Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 3 September 2010

Template:Community article probation

Chicago Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Working on this article

Just as an FYI to any members of the Heartland Institute who try to whitewash this article. Don't even bother. It will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs)

Has this been a problem? I'm more concerned with your unsourced POV edits. --D. Monack | talk 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to get information from the source up onto this page. As for the conference that they are currently having in March, no information has even been released about what was really discussed. This page needs some proper information, not side comments from the oil industry haters. Infonation101 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If by "proper information" you mean material published in reliable, independent secondary sources, I've added a couple to the article today. I'm sure there are more out there. MastCell  21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• the very first sentence in this section sounds like a threat to violate scholarship, debate and the mandates of intellectual honesty. That it, a type of tyranny or intellectual terrorism. The whole article is biased, by inclusion and exclusion. Until these issues are settled the article should be noted as "in dispute", if not pulled outright. My God, does anyone care about fairness and accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.62.26 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Institute Information

Like other WP sites that have the side column of company information (ie World Wildlife Fund), figured to start it off by getting the revenue for 06. The 990 shows a revenue of $2,491,809. Also the president and chairman information can be found here, date founded and headquarters here. The last two come from the Heartland Institute website, but are verified on the 990 as well. Cool if I throw these on the site? Infonation101 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me.JQ (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's up, but I'm new at putting the information up in this way. So if there are any corrections that need to be made, please do. Infonation101 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, but it looks good so far. MastCell  00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exxon Funding?

Is there a more reliable source then (5)? (5) is from a known critic of Exxon and as such is open to bias. Is there are official financial documentation pertaining to this claimed funding? 203.208.72.195 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can't find a more reliable source then I suggest we remove the accusation. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact... it seems most of the funding claims are extremely bad sources. They're either news items or from sites ridiculously biased against Heartland Institute's Opinions. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to the citations. I traced the original citation back, and it was coming from a bias source. Let's see an official fiscal report, not a news release. Infonation101 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if we could get some decent citations. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of the donations that ExxonMobil made in 2006. Wonder why so many people hate them when they contribute 100's of millions every year to education and other programs? Infonation101 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a veteran at Misplaced Pages, so I don't know the rules. But a quick glance over that report shows that it doesn't cite any sources. That wouldn't be so bad if it was hosted at an Exxon or Heartland institute website, or perhaps some other place which deals with financial (I donno, maybe the IRS or something? I don't know how America works). It's just that it's hosted on Greenpeace's website which is a known critic of Exxon AND of Heartland Institute's opinions on Global Warming and stuff. If this report is legit, then I'm sure it, or a similar version, should be hosted somewhere which is NOT biased against Exxon/Heartland 203.208.72.195 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct about where the source is being hosted. I checked the published 990 information and it doesn't have a list of contributers. I'll keep digging and try to find the information. All 501(c)(3)'s have to make all financial information public, so I'll keep looking. Infonation101 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest doing a search for the comments of the Royal Society of the UK on this issue.There was plenty of discussion at the time. JQ (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm still looking. Infonation101 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official report (2006), hosted by ExxonMobil. That should be usable information. Infonation101 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But in the official report from PMUSA, Heartland received no funding in 06. For this, the statements on the article will be removed. Infonation101 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources for the fact that Heartland has received money from PM. The fact that it received none in 2006 doesn't change this. The deleted link points to primary documents, but for our purposes it's better to cite newspapers, which are WP:RS reliable sources. Can I request that you reinsert this info, pleaseJQ (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the consequences from such a correlation between Exxon and Heartland AND the fact that if it is true there MUST be official financial reports on it somewhere, I say that we don't bother with news sources (especially since it seems official reports must be possible to obtain). This is an exceptional claim (due to controversy) and thus requires exceptional sources - and they should be attainable. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the Heartland Institute, whose agenda is similar to that of ExxonMobil, receives funding from ExxonMobil is hardly an "exceptional" claim. Standard reliable secondary sourcing is more than adequate here. MastCell  16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that I've added to the confusion a bit. Below are reports for Philip Morris (NOT ExxonMobil) donations to Heartland. I'm still digging for the official reports from ExxonMobil. When I find those, they'll be posted. Infonation101 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exceptional because it's not "believable" it's exceptional because it's controversial, the consequences of Heartland being funded by them biases their work. The fact thtat such donations MUST have official records means we might as well use those. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless, Heartland was funded by PM and ExxonMobil. I've posted some of the sources that I have found. The rest I'll get up later. Whether the funding creates bias research I'm not convinced about. Would I consider it, yes, but I'm not convinced. I've been working with non-profit organizations for 11 years now, and from the majority of what I've seen the research is made, and the funding comes from those who like what it says. If the Heartland Institute had produced results confirming global warming funding would have come from a different place. Regardless, give me a couple of days to be able to update the article, if no one else gets to it before me. Infonation101 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I said it wrong. It doesn't create bias, but it sows the seed of doubt. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

JQ, I'm looking for the PM financial reports from recent years. Any money given to a 501(c)(3) is required to be available to the public, by law. Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet. Infonation101 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found some information correlating PM and Heartland. They have ties that go back a long ways. Here is an executive report back from '95 (p.9). This shows that in '97 PM gave $50,000 to Heartland (p.1). Though I don't agree with how the article is written, sourcewatch has other good information linked to Heartland. I haven't been able to find PM giving anything to Heartland since 2000. Anyone have any ideas? Infonation101 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I feel that I'm controlling the article, and sorry about that. I've found some more about ExxonMobil and Heartland. In 2005 ExxonMobil gave $119,000 to Heartland (p.12, I don't like the article, but they source the info). Heartland was given a substantial amount in 2003 (p.42). The following source I'm not sure of, but it says that from 1998-2005 the amount of total donations given is $560,000 (p.4). Infonation101 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As I read the sources, Exxon wholly ceased funding Heartland and similar organizations in 2008. That correspond with what everyone else sees? Fell Gleaming 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing good sources

Did I miss something, or did an editor just remove 2 citations to reliable sources and replace them with a {{fact}} tag? The New York Times is a reliable source; please don't remove cites to the Times and replace them with a claim of "citation needed". MastCell  22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that would have been me. I accidentally removed the wrong thing. Thanks for catching that. Infonation101 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem - sorry if I jumped on you about it. MastCell  16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. Editing an article that is so controversial I should have been more careful to double check what I was removing. Infonation101 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on this article 2

I stuck my toe into this article yesterday, which has elicited some quick reverts and a mildly admonitory note from a regular editor on the page. Several reverts took out information I'd added to the article, such as the date of founding of the org. Let's try to build the best possible article without using Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid and an overly hasty hand with deletions of information that improves the article. Bonitammmm (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Misplaced Pages's guidelines for external links clearly state "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I have attempted to delete the clearly inaccurate and unverifiable link to a biased site: sourcewatch, only to have it re-assigned numerous times. Sourcewatch is an inaccurate, biased site and thus, by Misplaced Pages's own guidelines, should not be included. Point guard (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get far with a general claim of this kind. Perhaps you'd like to point to inaccuracies in the Sourcewatch article that has been linked, so that we can understand the basis of your concerns. JQ (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A more relevant part of WP:EL is that dealing with wikis, #12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are to be avoided. My impression has generally been that Sourcewatch has both a reasonable history of stability and a substantial number of editors, but I'm open to persuasion on those points. MastCell  17:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the definitions, but Sourcewatch requires login and registration now.JQ (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DesmogBlog

Desmogblog, being used as a neutral, independent source for scurrilous claims about Heartland? Is there anyone who can support this? I tried to source the "dozens of scientists" claims, but the number they list is far smaller. Fell Gleaming 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was used for information on a BLP not heartland, a massive BLP violation mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the diffs? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see it is used to support an accusation against Dennis Avery mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that a number of scientists expressed extreme displeasure at the way their work was presented by the Heartland Institute. Heartland's own press release on the subject states that DeSmogBlog "persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists", later referring to these individuals as "disgruntled scientists". The Heartland Institute responded with a couple of excuses (the list originated from the Hudson Institute and they merely republished it; the misleading headline was chosen by Heartland's "PR department", etc.), and also by asserting that scientists had no legal, ethical, or moral right to dispute the uses to which the Heartland Institute put their names and science. The press release is here.

I personally think that if we cover this dispute, then we need to look to reliable, third-party sources rather than rehashing what's in DeSmogBlog and Heartland press releases. The Sydney Morning Herald covers the issue here. As you can see, the Herald reports that Heartland "misrepresented" Jim Salinger's work as part of a "denial campaign". Heartland presented Saligner's work on climate variation as if it questioned anthropogenic global warming, which it does not. Salinger protested and asked that his name and work be removed from Heartland's press releases, and Heartland said no. I think that brief coverage of the incident based on this independent, reliable source (and excluding coverage from the unreliable/directly affiliated sources mentioned above) would be appropriate. MastCell  23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC's edit was a clear violation of policy, as it used two self-published sources. If the Sydney Morning Herald covered the issue, then that can be used as the source. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if it's attributed, neither of these two sources are reliable. They are both self-published. If this issue is mentioned in a reliable secondary source, then it would be ok to use DeSmogBlog and the press release as back-ups for the secondary source. If a reliable secondary source is not forthcoming, I will be removing the text. If you need an example of sourcing that is fine, look at SBHB's edit immediately preceeding this one. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute press release is a a reliable source for the position of the institute, The blog is a reliable source for claims made by the blog and "Richard Littlemore", The "attack" itself is not sourced by the blog, only the claims. Reliable secondary source sources have now also been added. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The blog is not a reliable source, and Monbiot's op-ed is not a reliable source for citing factual information. I've removed those. The same information is still in the text, including a reference to DeSmogBlog, but without the attack-y commentary from questionable and unreliable sources. Littlemore is not mentioned in the press release, so we're not giving him billing for a blog post. Minor4th 06:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog and George Monbiot are reliable sources for their own opinions and claims. You can however not use The Heartland Institute as a source to describe DeSmogBlog as "a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations." I will have another try in tiding it up of excessive detail. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I have removed the sentence "Noting that many of the complaining scientists had crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy," as the press release cannot be used as a source for the positions or advocacy of the scientists. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has this blog been put back in the article? mark nutley (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A blog is not to be used as a source for opinion, speculation or otherwise. A blog is opinion, if it were true that blogs could be cited for their opinion then that would pretty much make blogs fair game across the board. Besides, Monbiot was cited for more that opinion and so was DeSmogBlog. I agree that Heartland shouldnt be used for that statement about advocacy -- just like the blog and Monbiot shouldnt be used as sources for who is a skeptic and who's not. To insist on those sources is tendentious. I guess I'll request protection on this article too.Minor4th 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

funding received during...

Neither source given states that funding was received from tobacco companies during any specific period, just that funding was received. Further, one source is clearly non-reliable; an opinion piece by the director of a group politically opposed to Heartland. Fell Gleaming 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I had tagged one as not in citation given, the source did not mention morris tobbaco co at all, mastcell removed the tag for some reason mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This source is crystal clear about the link between the Heartland Institute, Philip Morris, and secondhand smoke. It is a reliable source and I see no grounds for either tagging or deleting it. If the quibble has to do with the timing of funding, then that would be better resolved by editing the material rather than wholesale removal; in any case, I will go ahead and address FellGleaming's concern. I'm fine with leaving out the op-ed piece. MastCell  18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mastcell the one i tagged as not in citation did not mention morris at all, that is why i tagged it mark nutley (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Heartland-tobacco connection also is discussed at length by Oreskes and Conway in Merchants of Doubt. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt appears to be a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have doubts about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's published by an independent publisher, which it appears to be, then it's a reliable source. We let the reader look at the source and decide on their own how much credibility to give to it. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Still, some (otherwise) reputable publishers have been known to publish what should best be called non-fact books. I'm not saying that Merchants of Doubt necessarily falls in that category, but I'm not saying it doesn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If Merchants of Doubt discusses the tobacco connection, then someone source the article with it. As it is, the only source is Heartlan op-ed about one proposed smoking ban. Minor4th 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the source linked in the sentence immediately following the one you tagged? It supports the text. Ideally, we could avoid redundant footnotes. MastCell  19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of relevant, well-sourced information

I'm concerned about these edits. They remove a clear and factual statement that the Heartland Institute no longer discloses its donors. This is highly relevant, since it explains to the reader why we rely on Heartland's own brochures as the only source of info about its funding.

Secondly, the edit removes context about the reasons for ExxonMobil's declining support for Heartland - context which comes directly from the New York Times. As one can see from the article in question, it is clearly and directly about the Heartland Institute - there is no synthesis or coatracking involved. The edit also introduces inaccuracies: it is not clear that ExxonMobil has "stopped funding" Heartland. The Times says only that they have "reduced support". Rather than edit-war, I would like to hear some justification for these edits, in particular the seemingly unfounded charge of coatracking and the inaccurate representation of the Times article. MastCell  19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, FellGleaming has removed cited content on incorrect grounds. This edit summary claims that the source "relates to Exxon, not Heartland". That is incorrect. The source clearly states that "Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects." (p. 32, emphasis mine). The 40% figure refers specifically to Heartland's receipts from ExxonMobil. Rather than contribute to any edit-warring, I'll ask FellGleaming to correct his error. MastCell  19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) The Mother Jones source is an angry emotion-laden polemic against Heartland -- this is as blatant a violation of proper sourcing as one can get. I have no objection to a clear and factual statement as long as its properly sourced. (b) A lengthy discussion on Exxon's motivations for funding decisions appears to be simply coatracking this entry into the climate change debate. Finally, the statement that "Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects" appeared to be referring to Exxon's funding in general. If it does refer to Exxon's funding of Heartland in particular, I would agree with you and I'll be happy to reinsert, with it rephrased to clarify that point -- but a link from an advocacy group is not a valid source to cite that point. Do you have a reliable source that makes that claim?

As a general point, I ask for a little common sense here in sourcing. There is no way you would accept Heartland's statements about any of these political organizations at face value -- why are you trying to use their own statements directly against Heartland? WP policy for independent, neutral sources is a very good one to adhere to. 19:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

I'm actually feeling the same way about common sense. I would potentially accept a statement from Heartland if it were qualified as such - that is, "According to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank..." That's exactly the way I've cited, for instance, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights - as an "anti-smoking advocacy group". If I've cited Mother Jones, it's prefaced with "According to Mother Jones..." We need to be honest with readers about who's saying what. Reputable organizations with an agenda - like ANR, for instance - can be used as sources, so long as we're clear and honest with the reader about that agenda.

Re: the Mother Jones piece, do you have an objection to citing it to source the widely understood fact that Heartland no longer publicizes its donor list?

Re: ExxonMobil, their motivations for reducing funding to Heartland specifically are clearly relevant to an article about Heartland, and I don't see any grounds for your coatracking concern. Do you have other concerns about that material? Whether you do or not, please correct the factual error you introduced ("stopped funding" vs. "reduced funding") - I consider that imperative.

Re: 40% of funding, please note that the figures in question are taken directly from ExxonMobil's corporate reports, and reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists. I'm fine with prefacing the material "According to a report from the UCS...", but not with completely excluding a relevant and essentially undisputed fact. I'd appreciate it if you could directly address these three issues. MastCell  20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) The Mother Jones source I deleted was not prefaced with "Mother Jones, a radical political publication..." Nor is the current item sourced by Mother Jones even identified as such. If a claim is accurate, then a responsible journalistic entity will have reported it. Mother Jones, after all, doesn't have some magic crystal ball by which they obtain facts. This should be a moot point, as I know I've seen other publications report that Heartland no longer discloses funding. Why not use one of those sources?

(b) I've seen specifically in multiple sources that Exxon says they have stopped funding organizations which dispute Climate Change. Do you have a source which says otherwise, before I spend time digging these up again?

(c) There is nothing in any Exxon corporate report that claims some percentage of their funding to Heartland -- or any other group -- is specifically earmarked for any particular project. I've looked through the corporate disclosures before. Have I misunderstood your objection? The original text implied the money was given to Heartland for a specific purpose.

(d) The coatracking comes from persistent attempts to imply malfeasance in funding. Organizations have specific goals. They attract funding from sources which support those goals. This is not something unique to Heartland. Reasonable disclosure is one thing, but giving undue weight to these types of connections does bring up coatracking concerns. Half of the length of the entry on Greenpeace, for instance, isn't a list of all the companies and organizations who have donated to Greenpeace, while simultaneously benefitting from their advocacy of certain political goals. Fell Gleaming 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mother Jones simply did some legwork, and spoke to the president of the Heartland Institute, who confirmed that they no longer publicize their donor list and attributed that decision to perceived abuse at the hands of the liberal media. If you know of other sources supporting it, please, bring them forward - it would be a welcome and constructive change from simply removing uncontroversial and relevant facts on iffy grounds. If you have an alternate source, then I'd be happy to use it in the spirit of compromise.

As to (b), yes. Please read the sources cited. The New York Times article clearly states that ExxonMobil has reduced funding. That is not equivalent to stopping funding. It is difficult for me to discuss abstract, unnamed sources that you say you've seen somewhere. I cited the Times; it clearly states that ExxonMobil has reduced funding to "skeptical" organizations like Heartland. Please correct your erroneous representation of the Times source I supplied, and/or produce some actual sources of your own.

Again, the UCS report is clear and, I think, acceptable as a source for the text in question, particularly if prefaced with in-text attribution. I will solicit outside input if we're really at an impasse on this. MastCell  21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did find this bit about Exxon, " In Exxon's 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report, it stated: In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." AFAIK, there has been zero funding of Heartland since then. Fell Gleaming 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - where is that from? Could you please link sources so that others can review them? MastCell  21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that specifically states Exxon stopped funding Heartland. . Furthermore, if you want to suggest a link between funding and Heartland's actions, you need to specifically point that, despite the loss of funding, Heartland has increased its advocacy against global warming alarmism. Educate the reader, don't insinuate falsehood. Fell Gleaming 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm trying to accurately describe the Institute's funding, so that readers can draw whatever conclusions they see fit. Thank you for providing a source - that makes the task easier. I'm fine with noting that Heartland has continued to promote a "skeptical" position on climate change despite the loss of Exxon funding. MastCell  22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party

Several sources draw links between the Heartland Institute and the Tea Party Movement. For example:

• Christian Science Monitor reports that John O'Hara, a "conservative foot soldier" at the Heartland Institute, was one of two people who organized the first "Tea Party" rally.
• The Irish Times writes that Heartland helped organize anti-Obama demonstrations during the health-care debate: "The organisers of the march represent a ragbag coalition of disparate groups, joined at the hip by their hatred of Obama’s perceived radicalism. They include right-wing think tanks such as the Heartland Institute, small government campaigns such as Americans for Tax Reform and Tea Party Patriots, and internet-based protest networks such as ResistNet."

I'm curious whether this warrants mention in our article. MastCell  21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Err, that Irish Times source has red flags all over it. How about this little bit, from a supposedly neutral report: "The Obama administration is intent on pressing ahead with selling health reform to the US public, despite all the right-wing noise." The real problem is that Heartland is _not_ a right-wing organization. They're a libertarian organization, a vast vast difference. There aren't too many "right-wingers" who advocate legalizing drugs, or gambling, or abortion. Fell Gleaming 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen Heartland take a stance on drugs, gambling, or abortion. They seem to limit themselves mostly to arguing against regulations on corporate behavior, which is common to right-wing/conservatives/libertarians. Regardless... I understand you don't like the Irish Times article, but are you actually contending that the Irish Times is not a reliable source? On what basis (beyond personal disagreement with the source)? MastCell  22:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't imply ulterior motive. When a supposedly neutral source says something so obviously biased and disparaging as "...despite all the right-wing noise", it should raise alarm bells for any proper-thinking editor. When they make obvious factual errors as well, it raises even more. But to speak to your point, there is obviously some political overlap between the Tea Party and any free-market organization that believes in small government. Given that, one wouldn't be surprised to find Heartland members and Tea Party supporters in the same protest. Is that a tangible enough connection to be notable, and relevant enough to add to a reader's understanding of Heartland? I'm willing to be convinced it is, as long as its presented in a neutral manner. Fell Gleaming 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the sources, you'll see they suggest more than the coincidental overlap common to all "free-market" organizations. Nor is it a matter of people "finding themselves in the same protest" - the Irish Times states that Heartland played an organizing role in the health-care protest. We need to engage what the sources actually say if we're going to have a productive discussion.

This has apparently been mentioned by at least 2 independent, reliable sources. Perhaps there are more; I'll look, but 2 seemed sufficient to raise the question. I'd be interested in hearing from additional editors. MastCell  22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. There's a considerable difference between us finding two people in a protest, and them accidentally "finding themselves" in a protest. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that Heartland worked with other groups, including the Tea Party, to organize a healthcare protest. True healthcare reform is, after all, one of their major political points. And I don't have any objection to including such a fact, as long as its presented in a relevant, neutral, and accurate manner. Fell Gleaming 22:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian <> Conservative._Conservative.-2010-09-03T22:01:00.000Z">

A few myopic souls on the far left of the spectrum often confuse these two, but there is a vast difference. In fact, the only real overlap is in the area of free-market principles. Some of the major differences:

Libertarianism:

• Legalization of drugs, gambling and other "vice" crimes
• Freedom from government interference in sexual matters, abortion, etc.
• Near-isolationism in foreign affairs
• Strong separation of church and state

Conservatism:

• Strong national defense, active in foreign affairs.
• "Traditional" family values
• "War on Drugs", "Right to Life"
• A strong faith-based component

Heartland is not a conservative organization. A few minutes research should convince anyone of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

Have you ever read WP:NOR? It's really, really necessary to be informed about policies when editing here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)_Conservative."> _Conservative.">

Agreed. Most of the independent, reliable sources I've found actually use the descriptor "right-wing" for Heartland, but I thought "politically conservative" was a bit more encyclopedic. Maybe we should go with "right-wing", though, since it's a) closer to the actual reliable sources, and avoid the proposed dichotomy above. MastCell  22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? There is nothing in the above list that isn't found in countless reliable sources. If you consider this OR, then I suggest you read the policy again, more carefully this time. Calling a duck a pig doesn't make it one. Fell Gleaming 22:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mastcell, a source you yourself called "reliable" (Americans for Nonsmokers Rights) correctly identifies Heartland as a Libertarian organization. I assume you won't have any problem with that a source? . Fell Gleaming 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You were warned in the past about misusing quotations, so please note that I called ANR a "reputable organization with an agenda", subject to certain caveats in its use, rather than a "reliable" source across the board. I get the sense you're treating this like a game. If you previously objected to ANR as a source, then why would you suddenly stand on it to the exclusion of other reliable sources when it suits your purpose? To be clear, I'm fine with descriptions that follow available sources. I'm not OK with descriptions that stem from the political ideas of individual editors. That's the distinction Boris was trying to highlight. I think the dominant descriptor I'm seeing in reliable sources is "right-wing". If you'd prefer, we could say that it is variously described as "right-wing", "conservative", and "libertarian". Or we could outline its major positions in the lead - climate-change skepticism, criticism of the science on secondhand smoke - and let the reader decide on their own terms. MastCell  22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Come now, this isn't rocket science. The goal here is to provide material that is correct and verifiable. Heartland identifies itself as a Libertarian organization. If one of their most ardent opponents does as well, then there really isn't any debate, now is there? However, that in no way implies that everything that a politically-opposed source says should be taken at face value, now does it? Fell Gleaming 22:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, your identification of "secondhand smoke" as one of their major positions is utterly fallacious. Why not spend at least a few minutes learning about the subject you're trying to write about? I've read through quite a few of their publications and never even seen it mentioned....its certainly not in their top 10 list. Isn't the goal here to accurately reflect what the organization actually is, rather than simply filling paragraphis with sly innuendo about funding influencing their positions? Fell Gleaming 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think "neutrality" is best achieved by using the organization's self-description and that of its "most ardent opponent"? I think we're better off basing our coverage on independent, reliable sources, as Misplaced Pages policy insists we do. I don't see "libertarian" used very often by those sources, hence I'm not sure we should prioritize it either. As for secondhand smoke, it is mentioned prominently in a number of independent, reliable sources. Again, they - not the Heartland website - should form the basis for our coverage, as a matter of very basic Misplaced Pages policy. MastCell  22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The principle touchstone here, Mastcell, is accuracy. A source that states something verifiably inaccurate should not be used period, no matter how reliable that source is in general. Further, a source that describes the subject as "right wing noise" is clearly biased. Why are you trying so ardently to portray Heartland as something they so clearly are not? I'm honestly curious. Fell Gleaming 22:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed Chicago articles
• Unknown-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles