Talk:The Heritage Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV tag added

Based on reading the other comments here, and after reading the article, I went ahead and added a POV tag. The article uses subjective superlatives and doesn't address criticism of the foundation or its activities. Minerva9 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this article be used as a source, but there are sources listed in its citations that might be useful if anyone wants to take a shot at making the article more balanced... Minerva9 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry sources fox news for the ACA, among other things. It is, as a source, unreliable. It utilizes a dictionary source as an advertising agency. This has brought wikipedia to a previously unknown low. We may all have to question wikipedia as an authority for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93D2:52D0:3850:2F00:FBE:60A5 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Overstated claims in "Trump administration" section of article

The following of my edits were reverted by User:Snooganssnoogans without comment.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=856880962&oldid=856880496 Description: The recommendations weren’t for the Trump administration. The recommendations were for a “potentially forthcoming Republican administration”, as the lead sentence for this paragraph states
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=856881407&oldid=856880962 Description: Neither cited article goes so far as to say that the foundation “signaled” to Donald Trump that they would be *supportive* of him.

My edits were valid and were reverted without comment. Hence, I have re-applied my edits.

In lieu of an edit war, I encourage User:Snooganssnoogans to discuss the issue here.

I'm sure we can come to a consensus or compromise about the verbiage of the claims.

208.115.85.240 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your changes were not an improvement. The source makes clear that the Heritage Foundation, unlike other think tanks, signaled support for Trump early on, and thus came to have a disproprtionate influence on the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

They undid all of my edits also which were heavily sourced. 90% from heritage foundation and wikipedia archives. Climate denial, Saudi crown prince (MBS) in their advisors group on middle the east, info about ACA. This is not a information source, this is an advertisement. How much did they pay for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93D2:52D0:3850:2F00:FBE:60A5 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You undid both of my edits but only described one in your response here. Please also address my edit with the description: The recommendations weren’t for the Trump administration. The recommendations were for a “potentially forthcoming Republican administration”, as the lead sentence for this paragraph states.

I believe you are incorrect that my edits are not an improvement. Please describe how I am incorrect in edits, with explicit excerpts of the source material that demonstrate how my edits were not an improvement. It is up to the person making a statement of fact - such as these statements in text of the Wikipedia article - to demonstrate that the article correctly reflects the sources. Please justify your claim that the Heritage Foundation "signaled support for Trump early on", and state your objection to my edit with the edit description above.

If you don't work with me here to come to a compromise or consensus, I'll be forced to add a "not in source" tag to both sources to get more visibility on the issue. Alternately, I will investigate mediation.

208.115.85.240 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to seek mediation. Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

> Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation.

Rather than ad hominem insinuations, I encourage you to focus on the edits I've made and your refusal to either a. show evidence that they're non-constructive or b. show evidence that the article accurately captures the cited works.

If you have specific concerns related to the number of edits my current IP address has made vs. my apparent knowledge of Wikipedia, then I'm sure there's somewhere you can air that concern.

I'm disappointed that you've refused to work with me.

I'll seek mediation.

69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently mediation isn't what's appropriate here:

Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. Wikipedia:Mediation

I've described the thinking behind my edits. You have not provided anything defending your reverts except saying, 'they're wrong'.

As you've been unwilling to work with me in any way, I'll take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard didn't sound like the right place for this. Instead I've posted to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_Heritage_Foundation#Overstated_claims_in_"Trump_administration"_section_of_article

That direct link to the proper section doesn't work (at least in Firefox,) but it at least points to the right page.

69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the CNN source does say that Heritage "... would have advised any candidate who'd listen, even Hillary Clinton if she'd been interested." However it also emphasizes the Foundation's close ties with the Trump administration specifically. Sure, it's possible that they could have advised any "forthcoming Republican administration", but the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role.

This involvement is significant regardless of whether it has more to do with the Administration's choice or the Foundation's willingness to cooperate. –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Which of my edits do you think are unconstructive, reduce the quality of the article, or don't accurately describe the sources? Rather than talking in general terms, I think we should focus specifically on my edits and my choice of words vs. the sources. I think focusing specifically on the edits and the reverts is the best way to achieve consensus.

For example, this is edit 2 of 2. What statements in the citations back up the original phrasing?

• Before: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for positions in the Trump administration ended up getting them.
• After: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for those positions ended up getting them in the Trump administration.

Thanks.

Edit: "the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role." That's true. The article overstates the amount of signalling of support of, and coordination with, the Trump campaign, versus what the sources say. That's what I'm trying to fix.

2601:142:100:DDF5:40D6:836E:D33A:9E37 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Which of my edits..." This is your first edit....using this account, and that's confusing. Stick to one account by registering. That way you'll start building some cred here. Right now you're IP hopping, and that's not good. You don't have a collected contribution history in one place, so no cred. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. I think my issues are straightforward enough and explicit enough that it should not require any particular level of credibility to address. I do concede that my changing IP address is confusing.

Since no one has provided any text from the sources to support the claims in the article, I will tag with Template:Request quotation and take this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if my edit is reverted and no one will back up the claims in the article.

Thanks. 69.143.175.242 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this is old, but I have removed the quotation needed tag from that section. Adding the quotes from the article would add very little value given how close they are to the actual text and how much additional space it would add. I'm happy to add the supporting quotes if someone is interested. Squatch347 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversy?

Shouldn't this article, at least, have a 'Controversy' section? This fundation has been involved on illegal, criminal and terrorist activities

(just an example of this acknowledged in the article):

The Foundation worked closely with leading anti-communist movements, including the terrorist group Contras in Nicaragua[15] and Jonas Savimbi's Unita movement in Angola to bring military, economic and political pressure to promote coups in these countries.[16]

I'm not familiar with this Fundation, I'm just reading (in awe) how information as the one above is just stated with no data about criminal prosecution on their members (has been any?)

The main concern is that this Fundation is used as a source on wikipedia. Thanks. Agustin6 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. No. This article should not have a Controversy section. See WP:Criticism. – Lionel^(talk) 07:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted more information on their involvement, you could add a section called something like "Support of anti-Communists." It could explain what they did, why they did it, and why it was controversial. Calling it something like "Controversy over support of anti-Communists" is biased. TFD (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Apparently I did not expressed myself clear, I'm not talking about the anti-communist ideology, I'm talking of what this article says they worked with terrorist group Contras and Jonas Savimbi's Unita movement in Angola to bring military, economic and political pressure to promote coups in these countries, which are both criminal activities

I couldn't do any section myself cause, while I do know history of Contras and Reagan policies, I didn't knew about the existence of this Fundation until I read this article, nor I know if any of this information is real.Agustin6 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a resume of what could be added under the title Controversies; it may have mistakes and I'm having some problems with adding the linking to the sources, so I leave it here to be checked:

The Foundation promoted the Reagan Doctrine in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and other nations of the world Earlier, in 2015, Anderson questioned the basis for which marriage equality could be denied to same-sex throuples, with marriage equality being assumed for same-sex couples. An executive for the Heritage Foundation co-signed a letter opposing the Act; the letter was addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell and was also signed by the leaders of other socially conservative organizations and institutions.

References

This looks like WP:SOAP and a WP:POV violation, picking the foundation's pov from articles on larger issues. What we really need is a reference that analyzes the foundation's stance and rhetoric on marriage equality as a whole. Hipal (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion about the addition of this content has been opened at WP:AN. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, sorry that I did not see your comment earlier, had I seen it I would have respected the discussion process with you. I disagree that it was a Soapboxing, especially because the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph, so it shouldn't be considered cherry-picking. Please keep in mind that you inadvertently broke a section link elsewhere, and I was fixing it. For anyone & everyone, the link to discuss topic-banning me is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information; it concerns this and other articles related to the Respect for Marriage Act.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph well that is completely false, as anyone who reads the article can see -- generously, one could say that this is discussed in 5 out of 60 paragraphs in the 2015 WaPo article. --JBL (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

excluding information on trustee J. Frederic "Fritz" Rench

What is the objection to including the brief (very brief) discussion of how Frederic Rench contributed to the idea of creating Heritage? It was sourced from a referenced book; and also Rench was a board director (trustee) for many years (making him notable already from my perspective). So what is the real objection here in excluding this brief material? Is there some not-so-obvious reason (for the exclusion) that can be explained? Thanks very much for any information on this. ~~~ L.Smithfield (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources look poor, the content promotional and undue. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On their face, the sources look fine (reliable). I do not see anything "promotional" in the disputed edit. And rather than introducing undue importance, it rather appears that the contribution of Rench to the founding of Heritage was more important and consequential than the contributions of the other founders (aside from Weyrich himself)! L.Smithfield (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've asked twice to explain how the sources might be reliable. [1][2] Are none forthcoming?

As far as I can tell, WP:BLP applies as well. Note it has especially high standards for sources and how they are used. --Hipal (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Due to a recent revelation from User:Godhramm I (personally) consider this matter to be in abeyance. Best regards. L.Smithfield (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to disclose that I am personnaly related to J.F.Rench, which I understand can affect the neutrality of my edit.

My intention is to recall in a simple way his contribution in the creation of The Heritage Foundation, since his name wasn't even mentionned on this article until recently for unknown reasons.

I would like permission to edit the following sentence in the section "Early Years":

"Coors was the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]

in order to change it into :

"Rench drafted the original prospectus, budget, and business plan in 1969. His plan enabled Heritage to attract corporate investors beginning with Coors, who became the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]

The source remains the same as the one already used (historian Lee Edwards' book The Power of Ideas), and I don't think this phrasing undermines Coors' involvement. It simply explains in what way Rench contributed in the first place. Godhramm (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Edwards and his book is not independent of the topic.

I've removed the previous addition of Rench, though minimal mention may be DUE. --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, I'll leave it to other editors. I know the difficulties of finding sources written by authors who aren't conservatives about this matter.

Best Regards Godhramm (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be fine for inclusion. Eruditess (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Activist?

While they certainly are activist, perhaps there's a better description. Would any of the following help?

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/13/heritage-foundation-voter-suppression-lobbying-election-action-plan
• https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/devaluing-the-think-tank
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/10/03/building-a-heritage-in-the-war-of-ideas/94b4f088-c527-4629-89a6-b394ceb7c85c/
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324144304578619640562831244

Hipal (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Aren't all think tanks "activist"? Seems redundant to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No, not all think tanks are activist. Part of Heritage's notability is that they were founded to be activist, something that was rare prior.

More refs we might use:

• https://scholars.org/brief/think-tanks-and-rise-savvy-policy-entrepreneurs
• Think Tanks in America. By Thomas Medvetz

--Hipal (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, well if that's what the sources say I won't stand in the way. Don't have time to do the reading myself right now so I'll self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of Heritage's notability is that they were founded to be activist, something that was rare prior.

Their creation of Heritage Action should be emphasized more in this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)