Talk:Heartland Institute

The best people

Eugene Koprowski

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/01/right-wing-think-tank-protected-violent-exec-who-allegedly-stalked-a-colleague/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.15.138 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 14:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Picture of the Heartland Institute building in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

The Heartland Institute → Heartland Institute – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). The definite article would not be capitalized in running text and is therefore not considered to be part of the name of the institution per the naming convention. Place Clichy (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Their logo contains the words "The Heartland Institute", and a charity record here shows their address and mission statement beginning with the word "The". If this and other links confirm their title, then I don't think that the page should be moved (but I haven't had time to make a thorough search). Esowteric+Talk 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The picture of their HQ shown on the main page shows a logo with "Heartland" without an article, their website is at heartland dot org (no article) and throughout the main page there is consistent usage of the Heartland Institute without a capital, which is usually the key indication that use of the article is not warranted or considered an integral part of the name. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the usage in recent sources is mixed. Their website copyright notice and social media account names omit "The". I don't think their logo's inclusion of it should count much. WP:THE's standard is "almost always used", and that's not the case here. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of their own publications as source material

Given their nature, I think we need to be extra careful to avoid WP:SOAP and WP:ABOUTSELF problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Especially in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Policy positions section introduction

The paragraph includes the sentence:

The institute promotes climate change denial, advocates for smoker's rights, for the privatization of public resources including school privatization, for school vouchers, for lower taxes and against subsidies and tax credits for individual businesses, and against an expanded federal role in health care, among other issues.

It's been tagged since 2016. The person who tagged it did not take part in any relevant discussions at the time that I can see. One editor that might have supported the tag that was discussing related issues was blocked. Regarding the content, my initial impression is that this is a summarizing statement and sources can simply be drawn from the relevant subsections below. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2020 election

In 2024, the organization put out a paper entitled “Who really won the 2020 election? Measuring the effect of mail-in ballot fraud in the Trump-Biden race for the White House.” https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Feb-24-2020-Election-Analysis-vWeb_Final.pdf . I think this should be added to their significant positions. Kdammers (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you find any sources, that are both independent and reliable, that support any presentation? --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My point is not about the validity of their position but that its existence. The poll presented in the paper is discussed by marketwatch (https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/heartland-rasmussen-poll-one-in-five-mail-in-voters-admit-to-committing-at-least-one-kind-of-voter-fraud-during-2020-election-4f75059b), but I don't know if market watch is independent and reliable. Vision Times is not reliable (since they are under the umbrella of Epoch Times), but they also covered the topic: https://www.visiontimes.com/2024/02/13/voter-fraud-was-widespread-during-2020-presidential-election-and-influenced-results-the-heartland-institute-finds.html .

Here is an independent and reliable source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/12/trump-rasmussen-poll-2020-election-fraud/, which is very critical of the poll's results as reported. I think that should be enough to warrant inclusion of the report. 136.36.180.215 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the potential refs and your comments on them.

The first is a press release, so not independent. The second, Vision Times, should not be used per the reasons you give.

We could use the third, (archived here). It doesn't verify that it is one of their "significant positions". What can we say about it, relevant to Heartland? That it's not credible? If that's all the coverage we can actually use, is it WP:DUE any mention? --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the opinion column in the WaPo, I don't see any meaningful references to either the poll or the Heartland paper. In addition to plain web searching, I tried AP news reports and the Election Law Blog. I looked at the contents of several recent symposia and law review roundups on election law, and did not find a single mention. The Rasmussen poll gets some mention in right-wing blogs and media. But it seems to me nobody who takes election law and news seriously takes this poll seriously. I'm a little surprised, but I vote for not-notable. -- M.boli (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo Finance(https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heartland-rasmussen-poll-one-five-161100197.html, takes the poll at face value without noting nuances pointed out by other articles), MSN (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-poll-alleges-over-20-of-mail-in-voters-admit-to-cheating-in-2020-and-media-is-silent/ar-AA1lAL4S, long discourse on the poll); On R. Poll in general: Mediabias (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rasmussen-reports/, right-leaning, mostly factual, highly credible), Time (https://time.com/6278254/polls-trump-biden-2024/ - passing contrast) Kdammers (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this reinforces what I have found.

• The first reference is the Heartland press release. (Yahoo Finance is largely an aggregator site.)
• MSN reprinted an opinion piece from the right-wing The Western Journal written by a right-wing libertarian commenter, who complains that the regular news media have ignored this poll. Which is the point.

This Rasmussen poll has hardly been reported on by the regular news media, only very right-wing outlets. Note The Western Journal is "Generally Unreliable" in WP:RSP. I didn't find any references in what would be logical academic circles. It is possible that this poll's results will catch the attention of election experts, so far it hasn't. It is possible that other groups will try to replicate the findings. But so far it seems to me to have been noticed mostly in very selective unreliable circles. -- M.boli (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your assessment of those references and your conclusion. --Hipal (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Other sources and general approach:

• https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-latest-grenade-for-the-trump-hating-media/ Spectator Australia
• https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/trump-likely-won-the-2020-election-after-all. This is a poor source according to Wikipedia's reliability list, but my point in listing it is to show that Heartland material is getting a response (in the right-wing echo chamber).

The Rasmussen polling in general is noted as follows "The accuracy of Rasmussen's polling has varied considerably in recent U.S. presidential elections (2000–2016). Some poll watchers, including Patrick Caddell, have lauded Rasmussen Reports, while others, such as Chris Cillizza, have questioned its accuracy. FiveThirtyEight gave the firm an overall rating of "B", reporting it had a 1.5-point bias in favor of the Republican Party" in the Wikipedia article on it.

My point in trying to get this position included in the Heartland article is that it is of a piece with their other (in some cases more extreme) positions, that it *has* been noticed by other outlets (including the WaPo), the institute has pushed this position (there are more than one Heartland statements it has made on this survey as found in Google News searches), and it reflects the tenor of the organization. Finally, go to the organization's home-page: in giant letters, by far the largest (and on my laptop screen, the only) content is the headline "WHO REALLY WON THE 2020 ELECTION?" How can this not be some-thing to include in an article about this institute? Kdammers (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)