defamatory forgery, credibly accused him of being the forger, and petitioned the U.S. Attorney to prosecute him for that crime, belongs in any discussion of the crime. It is currently missing, but it should be added.
Dmcq, you needn't speculate about why Mosher and others concluded that Gleick was the forger. Mosher explained why, at length, with a series of posted blog comments beginning here. It was the incongruous appearance of Gleick's name in the document, with the strangely flattering description of him as a "high-profile climate scientist," in a document which said nothing complimentary about any other climate activists, that first drew Mosher's attention to Gleick. But it was the idiosyncrasies of Gleick's own writing style, found in the forged document, that Mosher mostly discussed, when explaining why he thought Gleick wrote it.
Note that that was all before Gleick confessed to being the person who had impersonated the Heartland Board Member to steal the other documents. That cemented it.
BTW, I did not insinuate that President Obama had something to do with the U.S. Attorney's refusal to prosecute. NCdave (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Saying "The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute" is insinuating a conspiracy theory as far as I'm concerned. The simplest explanation is that he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute. Wikipedia can't say he forged it. The most that can be done in a case like this is to give evidence from reliable sources as an allegation. Please desist from stating it as fact here, Wikipedia is not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@NCdave:I'm always happy to refactor. I don't believe I accused anyone of anything. I did try to caution you about BLP. I'll add that it's best to focus on content and ignore comments that appear to be uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Dmcq:, saying "The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute" insinuates nothing. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a simple statement of fact.
An example of a conspiracy theory would be an accusation that the folks at Heartland secretly conspired to "dissuade teachers from teaching science" -- which is effectively what this very article did, when it described the forged document (which contained that accusation) as a "leak" from Heartland.
We can only speculate about why the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute, but "he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute" is not a plausible reason, since Gleick, himself, publicly confessed to actions which included two felonies.
That did not include creating the forgery which he distributed. I agree with you that, under Wikipedia's guidelines, as I understand them, w/r/t the authorship of the forgery, since he didn't confess to that, and the case was not prosecuted, the most that can be done is to give evidence from reliable sources as an allegation. But the same is not true for the other crimes. NCdave (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"We can only speculate about why the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute" - Wrong. We can also refuse to speculate about that. That is the option everybody except you chose. Your "Obama appointee" stuff is exactly what Dcmq said: an insinuation of conspiracy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:FORUM this is not a forum. If you continue to insinuate improper actions by an attorney here without a reliable source saying so then I will have to ask for you to be banned from Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hob Gadling and Dmcq, I've already asked you once to please refrain from speciously accusing a fellow Wikipedia editor of "promotion of conspiracy theories." Please cease making specious accusations and threats against a fellow Wikipedian. Your behavior is in violation of WP:CIVIL.
I "insinuated" nothing. I merely stated facts.
The fact is that the U.S. Attorney was appointed by President Obama. That is a matter of record.
The fact is that the U.S. Attorney was petitioned by Heartland to prosecute Gleick, but declined to do so. That is also a matter of record.
Those are indisputable facts. If you think that the U.S. Attorney's refusal to prosecute, even though the crimes to which Gleick admitted (i.e., not including the forgery) could have resulted in up to 22 years in prison, was either proper or improper, that is just your opinion. I have not expressed an opinion about it. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what constitutes what the legal profession considers "proper" or "improper" exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a U.S. Attorney.
Likewise, you two are the only ones talking about any "conspiracy," not me. I don't know of any evidence of a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies the involvement of two or more parties. Who do you imagine could have been part of a "conspiracy" in this case?
Hob Gadling also wrote, "We can also refuse to speculate about that. That is the option everybody except you chose."'
Wrong. The only person in this thread who has speculated about why the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute was Dmcq, who speculated that "he simply did not consider there was enough evidence to prosecute." I pointed out that his speculation was implausible, because the actions to which Gleick admitted included two felonies. Which is right. NCdave (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This getting silly, please don't use this talk page to argue over the political bias of each other's talk page posts, the talk page is for discussing changes to the content of the article, because that is what really matters, not whether somone said "an Obama appointee" in a talk page post. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)