Talk:Heartland Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^Talk 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^(talk) 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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

Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia: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^(talk) 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)

[1] 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 ^Talk 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)

[2] 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)

DeSmogBlog is not a blog – any more that the The Heartland Institute is an Institute. Both are political advocacy groups – and it the size of their Wikipedia articles can give any guidance – both seem equally notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

It is a blog, and is self published. It can only be used as a source of information on itself not on third parties mark nutley (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by self-published? Not receiving massive amounts of funding from corporate sponsors? More specifically, are you saying, that Richard Littlemore is somehow involved in running DeSmogBlog. In fact, you seem to imply that it is his personal blog. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a self published blog, littlemore is involved in the running of the blog as he works for hoggan, the blogs founder this source fails as wp:sps mark nutley (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you say "he works for hoggan". That does not sound like "self-published", more like the opposite :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

He works for hoggans company, the blog is self published and can`t be used as a source for anything other than itself, i fail to see how you do not understand this mark nutley (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I will quote Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper):

• "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Richard Littlemore is a "professional journalists" and his "blog" on the DeSmogBlog is subject to editorial control. I would say that the appropriate section in WP:RS is Statements of opinion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Were is the proof of editorial control? And it is still a self published blog, it can`t be used as a source mark nutley (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• mark, I suggest you quit arguing with him. It's a blog and it's a self published source, and this certainly doesnt fall within one of the exceptions to self published sources. Let the discussion end -- the content is not going in to the article sourced to DeSmogBlog. Petri, please quit your advocacy at Wikipedia's expense. The "controversy" is mentioned and there's no benefit to adding Littlemore's commentary even if it were reliably sourced. Minor4th 15:26, 4 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 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 ^Talk 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that specifically states Exxon stopped funding Heartland. [3]. 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 22:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian <> Conservative.

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)

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 ^Talk 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^talk 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? [4]. Fell Gleaming^talk 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 ^Talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. MastCell ^Talk 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^talk 22:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, what independent neutral source do you have that lists secondhand smoke as being anywhere near one of Heartland's major political points? Fell Gleaming^talk 22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The second hand smoke thing is not a major issue of theirs, not like global warming. It deserves a small mention in connection with donations by Philip Morris, but not a section of the article devoted to it. The funding section is kind of bizarre though -- this is an advocacy group, so of course they are going to get funding from companies whose interests they promote. The article makes insinuations that there is something sinister about that when there's not. Minor4th 02:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Given how minor the second-hand smoke issue was to the organization's advocacy -- even back 13 years ago from when this material dates -- I'm moving this claim from the lede to the article body. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources state that Heartland met with legislators on behalf of Philip Morris, and then reported back to Philip Morris on their success in winning them over to the corporation's agenda. Heartland also distributed material for Philip Morris, and arranged with the tobacco company to publish "policy studies" which were essentially rehashes of Philip Morris talking points. Heartland also produced op-eds, letters to the editor, and radio interviews for Philip Morris. This is all in the sources, and it suggests that the tobacco industry links are more than a "minor" part of Heartland's history. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No one has responded to the "right-wing" phrasing in a few days. I took the time to look at a few of these "reliable" sources. This one is a BBB piece by an "environmental analyst" clearly antagonistic to the source: [5]. Only problem is, it doesn't call Heartland right-wing. (though it uses the term elsewhere). Here we have a source that actually does call them right wing [6]. An attack piece in a small city-wide newspaper. Hardly a stellar source, there. We have another that's a dead link, then we have the Independent [7] with a piece that describes Heartland as "a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry." Alarm bells should be going off from any neutral editors based on that characterization. In fact, all these sources are attack pieces, written by environmentally-minded 'good citizens' outraged at Heartland's sponsoring of the Climate Conference. I remind editors that WP:RS varies by context, and clearly inaccurate claims should not be included. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To summarize. WP policy places verifiability above truth. This means we only report facts we can verify, whether or not they're true. Some editors misinterpret that, inverting it to, "if we can verify it, we can report it, whether or not it's true". Fallacy. Verifiability alone is a necessary but not sufficient quality for inclusion. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see -- we know that Heartland is not "a right-wing American think tank which receives money from the oil industry" because any such source that says so is not reliable. It turns out there's a term for such an approach. By the way, our good colleague Cla68 would dispute that "clearly inaccurate claims should not be included" so perhaps you should take this up with him.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This has a very simple solution. (a) Lookup definition of "right wing". (b) Lookup policies that Heartland advocates. (c) Note the vast number of discrepancies. You have to do better than "I read it in a newspaper so it must be true" when there is such clear evidence the source is incorrect. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, your explanation above is virtually identical to the definition of synthesis, which is prohibited. Before making such arguments please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies so that you can be sure not to suggest approaches that are prohibited by policy. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I place no faith whatsoever in your interpretation of sources Fell Gleaming. I suggest exercising extreme care in how you (mis)represent sources to further your political agenda. --John (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a pretty unimpeachable source for describing the Heartland Institute as conservative: The Heartland Institute itself, which lists itself in a "Citizen's guide to Conservative Organizations". Right-wing is less encyclopaedic, so let's go with conservative.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I initially went with "conservative" in my own edits, because like you, I found it more encyclopedic than "right-wing". FellGleaming objected to "conservative", because it didn't fit his personal breakdown of the ideological spectrum (see several threads up). In fact, a vast number of independent, reputable, reliable sources describe Heartland as "right-wing" (many are cited in the article at present), so it seemed appropriate to follow these sources. I don't feel strongly about "conservative" vs. "right-wing", although I think the latter has the advantage of being closer to the sources. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So far none of the sources you've offered have been neutral and reliable. Op eds and environmental reporters outraged at Heartland's hosting of a climate conference skeptical of AGW are hardly unbiased sources. The term "right wing" is clearly being used to denigrate and besmirch the organization, rather than accurately report truth. In any case, the point is now moot. Having met Joe Bast on a couple occasions, I know that "Libertarian" is a far more accurate description than conservative, but if they're not objecting to the conservative label, I'll be fighting a losing battle to correct it here. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And as a belated response to SBHB, I have to correct your misapprehensions on WP:SYN. Using our editorial judgement to not use a particular label -- whether or not its accurate -- is not and cannot be synthesis. Synthesis is combining sources within the article, to conclude or imply something not supported by any source. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

SBHB, can you explain this edit [8]? The source reinserted does not support the claim that PM and Heartland worked together. Why was it reinserted? Fell Gleaming^talk 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No response; I assume you're not supporting this edit? Fell Gleaming^talk 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of right-wing, connections to tobacco/oil

I have just reverted an edit that claimed material was being excised in accordance with talkpage. The only part that had been agreed as far as I could see was the descriptor at the top of the page, not the material that notes that Heartland is referred to as "Right-Wing". Further material about connections to the tobacco industry were also taken out clearly against the state of the talkpage. Maybe it was a slip.

What I find very interesting in the debate about the appropriateness of the term "right-wing" is another debate on the use of the term left-wing on the NOR noticeboard here. On that board, a certain editor is advocating describing an organisation as left-wing on the same grounds that he rejects here. The editor in question is under almost constant review (and is currently blocked for edit-warring). I thought I'd note this for when he next turns up. The question is still under debate - but as the revert took out material that hadn't been agreed on as for deletion, I put it back in.

Anyway, I've also added a small bit about Heartland being notable for its connections to oil and tobacco industries - as that is what mainstream media coverage mentions when it mentions AGW skepticism and Heartland's history. The sourcing may need repositioning, but it's all there in that paragraph.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so user:Arthur Rubin's taken out the mention of links to tobacco and oil companies in the lede. I honestly think it's one of the notable things about Heartland. We don't have to be nice about an organisation in the lede, we just mustn't be biased about it. I don't think it's POV to mention it. Many very mainstream media reports highlight past funding associations, and the fact of it is without question. Anyone else? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough for the lede, but I removed it because you also inserted multiple blank lines between and within the links. I'm not sure that FG isn't wrong in removing the entire sentence from the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of reverting was that he was wrong to claim it was talk page consensus (the excision of reference to tobacco connections was clearly not) - and he could be found arguing the opposite case elsewhere, so his position needed to be treated with a certain circumspection. The reference to being "rightwing" I can see as being POV in the lede - it might perhaps go in the main text. But Heartland regularly turns up in RS media coverage of astroturfing, and in individual profiles of the company there is typically mention of the links to industries on behalf of whose interests it has lobbied. It's part of its notability, far more than as a free-market foundation per se. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that we should present in the lede the institute entirely on its own terms. That's not NPOV. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous independent, reliable sources highlight Heartland's connections to the oil and tobacco industries. I don't think we can write an encyclopedic lead which satisfies this site's guidelines and adequately summarizes the topic without mentioning this particular elephant. The connection with Philip Morris, in particular, is documented (by reliable secondary sourceS) to go well beyond simple receipt of funding. That said, I think this version, to which Arthur reverted, adequately covers this aspect. MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I reverted to MastCell, not to FellGleaming. I tend to agree with FG, but I'm not convinced enough to remove an adequately sourced statement for a claim of WP:UNDUE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am with MastCell here. --John (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian

I've restored [9] two removed categories related to libertarianism because the institute itself quotes with approval Milton Friedman's description of Heartland as "a highly effective libertarian institute." [10]. Poking around on the site it's also evident that the Institute goes out of its way to promote libertarianism. --TS 14:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see the argument. The organisation describes itself as free-market, but that isn't quite the same as libertarian, although the approved endorsement by Friedman would push us in the direction of accepting the label on grounds of self-description. Its most dominant activity these days seems to be in the area of climate change, which has little to do with libertarianism. It's been accused by respectable sources of being corporate lobbyists or a corporate front group. Then again, defending corporate interests against government control is a form of libertarianism. On balance, I would take the approval of Friedman's view and agree with Tony that it's appopriately tagged as libertarian.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Then put it in the article. Less work than what is written above. Note that I remember when they really were libertarian and even published articles by me about breaking up the United States. (Also note I did this to bunch of articles that didn't have refs so not just picking on them. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Balkanisation of the US? Wow. Finally a real solution to (most of) the world's problems. How much success did you have? Hans Adler 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Things have barely gotten going. Secession in the United States, Vermont Republic, Leopold Kohr, Kirkpatrick Sale, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oil and gas funding

The funding section includes this sentence "Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute..." For balance, perhaps this sentences from the NYT link should be added:

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Heartland documents was what they did not contain: evidence of contributions from the major publicly traded oil companies, long suspected by environmentalists of secretly financing efforts to undermine climate science.

Is this the best way of providing balance, or does someone have a better idea. I don't like the idea of removing the existing claim, because I assume it is true that the energy companies donated in the past, but the NYT quote seems on point. (BTW, I made this a new section, because while it occurs in an article about the "leaks", it isn't directly about the "leak" per se.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper, implicit synthesis?

I am concerned about this sentence:

Documents surreptitiously obtained from the Heartland Institute and then leaked to public websites in February 2012 disclosed the names of a number of donors to the institute—including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, Microsoft, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who has given $13 million over the past five years—as well as the recipients of the institute's largesse—climate skeptics including Craig Idso, physicist Fred Singer, Robert Carter, and Anthony Watts.

A long sentence, but it says that various entities gave money to HI and HI gave money to climate skeptics. Two truthful facts, but combining them in the same sentence inadvertently leaves the reader with the impression that these entities were funding climate skeptics.

We see claims that the Koch money was used for healthcare research. We see claims that the Microsoft "donation" was part of a program by Microsoft to provide free licenses for certain Microsoft products, which makes it a stretch to imply that Microsoft is funding climate skeptics.

At the moment, I'm simply identifying the problem, I'll think though my own proposal for improvement, but others are encouraged to consider this issue and make proposals.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I put that sentence together that way for the sake of brevity. Personally, I don't think it implies a causal connection, but I'd have no objections to breaking it up into two or more sentences. Sindinero (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We already have a section of the article on Funding, and a section, with several subections identifying the recipients (The_Heartland_Institute#Positions). To the extent that these new documents add information that relates to either funding sources, or recipients, it would be natural, and consistent with the existing structure, to add the meaningful points to those sections, along with the references. I don't see any value in having a separate section, discussing these two aspects in a single sentence or even a single section, as it leaves the impression of a linkage when there is none. I agree there should be some mention of the leaking incident, but it should discuss the leaking incident. To the extent that the leaked documents add useful information for the Positions or the Funding sections, that material belongs in the existing sections. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. When reworking the leak section yesterday, my main concern was to summarize the event, the reactions, and the known contents of the documents according to the news sources. You're right that redundancies should be avoided - feel free to trim down/delete the parts you feel are replicated elsewhere. Sindinero (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable. I have a couple balls in the air at the moment, but will try to find to time to address it, I'm going slowly, partly because there's no deadline, and partly to give others a chance to weigh in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic has an interesting breakdown on these "documents" (we need to try out a neologism like fakuments for these). We have to be careful we don't repeat the lies. I'd delete that whole run-on sentence. Fromthehill (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Operation Angry Badger

The sentence about this issue says:

The documents also disclosed Heartland's plans for “Operation Angry Badger”, to be allocated $612,000 "to influence the outcome of Wisconsin's recall elections" in apparent violation of Federal tax laws that nonprofit organizations must follow.

[emphasis added]

The source doesn't make this claim. The source notes "that tax-exempt groups ... are prohibited from direct involvement in political campaigns." but it doesn't say that the plan qualifies. They leave it to the reader to connect the dots. That's OK for them to do, but not us. Unless someone can find a more direct quote stating that this plan violates the law, the wording needs to be changed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The source does not say that. It is OR and POV. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Document leaks

Bad astronomy mentions this here. This looks like it will generate some inbound traffic to the wiki. Fromthehill (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be some fun there. Note for example that "no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget" now looks to have been very carefully crafted, since an anon individual supplied 20%! William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged this as current, as events are still unfolding. Note that Heartland's position is that one specific document (not the fundraising plan) is fake and the validity if others is not confirmed or denied. Babakathy (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This needs some attention. One of the documents, notably the one with the interesting quote

two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science

is almost certainly a fake.

I think the whole paragraph should be removed until the facts are a little clearer, and a more balanced treament can be written. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I removed "all of whom are denying the data about man-made global warming" as it is not supported by the Scientific American source.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the link to desmogblog for two reasons. First, it is a blog. A blog is not automatically an unacceptable link, but the valid uses of a blog as a source are narrowly prescribed, and I don't think this meets the exceptions. Please feel free to comment if you disagree. Second, I presume the reason for the link is a convenience link to the documents. However, http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents Heartland claims] that the release involves "actions [which]constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses". I don't think we should be linking to a site which may be hosting such materials until the facts are clearer, and we can assure ourselves that such a link is appropriate.

I still think the whole paragraph should be removed, and rewritten neutrally, but I'm looking for consensus on that proposal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor point, the 90K to Watts is incorrect. Not a big deal, as the correct amount is 88K, but still wrong. I'm not going to bother making the correction, as the broader issue of whether the inclusion is merited should be discussed first. If the consensus is that the mention is warranted, we can correct it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the desmogblog should survive (after all it is notable enough on this topic - Time says so here ) but in the end as it is the one making the fake document claims so it is a primary source. Forbes has some commentary on this here but so far it is he-says-she-says. I guess we wait. Fromthehill (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting an award helps notability, but WP:N isn't the issue, the issue is whether it is an WP:RS. I believe the answer is no. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A primary source is inherently reliable for information about its own content. That is, DeSmog, like the vast majority of internet blogs, would not be a 'reliable source' (as defined by Wikipedia) for determining whether the information in the documents is accurate, but the documents on DeSmog are inarguably a reliable source for what those documents themselves actually say. As to accuracy of the information; Idso, Carter, and Watts have all confirmed the payments. Heartland has confirmed the 'education' plan. Microsoft, GM, Koch, and other companies have confirmed their donations. All of which has been reported by various newspapers which are 'reliable sources'. Thus, other than the strategy memo, which I didn't see any material from in the current article, numerous details of the memos have been confirmed and not one detail has been specifically challenged by Heartland. There was a similar, 'we cannot verify that none of the messages have been altered', disclaimer in the early days of the CRU hack. Just as now, the content then was reported as accurate based on the verified portions and the lack of any specific claims of inaccuracy. --CBD 11:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The link to DeSmobBlog is definitely acceptable, as it is not about the comments on the blog (which of course, can be written by everyone and are not a source of information) but because the blog is hosting the leaked documents (be they real or not) and the people need to have access to them to create their own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.89.55 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A heading once read "Leaked documents", which was changed to "stolen and fake" then changed back to "Leaked documents". The phrase "stolen and fake" sounds a bit harsh to me, not very encyclopedic, but "leaked" appears to be factually in error, so we need a better term. Any suggestions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Factually erroneous in what regard, exactly? Because it includes a document that may be fake among the others? The fact that they were stolen doesn't seem relevent to me, as they were still leaked, and that's why the media is covering them. Perhaps as the situation clears up somewhat, we can give it a more "historical" sounding name, something like "February 2012 document leak"? Sindinero (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "leak" to me, implies someone inside released some documents deliberately to someone who shouldn't have received them. That isn't what is alleged to have happened. Someone outside claimed to be an authorized person, and duped someone inside into sending out some material. Separately, a forged document was created, that was neither leaked nor stolen. I realize not all the facts are in yet, but I haven't even heard an allegation that any documents were leaked (although I have seen that word used in a headline.) Maybe the word "leak" means different things to different people, but if I call you up and lie to you, and convince you to send me something, you haven't "leaked" it, I've obtained it under false pretenses. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but then distributing it to the press would be the leak, IMO. Sindinero (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Has it even been alleged that the docs were distributed to the press (I'm asking, I don't know)? I thought the person who managed to obtain them arranged to have them posted at a blog, which doesn't yet qualify as the press AFAIK. I thought the press simply read what was posted, and reported on it (in most cases, failing to do any due diligence, but that's an aside.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, in today's media climate there's no better way of getting things to the press than putting it on the internets. I still think "leak" is the best word here:

1. A similar article, on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, uses the term to describe a parallel scenario,
2. The dictionary defines leak (transitive verb, sense 11) as "to allow to become known, as information given out covertly: to leak the news of the ambassador's visit."
3. And most importantly, the NYT source itself and pieces on the Guardian, etc. use the word "leak" to describe this. As far as I understand, we have to report what the sources say. Sindinero (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You cannot say these docs were leaked, they were stolen. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the above? Those are all compelling reasons why we should use "leaked" instead of "stolen". Stolen documents can also be leaked. To leak means to allow to become known. The NYT source uses leaks. It's also extremely bad faith to tag up an article because you're not having your way with it. If you want those maintenance templates there, spell out what you think is original research or factually in doubt. "Leaked" is neutral language supported by what the sources say. Sindinero (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care what the sources say, they are wrong. They were stolen, not leaked. One is an utter fabrication yet is being quoted as if were gospel. And removal of tags when I have already explained why the article is factually wrong and contains OR reeks of ownership and POV pushing. I will tag the article again when time allows until such a time as it is in fact accurate. I wil llook back again in a week or so. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with what you say here. One is a basic incomprehension of English words. Look up "leak" for yourself, please, I beseech you - it does not contradict "steal." In this case, the documents could be leaked after they were stolen. To "leak" a document doesn't mean to publish something you own anyway, so in a sense some measure of illicit behavior is already implicit in "leak".

More glaringly, you say "I really do not care what the sources say, they are wrong." That attitude is the quintessence of OR and POV pushing. You can throw around vague policy terms all you want, but it's probably clear to any impartial and intelligent reader that you're the one violating them. I'd only add that if you are privy to such inside information that you know that the sources are wrong, you should definitely read WP:COI. WP:COMPETENCE too, in any case. Sindinero (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DS, I understand your frustration, but we do have to care what the sources say. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The comparison to Climatic Research Unit email controversy is not apt, as the situations are not known to be parallel. For one thing, there is an explanation of how the non-fake documents were obtained. I haven't seen any challenges to this explanation. In contrast, we don't yet know how the CRU documents were obtained, we only have speculation. Second, one of the key docs is almost certainly a fake, and that wasn't alleged in the case of the CRU, so the facts and circumstances are quite different.

Let's please return to the question I asked - given that the current wording, even after I removed the more egregious errors, is still a mishmash of incomplete facts, some errors, and poorly written, I think it would be best to remove it all, and work out on the talk page some wording that neutrally describes the situation. I haven't heard any opposition to that suggestion, so unless there is a good case made that the current wording is perfectly fine as is, or only needs trivial copy-editing, I plan to remove it, and we can sort out a proper addition as facts emerge. (Note, I have no authority to insist that you respond to my question, but I could simply be Bold and remove the poorly worded addition - I chose to be cautious in case many felt that the addition was in good shape. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to gain consensus. I still don't think that the way the documents were obtained has a bearing on whether they can be said to be "leaked," and I think "surreptitiously obtained" is a good, neutral way of stating how they got out before more facts come in. As far as your main question goes, my tendency would be against deleting the section - this is a current issue, and I think it would be strange not to have any mention of it for the people that will invariably come looking. What if it were stripped down to a bare minimum (surreptitious documents were leaked to the press that outline a plan to undercut scientific consensus on global warming in school curricula; at least one document is avowed to be false by the Heartland Institute - I think the NYT source easily supports that). Then we can hash out a detailed version on the talk page and add it in as we can. Is that acceptable? Sindinero (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

More sources: [11][12][13][14] Several of them use the word "leak," but if we really wanted to avoid that word at all costs, we could call the section "Unauthorized release of documents, February 2012" There's enough material in these sources to support inclusion of an attempt to undercut climate science as well. Sindinero (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, yes. My concern about "leak"" is the least of my concerns. I'm happy to work out something now, but this page doesn't have a lot of traffic, so I'm interested in avoiding having material up for many days that is demonstrably wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we shouldn't have any material up that isn't supported by the sources. Just to clarify, though - is there anywhere in the current version you feel this is the case? Then we should delete that. I still feel that even one or two stripped-down sentences are better for the time being than nothing. Sindinero (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, a minor point, but the "single pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts" should be 88K. And there need to be inclusion of the allegations of forgery or fake.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. Is there any source that claims [that Heartland claims] more than one fake? Sindinero (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Heartland had some weasel wording IIRC covering the possibility that there may be other issues, but AFAIK, only one doc is considered a fake.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm running out shortly - I thought you were going to take a stab at some wording? I encourage you to do so.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put something together. Where did you get the 88,000 figure? The SA piece has 90,000. Sindinero (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, instead of stripping it down to a bare-bones sentence or two, I ended up reworking that section entirely. Nothing I put in is not in the sources, and I tried to use the most neutral, flat language possible. Let me know what you think. Sindinero (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(out)Do you not think having this and is now promoting public school curricula designed to increase confusion and challenge the mainstream science on climate change in the lede knowing it is based on a fake document is not a little stupid? Also if you do not remove the BLP violation regarding Watts I will. He did not receive funding from HI. This was already explained to you. They found someone to fund his project, there is a big difference there. Get it right or do not edit the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, please use a little collegiality. I see efforts to get it right.

@Sindinero, the SA article gets the 90K from the forged document. I looked at one of the legit documents , and it included 88K for Watts. IIRC, it was a pledge of 88K, with $$K paid now, and presumably the rest later. To DS's point, Heartland found someone to provide the funding to Watts. That might not be the same as funding form HI itself. I don't know enough about the in and outs of grant funding to know whether it is a substantive difference, but I'll see if I can track down the source, and we should take care to write neutrally, reflecting non-forged docs, although of course, we have to stay away from OR.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

See Page 4 and page 18 of [this document].

It confirms my recollection that the amount is 88,000, of which half is paid now, and the other half contingent on further funding. Watts name is not mentioned, so we have to be careful how to characterize it, although it is obviously his project.

Of course, the link is to a primary doc, so we can't use it directly, but it should be sufficient to challenge the use of the 90K, which comes from a forged document. We have to go with what sources say, but I hope we aren't forced to parrot them when they are demonstrably wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 04:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"In 2011, the Institute received $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[30]"
That figure comes from the fake document. The "Fundraising Plan" says $25k in 2011, with $200k projected for 2012.
—WWoods (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If I can ask: what RS do we have that proves that the one document is fake? All I've seen so far in the NYT, Guardian, and SA articles is that the institute has claimed that one is a fake. Shouldn't our own coverage reflect that? Sindinero (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need absolute proof that the document is fake. We can note the controversy, and discuss dueling RSs making different claims, but we cannot simply present material coming from a forged document without, at a minimum, noting the concerns. These aren't fringe concerns from out unrelated party - Heartland says it isn't true, and Koch says it isn't true. It would be the height of irresponsibility to cite a "fact" that is sourced to a forged document. I'll look for RS to support the controversy, in the meantime, we need to remove the claim as is, and discuss how it should be included, if at all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with what you say, but the fact that these claims come from very interested parties should provoke, if not suspicion, then certainly editorial caution. My concern would be that we repeat a claim (the document is fake) as a fact. What if we modify the sentence about the claim of forgery to specify that the document claimed to be a fake is the one with the information about their curricular plans? How does that sound? Sindinero (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned/confused that other editors are referring to a document alleged to be a fake as simply "a forged document" or "the fake document." Is there a source that I'm missing? Shouldn't we be treating this allegation with a little more distance? I think we can balance concerns about not wanting to irresponsibly report claims from a potentially forged document with some caution about giving too much premature credence to the claim that the document is a fake. I mean, right? Sindinero (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't state that the document is fake or forged (as opposed to reporting that it has been so alleged) in the article but we can refer to a forged article on this talk page as a forged article. (I don't see any such references in the article) I can't add a sentence to the article (without a ref) saying the sun is shining at the moment, but I don't need such niceties on the talk page. It isn't like there is any doubt, is there? AFAIK, there isn't a single claim from anyone that even alleges it is valid, no claimed author exists, no chaim of custody for the documents, and we don't even know provided it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Convenience break

Here is the link to the release from Koch explaining that the amount was 25,000 not 200,000, and it was earmarked for health care, not climate change. This is a primary document, but primary documents are allowed to show what the author is saying. In light of the fact that the donor claims that it isn't true, we can still include it as a verifiable fact if there is sufficient evidence in support, but media report traced to a forged document doesn't, IMO meet that hurdle.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As a Bandaid, I've added a qualification to the funding claim. It is awkwardly wording, and my recommendation is that the whole sentence be removed, but lets see how the other RSs report this. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no objection concerning the Koch donation amount; but in keeping with policy on primary sources, we should probably indicate that the Koch foundation has denied the amount of 200,000 (etc.) - like you say, the primary source can show that claims have been made, but we still have to treat the factual question (how much money they actually gave, and for what purpose) with some critical distance, IMO, until better sources come through. As for the education claim - are you satisfied with the way it's now worded in the leak section? Sindinero (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet reviewed the education claim; that one will be tricky, balancing the legitimate aims to provide education, with the allegations that it was disinformation. I have a problem with another sentence, will address it first, and get back to this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the education section, I think it is flawed, but that's because the reporting is flawed, not that you erred. McCaffrey issued a quote, relying on the "McCaffrey", but didn't clarify whether he meant the document we now know to be false (he almost certainly did mean that one, but it would be OR to allege it) or other documents, or independent knowledge that was confirmed by something he saw. It would be far better if someone actually looking at the educational materials and opined on their content, but absent that, if McCaffrey wants to stick his neck out based upon flawed information, I don't know that we can simply dismiss him. This section may have to wait until better information emerges to get it right, in the meantime, it is verifiable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit to global warming section

heading inserted for clarity.Babakathy (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As there was no reference whatsoever to the new information concerning the documents being fake or the statementes of Mr. Gleick, I reset the global warming paragraph to its prior state until references are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.18.188 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The above anonymous edit by 85.178.18.188 was reverted by 217.114.172.69, with the reason for reverting given as Undid revert without explanation of the change. Please discuss it on the talk page before reverting again. In fact the anon did explain above, so I revereted the revert (i.e. put the page back so that the edit by 85.178.18.188 was still reflected. I have done this because the reason for reversion by 217.114.172.69 was not valid.

As to the merits, the text removed by 85.178.18.188 is in a paragraph where the only citation is the SciAm article. However that article does not contain any information on the source of the leak, or the purpose of Anthony Watts' grant, which are the two main issues in the text removed by the edit. On this basis I think that 85.178.18.188 was correct, and the text should only go back in if properly sourced. Further, the matter of the source of the leak is covered elsewhere in the article so that part does not need to go back in here. Babakathy (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Babakathy, thanks for your explanation. I did not see the comments on the talk page, however I think that reversions should provide a comment also on the edit summary, possibly referring to the talk page. Also 1) if an editor thinks that references are missing he/ she can mark the text with a citation needed tag and 2) the purpose of Anthony Watt's grant is clearly stated in one of the documents already referenced by the note. I am adding the required references and reverting again, if you think there is any further change or improvement to the section please discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udippuy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Udippuy I concur with you on content, but I think we do need a better ref for Watt's grant usage: practice as per the CRU leak Q2 & Q3 indicate we should not link to the leaked documents nor use (most) blogs as sources, and the only ref we have for the purpose of Watt's grant is Desmog's post of one of the leaked documents. The other three grants are covered by SciAm, as is the fact of Watt's grant but not its purpose. Babakathy (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is agreement here that we should not use the blog as a source, except possibly where the contents of the blog are commented on by reliable sources. I've removed the entry, and restoration of comments about living people sourced to the blog should be reverted immediately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that you removed material that was cited by SciAm, putting that back in.Babakathy (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I kept all the material not explicitly sourced to the blog. If there is other material which was in SciAm, you can put it back, but not sourced to the blog, unless perhaps specifically noted "according to DeSmogBlog", and then, still not naming names. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What I have just put back in is from SciAm (second para under Funding Skepticism). Hope I got the en-US correct. Babakathy (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether quoting Sci-Am quoting DeSmogBlog making assertions about living people is a WP:BLP violation is a close call. I won't remove that immediately, but I have brought it up in WP:BLPN#The Heartland Institute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. What would be helpful is if we could find out the detail to SciAm's statement that some of the scientists confirmed the payments. If we get a RS as to who confirmed what then it is clearer.Babakathy (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Carter and Watts confirmed per SciAm Editor's update.Babakathy (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Senior Fellows

Singer and Idso are "senior fellows" of Heartland [15], not sure if that means they are staff but surely payments to them would be expected? Babakathy (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps rephrase to mention that payments to them have been alleged? and that they are Senior Fellows of HI? Babakathy (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Education Project

To me the sentence on funding for materials for teachers that you marked is also covered by SciAm.Babakathy (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)