Jump to content

Talk:The Heritage Foundation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

POV tag added

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

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

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

Overstated claims in "Trump administration" section of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You undid both of my edits but only described one in your response here. Please also address my edit with the description: The recommendations weren’t for the Trump administration. The recommendations were for a “potentially forthcoming Republican administration”, as the lead sentence for this paragraph states.
I believe you are incorrect that my edits are not an improvement. Please describe how I am incorrect in edits, with explicit excerpts of the source material that demonstrate how my edits were not an improvement. It is up to the person making a statement of fact - such as these statements in text of the Wikipedia article - to demonstrate that the article correctly reflects the sources. Please justify your claim that the Heritage Foundation "signaled support for Trump early on", and state your objection to my edit with the edit description above.
If you don't work with me here to come to a compromise or consensus, I'll be forced to add a "not in source" tag to both sources to get more visibility on the issue. Alternately, I will investigate mediation.
208.115.85.240 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly encourage you to seek mediation. Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
> Also, it's a bit weird how an account with a single edit to his/her name prior to today knows about tags and mediation.
Rather than ad hominem insinuations, I encourage you to focus on the edits I've made and your refusal to either a. show evidence that they're non-constructive or b. show evidence that the article accurately captures the cited works.
If you have specific concerns related to the number of edits my current IP address has made vs. my apparent knowledge of Wikipedia, then I'm sure there's somewhere you can air that concern.
I'm disappointed that you've refused to work with me.
I'll seek mediation.
69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently mediation isn't what's appropriate here:
Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. Wikipedia:Mediation
I've described the thinking behind my edits. You have not provided anything defending your reverts except saying, 'they're wrong'.
As you've been unwilling to work with me in any way, I'll take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard didn't sound like the right place for this. Instead I've posted to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard:
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_Heritage_Foundation#Overstated_claims_in_"Trump_administration"_section_of_article
That direct link to the proper section doesn't work (at least in Firefox,) but it at least points to the right page.
69.143.175.242 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the CNN source does say that Heritage "... would have advised any candidate who'd listen, even Hillary Clinton if she'd been interested." However it also emphasizes the Foundation's close ties with the Trump administration specifically. Sure, it's possible that they could have advised any "forthcoming Republican administration", but the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role.
This involvement is significant regardless of whether it has more to do with the Administration's choice or the Foundation's willingness to cooperate. –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Which of my edits do you think are unconstructive, reduce the quality of the article, or don't accurately describe the sources? Rather than talking in general terms, I think we should focus specifically on my edits and my choice of words vs. the sources. I think focusing specifically on the edits and the reverts is the best way to achieve consensus.
For example, this is edit 2 of 2. What statements in the citations back up the original phrasing?
  • Before: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for positions in the Trump administration ended up getting them.
  • After: According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for those positions ended up getting them in the Trump administration.
Thanks.
Edit: "the fact is that Trump is the one who filled this role." That's true. The article overstates the amount of signalling of support of, and coordination with, the Trump campaign, versus what the sources say. That's what I'm trying to fix.
2601:142:100:DDF5:40D6:836E:D33A:9E37 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"Which of my edits..." This is your first edit....using this account, and that's confusing. Stick to one account by registering. That way you'll start building some cred here. Right now you're IP hopping, and that's not good. You don't have a collected contribution history in one place, so no cred. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion. I think my issues are straightforward enough and explicit enough that it should not require any particular level of credibility to address. I do concede that my changing IP address is confusing.
Since no one has provided any text from the sources to support the claims in the article, I will tag with Template:Request quotation and take this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if my edit is reverted and no one will back up the claims in the article.
Thanks. 69.143.175.242 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Controversy?

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

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

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

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


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

Thanks for your question. No. This article should not have a Controversy section. See WP:Criticism. – Lionel(talk) 07:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
If you wanted more information on their involvement, you could add a section called something like "Support of anti-Communists." It could explain what they did, why they did it, and why it was controversial. Calling it something like "Controversy over support of anti-Communists" is biased. TFD (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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


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

The Foundation promoted the Reagan Doctrine in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua and other nations of the world Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Earlier, in 2015, Anderson questioned the basis for which marriage equality could be denied to same-sex throuples, with marriage equality being assumed for same-sex couples.[1] An executive for the Heritage Foundation co-signed a letter opposing the Act; the letter was addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell and was also signed by the leaders of other socially conservative organizations and institutions.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ The right finds a fresh voice on same-sex marriage by Robert Barnes, Washington Post, April 15, 2015
  2. ^ Republicans stay mum as Senate pushes toward same-sex marriage vote by Mike DeBonis, Washington Post, July 26, 2022
  3. ^ July 26, 2022 Letter to Senate Minority Leader McConnell from the Alliance Defending Freedom, Politico, page 3; for more about the letter, see Tony Perkins (politician) § Respect for Marriage Act

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

A discussion about the addition of this content has been opened at WP:AN. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hipal, sorry that I did not see your comment earlier, had I seen it I would have respected the discussion process with you. I disagree that it was a Soapboxing, especially because the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph, so it shouldn't be considered cherry-picking. Please keep in mind that you inadvertently broke a section link elsewhere, and I was fixing it. For anyone & everyone, the link to discuss topic-banning me is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information; it concerns this and other articles related to the Respect for Marriage Act.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
the 2015 article especially focuses on the topic of the paragraph well that is completely false, as anyone who reads the article can see -- generously, one could say that this is discussed in 5 out of 60 paragraphs in the 2015 WaPo article. --JBL (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

excluding information on trustee J. Frederic "Fritz" Rench

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

The sources look poor, the content promotional and undue. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
On their face, the sources look fine (reliable). I do not see anything "promotional" in the disputed edit. And rather than introducing undue importance, it rather appears that the contribution of Rench to the founding of Heritage was more important and consequential than the contributions of the other founders (aside from Weyrich himself)! L.Smithfield (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've asked twice to explain how the sources might be reliable. [1][2] Are none forthcoming?
As far as I can tell, WP:BLP applies as well. Note it has especially high standards for sources and how they are used. --Hipal (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Due to a recent revelation from User:Godhramm I (personally) consider this matter to be in abeyance. Best regards. L.Smithfield (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to disclose that I am personnaly related to J.F.Rench, which I understand can affect the neutrality of my edit.
My intention is to recall in a simple way his contribution in the creation of The Heritage Foundation, since his name wasn't even mentionned on this article until recently for unknown reasons.
I would like permission to edit the following sentence in the section "Early Years":
"Coors was the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]
in order to change it into :
"Rench drafted the original prospectus, budget, and business plan in 1969. His plan enabled Heritage to attract corporate investors beginning with Coors, who became the primary funder of the Heritage Foundation in its early years."[8]
The source remains the same as the one already used (historian Lee Edwards' book The Power of Ideas), and I don't think this phrasing undermines Coors' involvement. It simply explains in what way Rench contributed in the first place. Godhramm (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Edwards and his book is not independent of the topic.
I've removed the previous addition of Rench, though minimal mention may be DUE. --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned on my talk page, I'll leave it to other editors. I know the difficulties of finding sources written by authors who aren't conservatives about this matter.
Best Regards Godhramm (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be fine for inclusion. Eruditess (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Activist?

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

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

Aren't all think tanks "activist"? Seems redundant to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
No, not all think tanks are activist. Part of Heritage's notability is that they were founded to be activist, something that was rare prior.
More refs we might use:
--Hipal (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Huh, well if that's what the sources say I won't stand in the way. Don't have time to do the reading myself right now so I'll self-revert. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Description of "early years"

The early years section of the article says "The Heritage Foundation advocated for pro-business policies, anti-communism, and neoconservatism in its early years, but distinguished itself from the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) by also advocating for the Christian right. But throughout the 1970s, the Heritage Foundation remained small relative to Brookings and AEI." The link is to this book. The description of the book that you can see if you don't have the book doesn't describe the organization in any of those ways. Whether those adjectives could be seen as friendly to the organization and accurate, or the reverse, they come across as loaded one way or the other so I wonder if there's some RS that supports them. Novellasyes (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Added here by @Thenightaway:
There are page numbers. What does it say on those pages about The Heritage Foundation? --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The relevant pages can be accessed here[3]. It's unclear which parts of those sentences you dispute. If it's the Christian right stuff, page 78 says: "Heritage’s focus on so- called social issues important to the emergent Christian conservative grass roots of the 1970s is particularly noteworthy in that other conservative think tanks like AEI did not focus on such issues at all... Heritage, throughout the 1970s and especially into the 1980s catered to all of these AEI positions but also never neglected Christian conservatism." The other pages in the ref should substantiate the other parts. Thenightaway (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I had missed this link and thanks for pointing that out. When I click on it, just to make sure I'm understanding what I am seeing there, what I'm seeing are seven one-paragraph-each summaries of the introduction, five chapters, and the book's conclusion. Is that what we are supposed to be looking at to substantiate the way it is summarized on our article? Novellasyes (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that you're unable to access the actual pages cited? --Hipal (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
That is what I'm saying. I might be doing it wrong but when I click on that link, what I am seeing are paragraphs like this, which is represented as a summary of Chapter 1 of the book: "Before turning to the question of the post–World War II conservative think tank and its usefulness as an institutional basis for conservative organizing, the pre–World War II think tank must be considered. Although the term “think tank” did not come into wide circulation until the 1960s, there most certainly existed such structures before World War II. Before the war, the Brookings Institution, still the largest think tank in existence, provided the preeminent institutional model. While in the postwar period, especially by the late 1960s and early 1970s, Brookings came to occupy a position as the bête noire of..." There are statements on that link that if I had JSTOR access, I'd be able to see the actual full text. But I don't have JSTOR access. Novellasyes (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
So you are withdrawing your initial statement that the book "doesn't describe the organization in any of those ways"? --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
No, because the text summaries that I can see on this link don't talk about Heritage as anti-communist or neo-conservative. They also don't describe it as being pro-business (the text summaries do describe it as advocating for supply side economics). I have no idea whether the actual lengthy text of the chapters from this book do characterize Heritage as anti-communist and neoconservative (and pro business) because I don't have access to that material. Novellasyes (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
If you can't verify it yourself, don't say that there is a problem. Just say you can't access it and would like verification. That's been done for one example. That's good enough for me, assuming good faith that the same level of care was made to all content in the edit under question. --Hipal (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging on this. I'm interested enough in whether this description of the early years quite captures the gist that I've ordered the book. What jumped out at me initially as surprising is the idea that Heritage would have been described as neo-conservative. Novellasyes (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Having gotten the book, I think it would be right to remove "neo-conservative" as a descriptor of the early Heritage. Much of the book compares-and-contrasts the early Heritage to the American Enterprise Institute as it was then. The term neo-conservatism shows up in the index as occurring on pages 66, 82-83, 95, 176, and 177-80. On those pages, it is AEI (not Heritage) that is characterized as being neo-conservative. Page 66: "Baroody [of AEI]...promoted a new political identity with AEI as its primary institutional promoter. At this point in time, in 1973, it is probably best to define this identity as 'sensible conservatism'--although as will be seen, it would take on the moniker 'neoconservatism' later on in the 1970s." Page 82: "In this light, it was around 1975-76 that AEI became a key marketer of the identity 'neoconservative'". More like that on page 83, all about AEI. Page 95: "Second, AEI's cultivation of the 'neoconservative' identity led many conservatives to the suspicion that AEI cared little about the grassroots conservative movement." More like this about AEI (not Heritage) on pp. 177-80. I looked on all the pages cited in the original footnote and find none of them using the word 'neoconservative' to describe Heritage, but may have missed it. Interestingly, the first policy topic the nascent Heritage got involved with was the Supersonic transport. And, the early stirrings of what became Heritage was because, according to this book, founders Feulner and Weyrich were aggravated that AEI didn't even put out a policy paper in that battle until after the congressional vote on the matter, because they didn't want to be seen as political in that sense. Feulner/Weyrich said to their early donors that they would be "designed to influence the policy debate as it was occurring in Congress--before decisions were made.Novellasyes (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not all the way through the book but it has not so far used the phrase "Christian right" to describe what Heritage was up to in the early years. It uses phrases like "popular conservatism", grassroots conservatives, Christian conservatism and cultural issues that grassroots conservatives had an affinity for. Looking at Christian right#history, especially starting in the third paragraph, that seems to have emerged more as a specific type of identity in the 80s. Could we change "by also advocating for the Christian right" to "by also advocating for cultural issues that were important to grassroots Christian conservatives"? FWIW, what Jason Stahl seems to primarily find of interest is that Heritage was trying to loop in or talk to the grassroots at all (as opposed to just Washington insiders) -- he thinks it was a big tactical innovation in the think tank industry. Novellasyes (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump administration

This section starts out with these sentences: "In the first year of Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency, the Heritage Foundation did not embrace his candidacy. "Donald Trump's a clown," then Heritage Action leader Michael Needham said on a Fox News panel in July 2015. Once Trump won, however, the Heritage Foundation's position shifted." If they didn't shift their position until he won, then the prior sentence saying that they did not embrace his candidacy during its first year isn't quite right. To be consistent, it would have to say they (at least according to the next sentence) that they never supported his candidacy. Michael Needham is or was from Heritage Action, which is a legally distinct organization from Heritage so whatever he might have said has no bearing on Heritage's position on Trump during his candidacy or thereafter. And Heritage is a 501c3 non-profit which wouldn't have been legally allowed to take a position on his candidacy one way or the other -- they wouldn't have been able to embrace his candidacy. Novellasyes (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there have been other cases where Heritage Action and the foundation have been confused. I'm not sure we should treat them as independent, but we need to address all cases where we confuse the two. --Hipal (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
BekkerNumbering I removed from the Trump section that comment about Michael Needham per the above, and you added it back in, with a reference. I don't think anyone doubts that Michael Needham says that. My issue is that he doesn't or didn't at that time anyway, work for the Heritage Foundation. Please discuss. Here's the diff where you added it back in after I had taken it out. Novellasyes (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
He was, according to the reference, not just employed there, but was director of its advocacy arm. BekkerNumbering (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
BekkerNumbering By "advocacy arm", do you mean the organization known as "Heritage Action"? I'm fine with a discussion here about whether statements/claims/positions taken by Heritage Action should be chalked up to the Heritage Foundation. But I think it bears some consideration because while Heritage and Heritage Action have a relationship with each other, they are not identical to each other. One of them is a 501c3 (Heritage Foundation) while Heritage Action is a legally separate 501c4. They have different boards and different staff. Nevertheless, they have some relationship. The Heritage Foundation launched Heritage Action, and on its website Heritage Action describes itself as a "sister organization" to the Heritage Foundation. Because there is some degree of distinction, I am not of the mind that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other organization. You are writing as if you think it is obvious that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other. It's not obvious to me, so I hope you'll provide more of your thinking on that. I'd also note that this magisterial 2018 article in the New York Times about the Heritage Foundation and the Trump campaign and administration does not suggest anything like the degree of enmity between the two that the Heritage Action employee's "clown" remark suggests. Novellasyes (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Level of detail straying from that of an encyclopedia article?

Granted, it is difficult to concisely summarize information, especially when it comes from multiple sources, but many sections in this article only cite a couple of references. The result is that highly noteworthy events are being drowned out by minutiae, a POV problem. For example, the "2016 Trump candidacy" section. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Stance on treaties and international agreements

Do we have more information on the Heritage Foundation's stance on treaties and international agreements (probably in the Positions section)?

I say this because I wonder if there is even a single treaty/international agreement that the Heritage Foundation supports. The impression I get is that Heritage is being a reactionary group that opposes any and all treaties reflexively & indiscriminately. Time and time again on Wikipedia articles covering United Nations protocols and other international agreements, I see mentions on how the Heritage opposes that treaty because it degrades US sovereignty (without bothering to even discuss what the substance of that treaty is), sometimes mentioning this as part of how the United States has not joined in (most commonly "signed but not ratified") or opted out of provisions.

If a mention of Heritage is synonymous with opposition in every case, one may wonder if mentioning Heritage on every such article is even notable for Wikipedia. 172.56.233.210 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

We need references that support such statements before we could add content on the topic. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
In those other articles you're talking about, what are typically the sources for the fact that Heritage is opposed to a given treaty? If it's just some press release or something similar that Heritage wrote, the fact that Heritage opposes some specific treaty doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned. It's only notable if (for example) the New York Times and/or the Washington Post (etc.) write articles, noting that Heritage opposes the treaty that the article is about. What's an example of such an article? Novellasyes (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Some things I found in a quick search:
United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
New START
Rome Statute (ICC)
Arms Trade Treaty
FAO (UN agency)
Convention on the Rights of the Child
From what I see, when you browse through UN/international conventions/protocols/agreements, there's a significant chance of finding under the US section of the article that Heritage opposed it. Opposed... basically because it's a treaty and it binds the US in some agreement.
For what it's worth, most of the current results of the pages linked above are from Heritage Foundation itself and not from an article mentioning Heritage. 172.56.233.210 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Without an independent source that verifies the information, it would come across as promoting the foundation's viewpoint on an individual treaty level. Making a statement about their regular opposition to treaties would be synthesis. --Hipal (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping in those links. Although this conversation is taking place here, you might consider going on the talk pages of any of those articles, where the source for the fact that Heritage opposed the treaty is some self-published information from Heritage, and suggest that putting that in the article fails WP:N and invite a conversation on that talk page about that and/or just remove the content if you think it fails WP:N. If I were working on one of those articles, I would think it fails WP:N but that's really up to people working on those articles to have that conversation. Novellasyes (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Bush administration

It currently says "According to a 2004 International Security study, the Heritage Foundation confused public debate by challenging widespread opposition to the Iraq War by international relations scholars and experts by contradicting them "with experts of apparently equal authority... this undermined the possibility that any criticisms (of the war) might be seen as authoritative or have much persuasive effect." The citation goes here. There's something off about this. The cited publication is not in International Security (journal) but is rather a different Cambridge publication ("Ethics and International Affairs"). The publication that is actually cited doesn't say anything about Heritage causing confusion and doesn't have a sentence in it about "experts of apparently equal authority". etc. Novellasyes (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You've checked both? --Hipal (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I tracked down, downloaded, and read [this article which is where the footnote goes. I didn't track down and read a "2004 International Security study", because that's too vague to go on. International Security (journal). They published a lot of articles in 2004. Not at all clear which one this sentence may have intended to allude to. Novellasyes (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Added here by @Thenightaway:.
Maybe Thenightaway copied in the wrong reference, because it's identical to the first. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the missing source (p. 45-46): https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137546. Thenightaway (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to reading https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137546. Novellasyes (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
In the meantime, I recommend removing this footnote. About Heritage, that article says this: "The conservative Heritage Foundation, which had since the mid-1990s warned that bin Laden and the Taliban would prove a toxic mix, provided steady and optimistic support to the Bush administration for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Commentaries such as “Radical Islam vs. Islam” and “U.S. Functions as World's Strongest Defender of Islam” championed the United States as a heroic figure fighting to save not only itself but Islamic civilization as well. The Foundation's unfaltering defense of the practices at Guantánamo Bay further painted the United States as a flawless combatant pitted against an evil embodied by the detainees. In the first days of the Obama administration, Heritage Foundation commentaries suggested the organization's intention to continue treating the war on terror as the ongoing story of a war declared by al-Qaeda against the United States." While those are interesting observations, unless I am missing something, they are not on point with the claim in the sentence to which the article has been appended as a citation. Novellasyes (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Having now read the Threat" article that is being used to support the existing write-up in the article to the effect that Heritage scholars "confused public debate by challenging widespread opposition to the Iraq War by international relations scholars and experts by contradicting them 'with experts of apparently equal authority...this undermined the possibility that any criticisms (of the war) might be seen as authoritative or have much persuasive effect.'" I don't think this works, so I advocate removing the claim. It's a (to my eyes) terrific piece of scholarship that's been frequently cited by other scholars. The article starts out by posing a quandary: Mature democracies are supposed to be better at making foreign policy decisions than other regime types. This is supposed to be partly true because in mature democracies, there is or ought to be a marketplace of ideas that allows sifting and winnowing to occur in order to "weed out unfounded, mendacious, or self-serving foreign policy arguments because their proponents cannot avoid wide-ranging debate in which their reasoning and evidence are subject to public scrutiny". This failed, the article says, with respect to the decision to engage in war with Iraq. Why did it fail? That's what the article analyses in 40-some pages with 164 footnotes. Heritage is mentioned once in the article in a basically throw-away line with no footnotes. The overwhelming burden of the carefully-laid out argument in 99.99% of the article has to do with how the White House (so the article claims) managed to prevent the sifting and winnowing that needed to occur, through four different mechanisms. Subsequent to the publication of this scholarly article, others have been written on the same topic: Why was the threat assessment wrong, wrong, wrong? Reading through them, I didn't see any references to Heritage and any role it did or didn't play (of course I may have missed one). I'd also note that additional scholarship such as Origins of Regime Change: “Ideapolitik” on the Long Road to Baghdad, 1993–2000 contests the thesis of Kaufmann's threat assessment article, and instead claims that "In this essay, I trace the “Ideapolitik” of regime change in the 1990s and show that Bush's post-9/11 rhetoric was firmly embedded in a preexisting foreign policy consensus defining Saddam Hussein as the 'problem 'and his overthrow as its 'solution.' Drawing upon recent research in international relations and public policy, I show how the idea of regime change prevailed in redefining American strategy for Iraq. While the September 11, 2001 attacks had important effects on the Bush administration's willingness to use force, the basic idea that ousting Saddam Hussein would solve the Iraq problem was already embedded in elite discourse." (In other words, this existing elite framework was the problem, not the White House [or way far down the line of importance, the Heritage Foundation] bollixing up information). But other than all this, at the end of the day, the Kaufmann article is just one source. Is it even true that Heritage scholars confused the discourse in a way that enabled the war? If it is true, is it a notable fact about Heritage during the Bush administration that they behaved in this way? It doesn't seem notable, and I say that because I don't see this claim being made elsewhere. Novellasyes (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"Mature democracies are supposed to be better at making foreign policy decisions than other regime types." And where is the empirical data for that? They have blundered their way into wars just as often as any other regime. Dimadick (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Truly. I was so surprised to read that opening claim in the "Threats" article. Novellasyes (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting the section in the article on the The Heritage Foundation#George W. Bush administration, three paragraphs in a separate subsection have been added about The Heritage Foundation#Belle Haven Consultants. With the current state of this overall section on the Bush admin/Heritage, this is WP:UNDUE and beyond that, probably WP:COAT. How many things did Heritage do and say during the eight years of the Bush admin? Apart from the para on their attitude to the war, we know nothing from this section about anything Heritage did during those eight years. Even if this section is ultimately expanded to include a decent executive summary of the key things they did during those eight years, even then the Belle Haven info would most likely deserve at most a sentence and a link to the Belle Haven article. Novellasyes (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Activist label

The word "activist" was deleted from the intro sentence of the article a few weeks back in this diff and then added back in. Let's talk about it, because what the person who took it out seemed to have in mind in their edit summary is that our article on Activism (which we link to from the Heritage intro sentence) has a perspective/definition of what the word "activism" means ("Forms of activism range from mandate building in a community (including writing letters to newspapers), petitioning elected officials, running or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes.") that doesn't seem to fit with Heritage. Separately, if we are going to label them as an activist group that should be because WP:RS describe them that way often enough that it is clearly a notable fact about them. Novellasyes (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There was some earlier discussion about this here. I personally think find it unnecessary and think it's meant to impugn them. Sure you can find some sources calling it activist but the vast majority would not specify that in a brief description of the organization. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I went and looked through the links over there. (here, here, here, here, and here.) They are respectively from 2023, 2012, 1983, 2013, and 2012. I could nitpick on these as to whether they are RS for the purpose of calling Heritage an activist organization. Two of them are about Heritage Action (the 501c4 that is a sister organization but is not Heritage itself); one of them is by a think tank competitor, etc. However, what I'd say the real issue here is that when anyone talks about Heritage as being an activist organization, they seem to mean "by comparison to the more limited role that older think tanks and some of their competitor think tanks (left and right) took or take in the public dialogue". They aren't saying that Heritage is an activist organization in the sense of how activism is defined in WP's article activism.Novellasyes (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The "activist" label in the lede doesn't make sense to me. It's not borne out in the sourcing given above. The Guardian describes Heritage Action for America "as the foundation's activist wing." National Affairs writes "...ushered in the age of more activist think tanks" and "Heritage's new and more activist approach..." I think the most useful part of this source is "...political scientist Donald Abelson has called [the Heritage Foundation] the 'advocacy think tank.'" "Advocacy think tank" makes more sense than "activist think tank" IMO. The Washington Post says "'An activist version of Brookings,' says Heritage president Edwin J. Feulner Jr." This seems like WP:PROMO. The group's president wants to be seen as "activist" and not just another boring old ineffectual think tank sending unread white papers into the abyss. The Wall Street Journal is probably the best source for "activist"; it says "Now, in one of the more significant transformations in the capital's intellectual firmament, it has become an activist political operation trying to alter the course of conservative thinking." This source doesn't appear to offer anything on the matter. Given all this, I would support describing Heritage in the lede as either an "advocacy think tank" or simply a "think tank", and, in either instance, using the above sourcing to flesh out in the body how Heritage was involved in ushering in a new era of more politically focused think tanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's disclaimer

If we do mention it, we need to do that in the context of the response of some Republicans to it. See Republicans call Trump’s move to distance himself from Project 2025 ‘preposterous As one of Pence's advisor said, it's not a credible denial. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be DUE in this article, and what we do include should be based upon reliable, secondary, independent sources. Trump is none of those.
The Project 2025 section should include details about how The Heritage Foundation's direct involvement with it (creation, promotion, funding, targeting, etc). --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert concerning Trumpism

A recent edit of mine was reverted (not Line 82 and 80, those edits were not mine). The reasoning for the revert was "rv PROMO, SOAP." I do not believe the words of the current President of Heritage about what he says the mission of Heritage is PROMO or SOAP (especially when they come from an interview he did with The New York Times Magazine). If this was referring to the edit in the middle of the page that was unrelated to my addition, then this is understandable. Also, if the issue with the edit was including some content in the lead, then I would ask that the information in the body of the page be kept as is. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's an interview. Without independent coverage, it's just him promoting his organization, using the interview as a soapbox. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Strong disagree. The president of an organization telling a reporter the purpose of their organization is not self-promotion, and provides important context for the reader of the page. It is also attributed to the leader of the organization in quotations, and not stated in Wikivoice. Saying "we are a global leader in the field and are at the cutting-edge of innovation" would count as being an advertisement and self-promotion. BootsED (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe policies (NOT, POV, NOR) say otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with BootsED. Reputable news sources talking about Heritage's plans based on quotes from their leader seems relevant and not against any Wikipedia policies. I also believe it belongs in the lead because supporting Trump marks a departure from Heritage's long-standing support of traditional conservatism. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Getting coverage in the Guardian also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Policy is what it is. This article is under multiple sanctions. I don't see what the Guardian article has to do with the removed content, but let's remember that news orgs have different priorities than us, especially with the developing interest in Project 2025. --Hipal (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian article talks about how Roberts wants to align the right behind Trumpism, and also mentions how he said the goal of the organization is "institutionalizing Trumpism." So now there are at least two sources describing Heritage as being for Trumpism. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've struck out some of my comment.

Again, RECENTISM. (Apologies, I've been looking at this in the context of the recent, far worse, problems. I may strike out more of my comments.) I'd be very careful with any content, especially in the lede, that puts how they want to be perceived over what they are actually doing. Best summarize what the secondary sources say. They're getting a lot more coverage now due to their Project 2025 plan. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, I wasn't talking about putting anything in the lead at all. I was referring to putting a sentence in under the Biden administration section right after it mentions how Roberts was hired. I will add it in seeing as how several others have spoken in support of it. I also agree with you regarding Project 2025 and am not sure it deserves a mention in the lead at all. BootsED (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! That addresses most of my concerns. Still, it would be better with a description of what he's done, if one can be found. --Hipal (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonprofit is too vague! It's actually a 501(c)(3) (source in desc.)

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237327730

I'm not used to making contribution on Wikipedia (never did it before ahaha) but I just saw this lack of precision and wanted to contribute.

Thanks for your **important** work. 2A01:CB1D:88D8:800:40E0:649:9DC9:55C6 (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Activities around voting in this year's election

"The conservative Heritage Foundation has sent teams with hidden cameras posing as voter-outreach workers groups into apartment complexes in Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia to ask the mostly Spanish-speaking immigrants there if they were citizens and registered to vote." " Georgia officials later said they had found no evidence that any of the people filmed by Heritage at the apartments in Norcross were actually registered. Some of the residents later said they had misspoken and denied being registered."[4] Doug Weller talk 08:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Heritage_Foundation/Archive_2&oldid=1261317571"