Talk:Heartland Institute/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Unlinking

I don't understand this edit, which unlinks two terms with the summary "better before" and "per the refs". Linking topics is an important part of allowing our visitors to navigate between pages.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The changes made failed WP:VERIFICATION. That is to say the refs did not support your changes, which appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS. The unlinking of the deprecated term is the mere after effect of the removal of the unref'd term. Capitalismojo (talk)

Ah! So the issue is just verifying the content. No problem.

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

That should take care of it. I'd suggest we select from Mann (as a recognized expert in the field), Routledge Handbook (published by Nature), and Dunlap (since he's often cited), to use in the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. May I respectfully ask that we please integrate this characterization and its sources into the body prior to elevating it to the lede WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I thought this was already covered in the body, but if it's not, that should certainly be done first. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The body actually does have this already. The section is "Global Warming"   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree the body has adequate content and refs to support the lede change. You have identified some excellent sources including tertiary (book) sources which would improve the article if they have not already. I would like to collaborate on adding them. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of blogs as sources

HughD Can you explain why you removed the Atlantic article by Megan McCardle from the page on her analysis of the Heartland Strategy Document because it was based on a blog, and included a Huffington Post blog in its place? Seems biased to me. Thanks Greg Sabatino (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, happy to explain.
  • McArdle, Megan (February 17, 2012). "Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

The main point of the source is an analysis of the meta data in the PDF of the so-called "climate strategy memo." A careful read reveals that McArdle, the author, a respected journalist, is here reporting on a blog post, rather than on an analysis she performed herself. More careful reading reveals that the result of the analysis of the meta data was taken from a comment to a blog post. The meta data indicated that the document was a scan from a scanner in the Pacific time zone of Gleik, which seemed to support the subject of this article's claim that it was a forgery. This article appeared in The Atlantic, a reliable source, very early, days after this story broke. At the time of her writing, McArdle thought the document was e-mailed to Gleik. A few days later day earlier, Gleik admitted in writing that he received the document by mail and scanned it. Responding to comments from fellow editors as to the length of this subsection, I trimmed this reference. Hope this helps. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings about the removal but where are these comments from fellow editors saying they thought the section should be cut down? Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This removal was inappropriate. The Atlantic is RS. The removal serves to diminish the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The characterization of the history above is inaccurate and unfortunate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could decide one way or the other on the point raised in the previous discussion. Should the various incidents be in the history section before the position of the institute is discussed? As opposed to after it as they used to be. I raised this at the NPOV noticeboard but it seems dead, it is ridiculous if simple disputes can't find some reasonable way of getting some decision. Or better might be if they could be integrated in the discussions on the various positions I think but certainly not before with no context. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I edited hard to trim the length of the "misappropriation" section. You seem to be determined to include McArdle's 2nd Atlantic posting and to draw content from it. McArdle's piece reports on comments she found on blogs ("...late last week, Steven Mosher was in the comments of multiple blogs..."). McArdle's assessment that Gleick was the "probable author" of the "climate" memo was based on the fact that it was a scan to PDF while the rest of the documents were not. McArdle's piece appeared THE DAY AFTER Gleick's explanation and apology appeared in the Huffington Post. Gleick admitted he got the "climate" memo hardcopy in the mail and scanned it in order to send it along. Lots was written in the week after the publishing of these documents, some of which turned out to be more significant than others. I'm not sure WP needs to document the back & forth including everything that did turn out to be all the significant. Personally, I don't think McArdle's theory improves the article. After all, the subject of this article claimed the memo was forged but they did not identify Gleick as the "probable author." But if you insist on drawing content from this source, we need to provide more context for McArdle's theory, and the section is going to get longer, and the only way forward is for us to take a strictly chronological approach, publication, discussion, reaction, with dates, so that our readers can clearly see who was writing what in the interval between the publication and the explanation. I will help you if you insist but I do not think it improves the article. I note that you reverted my attempt to get the simple fact of the date of the publication of the documents into the article. Hugh (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Greetings, Im sure this topic has been brought up before but it most certainly has not been addressed. While I thank HughD for his effort to improve the page, I believe that some of these edits do not improve Wikipedia as a whole. And as such I ask that we reconsider some of the content. Namely, in the lead, there is very undue weight towards certain policies and views of the Heartland Institute that create a bias. Why is the Heartland Institute most notable? Because it is a conservative & libertarian think tank that supports various conservative/libertarian causes? Or because it is a global warming denouncer? Surely it is most notable for its stated mission. And yet the lead mentions a critique as the most notable fact about the institute:

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[2][3][4] It regularly rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[5] and that human activity is driving it,[6] and claims that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7] The Institute also conducts advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

Throughout the page there are further examples of this. The lead is certainly the pressing issue. Can we agree that this section needs to be reworked, as well as other parts of the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Surely it is most notable for its stated mission." Hello. How do you figure? Do you have RS for that please? Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements A paraphrase of the mission statement in the body perhaps. Or if this were a brand spanking new org, fresh out the gate, maybe, but this is an org with 3 decades of very full history. Let the facts speak. The lede summarizes notability WP:LEDE. The subject of this article is not notable for its mission statement. The subjects of articles do not get to write their own lede. If we do our jobs right the lede is WP voice, our mutual understanding of the most notable aspect of the subject. Also if we do our jobs we should not need refs in the lede, because the lede summarizes the body . I would like to invite you to collaborate on the body. If there is anything you believe belongs in the lede, please make your case in the body first WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Thank you. There are no "pressing issues" WP:NODEADLINES, thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not phrase that right. But I do not agree that the organization is most notable for climate change denial. And I can imagine the greater Wikipedia community would agree, given that the organization has been involved in lots of activities. The organization is not a climate denying group that is reported to be involved in libertarianism and conservatism; its a libertarian/conservative organization that is reported to be involved in the climate debate. Phrasing it otherwise does not improve Wikipedia and potentially pushes a POV. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We have a manual of style about this at WP:LEAD. Its nutshell summarizes it well "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." I agree the lead was being changed to towards just describing the climate denial part but you have pushed it too far in the opposite direction. By weight approximately half of the lead should describe that it is involved in climate change denial and has been involved in a number of associated controversies. To quote again from the start of that manual of style "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Dmcq (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"just describing the climate denial" Can you please provide a diff to a version that was "just describing the climate denial"? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
[1] where you removed a lead I though was acceptable and in accordance with WP:LEAD to one just pushing your point of view. above everything else. I really do wish you would try and understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for people to read and get a picture of the subject they are looking up, it is not some blade of light for truth and justice. There are sites like DeSmogBlog or the innumerable denial forums that do shouting on the internet like you seem to want this to do. The articles should be readable and describe what they are talking about. There's just too many people around attacking for instance pseudoscience articles in Wikipedia and trying to remove what they say and only leave in the criticism so a reader is left in the dark about what the subject is actually about. That is simply wrong. Yes we should and do say what the mainstream view is. No we don't and should not remove any non-mainstream stuff just based on weight. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The lede at the link you provided includes: "The Institute also conducts advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism." You said on this talk page above that the lede was changed to "just describing the climate denial part." May I ask again, can you please provide a link to this version? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"...you removed a lead I though was acceptable..." Please refer to policy or guideline here on this talk page and focus on content rather than your personal preference. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"I really do wish you would try and understand..." Please refrain from personal attacks here on this talk page. I have a talk page if you feel the need to explain some deficiency you perceive in my understanding. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case there should be some mention of it. But in a manner that does not push a POV? Since the neutral phrasing should be something along the lines of "man-made climate change scepticism" rather than "climate change denyers". DaltonCastle (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess any lead on this will be thought to be pushing a POV by someone :) But yes basically that's how it should be. Have a look at the lead of Conservapedia and you'll probably not like it if you don't like how the Heartland Institute is treated here but I think the lead of that other article is okay. 'Climate change skepticism' is fine in the lead, you don't need the man-made as the phrase has acquired its own meaning by now as being equivalent to denial and they change what they say on it from time to time anyway - for instance half the time they now say they accept it but that we shouldn't bother doing anything about it as it will be good for us! Dmcq (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
We have very strong sources which back up the climate change denial label, and it is the common name for the topic. In addition, we have high quality sources indicating the "climate change skepticism" is a PR term that is inaccurate and misleading. For those reasons, I don't see why we would say [[climate change denial|climate change skepticism]] in the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the lead to the version [2] before HughD and DaltonCastle started on it. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The lede you restored is reasonable, nothing incorrect except perhaps too short relative to the body yet. The first sentence does a good job of uniquely identifying the subject, formal name, founding date, when, where. The climate activism should be the 2nd sentence if not the first as it is far and away the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article, much more notable than the other areas of policy advocacy which come before it in this particular formulation. I would like to ask for suggestions for expansion of the lede. What sentence, which summarizes the most of the body, is not yet in the lede? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
My own suggestion for expanding the lede would be to expand the coverage of the policy positions from the body. In the lede we have a series of policy areas, "government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing," which give our readers no indication of the policy position. So far this is an inadequate summary of the body, and non-neutral with respect to RS. The lede summarizes notability. For example, the subject of this article is not notable merely for its general involvement in the arena of tobacco policy, it is notable for its position of defending the rights of smokers. For the cost of a very few additional words in the lead, we can summarize much more of the body in the lede and offer our readers a much more informative lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think conservative and libertarian in the first sentence indicates the direction of most of their policy pretty accurately but it is probably worthwhile saying that in simpler terms in the part detailing their their areas of interest.
As to sticking in their climate change denial higher as I said before this is an encyclopaedia. The subject of an article should be described first before talking about how others perceive them. Weight is not an overriding consideration above all others. There is more to editing than attaching a weight number to each sentence and then sorting them by decreasing weigh irrespective of anything else. There is no requirement on that account except to cover the topics by weight. Articles need to be readable and logically ordered. As to notability the sentence 'The Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial' is quite sufficient for that, no more is required in the lead on that account. Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. What are your ideas for expanding the lede? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I wanted to. I was just wanting something that said what the article was about and summarized it. I didn't stick the tag on top of it. Dmcq (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I would support removing the tag on the lede as we continue to collaborate on expanding the lede. Would you support expanding the lede to include some brief indication to our readers regarding policy positions as opposed to just a list of policy areas? Hugh (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A brief summary of the various sections of the article is certainly fine. I would guess an article like this could stand having the lead expanded up to about four paragraphs each up to double the size of the current paragraphs. That wouldn't allow for much on each individual policy but it should be enough to give the general tenor of what they're up to. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Great! thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What would you say is the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please just do it in the order of the article and don't do this damn business of sorting things like some shuffling index to a news site, it just makes it unreadable. 23:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You are familiar with the subject. It is a reasonable question. It is a question relevant to organizing the lede. I would appreciate your view. I think we should mention the single most notable thing about this subject in the first sentence. Do you think the single most notable thing about the subject of this article is that it is headquartered in Chicago? or that they are libertarian? or conservative? Oh, so the order of topics in the lede is the same as in the article? Does that mean we will have 2 global warming sections in the lede, just like we do in the article? Oh wait, we do. You bring up unreadable? I'll tell you what's unreadable, how about the break in the global warming material you introduced into this article and defend so? That's your unreadable right there. Think tanks are many but only one is acknowledged by multiple RS as the thought leader on climate denial. Is your plan that global warming will always be in the last paragraph of the lede? I see. I get it. Hugh (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've said no. Others have said no. Nobody supports you in what you are trying to do. If you wish to raise an RfC on the business go ahead but it will almost certainly say no as well. Articles should first and foremost describe the topic of the article. You are trying to turn this article into a WP:ATTACK PAGE rather than structuring it to describe the topic properly. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hugh the most notable shouldn't necessarily be first (as long as we respect WP:WEIGHT). For instance, etymology of terms should usually come before their significance. I'd agree we should probably just go by the order in the article. If that's not what you're asking, I'd say the climate change policies are what Heartland is most known for today, but my opinion is flavored by the sources I've read recently.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is exactly what HughD was asking - note in the reply to me 'It is a question relevant to organizing the lede. I would appreciate your view. I think we should mention the single most notable thing about this subject in the first sentence.' Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

I notice a number of statements in the article which are sourced to the Heartland Institute rather than to a reliable source. See WP:SELFPUB about this. We should not use such links unless they are very straightforward and factual and not self serving unless we also have a reliable source for what is being talked about. Such stuff is not considered as worth including as no-one has thought it worth while to comment on it. The only usual exception people have for that is stuff that is very obvious from an organisation or companies home page which is assumed to have enough weight even if not altogether reliable. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

Heartland considers itself among the "intellectual leaders of the tea party movement."

Judson, Jeff (September 1, 2010). "Intellectual Leadership for the Tea Party Movement". The Heartland Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Self-sourced, yes, but with in-text attribution, and only about the org's own opinions, which is ok. Self-serving, depends on how you feel about the TPM I guess. We are asked to summarize all significant views. The org's own assessment of their role in the history of the TPM is a significant view on that topic. I think this quote is useful to readers and editors. The WP article includes other content on this org's relationship with the TPM, but, beyond that, it conveys that the org was self-aware of its role and wrote about itself in that role, and yah somewhat glowingly. The content conveys this to both readers and editors. For readers, it helps position this org on the political spectrum somewhere in the vicinity of "proud TPM supporter." The content is very strong support for the due weight of WP's other content regarding the subject's relationship with the TPM. For editors, it conveys that WP including content relating the subject to the TPM is nothing to get excited about, it is not coat-racking, it is not a "PV push." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No that sort of thing is not all right for the article. See WP:SELFPUB point 1 "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". It is self-serving puffery. It isn't straightforward and factual and unexceptional. And we should not be trawling a website which is an unreliable source to get stuff from it. We need a reliable source to give something enough weight to put into the article. It is a primary source not a secondary source and sticking it in without some justification from somewhere else is what is counted as WP:Original research in Wikipedia and is not allowed. In general we simply should not be publishing their own material if nobody else has thought it worth saying anything about, doing so requires us to research their site to pick out what we think has weight even if nobody else has thought so and that is original research. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB The claim is not all that exceptional. Heartland is not claiming to be THE intellectual leader of the TPM, they are claiming a role for think tanks, including themselves. Yes, it is a self-published, primary source, but it is used only for the subject's opinion of itself, which is admissible. Their opinion about themselves is highly relevant in the paragraph summarizing the subject's relationship with the TPM. I will try a paraphrase to reduce the claim and clarify this. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR The content above is not original research. It is a partial quote from a source, with in-text attribution for possible bias as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and a well-formatted reference for verifiability. Hugh (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand that the origin myth of the TPM movement as without leadership, as a wholly organic grassroots phenomenon of principled individuals, has strong adherents, even among WP editors, and some feel any content which suggests otherwise is counter-factual and must be deleted on sight. However, reliable sources offer a significant alternative view, and the subject of this article is a significant actor in that view, and the proposed content is highly significant to that view. Here we have a non-profit advocacy group clearly claiming a role for think tanks including themselves in the history and future of the TPM. The content is highly relevant in a paragraph summarizing the subject of this article's relationship with the TPM. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

revised paraphrase: Hugh (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Heartland considers itself among the members of a national network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups it says served as the intellectual leadership of the tea party movement.

That is due to HughD (talk · contribs) it is not part of the following

I've had a look again at the citation needed tags I stuck in the smoking section and removed them as I see there are earlier independent reliable sources that give them direct relevance or refer to them so they can be cited as primary sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To assert that you are the intellectual leader (or even one of the key leaders) of a Iarge and prominent national movement is an astonishing and unduly self serving bit of puffery. This is not material that can be ref'd to self published material. If it were accurate and relevant then reliable sources would echo it. I see none. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP is not asserting that anyone is an intellectual leader or one of the intellectual leaders of the TPM. WP is reporting that the subject of this article has written of itself that it considers itself among the intellectual leaders of the TPM. You know well the difference. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"relevant" That the subject of this article has written, on its own website, that it considers itself among the the intellectual leaders of the TPM is highly relevant to this article as one sentence in a larger paragraph summarizing the relationship of the subject of this article to the TPM. Hugh (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"accurate" The above paraphrase is a reasonable accurate paraphrase summarizing the source. If you do not feel the paraphrase is accurate, kindly propose an alternative paraphrase of the source before deleting the paraphrase and reference. On the other hand, if you believe it is not factually accurate that the subject of this article had a role in the intellectual leadership of the TPM, then we need to understand that is not the issue - the claim here is that the subject of this article considers itself among the the intellectual leaders of the TPM, which is verified by the well-formatted reliable source reference including a generous quote from the source. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"self serving bit of puffery" Whether the view that the subject of this article considers itself among the the intellectual leaders of the TPM is "self serving" or "puffery" or not depends precisely on one's view of the TPM. Many readers of the above paraphrase might consider it "self-effacing." Hugh (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This excellent addition will now allow us to add even more puffery! Perhaps additional information on the organizatuon's vast importance can come directly from their direct mail solicitations...that is of course sarcasm. There is a reason we don't use this sort of material in encyclopedia articles. There is a reason we have policy against it. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please help us focus here on this article talk page on article content, and refrain from "slippery slope" arguments. Our policy on self-published sources has a conspicuous, bolded exception for self-published views of the subject itself. This exception is well understood by most wikipedia editors including yourself. This exception has particularly relevant to an article about a subject such as this article, an advocacy group, where one of the main activities of the subject is publishing views on its website. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To summarize: This is WP:OR original research drawn from WP:Primary primary sources from a WP:SPS self-published source making exceptional claims. It is a three-fer in terms of policy non-compliance. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(As an aside, there is nothing anywhere to suggest that this organization's "main activities" is putting stuff up on it's site. That indicates a fundamental misapprehension of think tanks.) Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR The above paraphrase is not original research. The above paraphrase is a reasonable paraphrase of the source. If you feel otherwise, kindly propose an alternative paraphrase. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY Primary sources may be used with care. The above paraphrase is a straightforward, descriptive statement of the simple fact that the subject of this article wrote of itself that it considers itself part of the intellectual leadership of the TPM. This use of a primary source is well within policy. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPS includes a well-understood, clear, conspicuous, bolded exception for self-published views of the subject about itself. This use of a self-published source is well within policy. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It is OR. It wasn't self evident from the main page of the site, somebody went to the site and found it without any prompting from a reliable source talking about it. That is original research. And it is a bit of self serving puffery that we are reproducing without any prompting. I say I am the most wonderful person in the world is puffery even though there's a 'I say' at the beginning to make it 'a factual statement'. The onjly excuse for reproducing it in Wikipedia would be if a reliable source commented on it. It fails on so many counts and yet you still argue for it. That is wrong - you are just wasting peoples time. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR The content you deleted is clearly not original research. It is a reasonable paraphrase of the source. If you feel otherwise, kindly propose an alternative paraphrase. Thank you. Yes, we agree, it is a primary source, and it is a self-published source. The use of this specific primary, self-published source in support of this specific content in this specific paragraph of this specific article is well within our policies WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. Is it your understanding that WP:SPS prohibits self-published sources and WP:PRIMARY prohibits primary sources? Hugh (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"self serving puffery" This may be your opinion, and you are entitled to your outrage at anyone claiming a leadership role in the TPM. Regardless, the subject of this article did. Please recognize that about half of the readers reading the paraphrase you deleted will read it as self-effacing rather than self-serving. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"even though there's a 'I say' at the beginning to make it 'a factual statement'" Being clear in-text regarding attribution takes content out of WP voice and makes it a statement of the speaker. This is pretty fundamental. I know you understand this. I understand there may be significant umbrage at the idea that the TPM had leadership, but that is beside the point. The content you deleted is perfectly verifiable as a view of the subject of this article about itself. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please focus on content and policy in your comments on this article talk page and refrain from personal attacks and speculation on the motives of fellow editors. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit is the definition of Original Research. Going to primary sources and extricating information that one believes is important is original research. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It is also self-agrandizing, not appropriate per WP:SPS. We don't include matrial by organizations stating that the organizations thinks they are leaders in their field. It is puffery. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"self-agrandizing" and "puffery" is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Of course you recognize that many readers of the content you deleted will read it as "self-effacing" and "embarrassing" rather than "self-agrandizing" and "puffery." The content you deleted is neutral claim that the subject of this article said a certain thing about itself. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two claims being made. 1) Heartland is supportive of the tea party movement. 2) Heartland is a leader of the movement. Claim 1 can be sourced to Heartland, but claim 2 would require an independent source. We should be able to include claim 1 with the current sourcing until we find a better ref.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. "claim 2 would require an independent source" We do not require any source beyond the provided above self-published, primary source ref to support the fact that the subject of this article said of itself that it considers itself part of the intellectual leadership of the TPM. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly no policy-based consensus for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We are asked by policy to include all significant views WP:NPOV. Yes, the subject of this article's own view of its role as an intellectual leader of the TPM may be a minority point of view, but it is a very significant point of view that is highly relevant in the context of this specific paragraph in this specific article. Hugh (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty thin reed upon which to base a case to overcome the major policy objections from multiple editors.
Re: "Highly significant", there is no evidence that it is in any way significant because no RS says it or talks about it. Only they say it. WP:OR, WP:SPS. Moreover we are to include material in articles on the basis of appearance in the RS, i.e. WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV considerations. To quote: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Based on that it shouldn't be included. As stated above, this is a minority opinion. There is no external indication of significance published by reliable sources only a self published essay. This thus fails on WP:NPOV grounds as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it is a minority opinion. I agree, no other reliable source in this article so far is hailing the subject of this article as one of the Intellectual leaders of the TPM. I will look around. Thanks to all for your patience. Hugh (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
"There is no external indication of significance published by reliable sources only a self published essay." Might this criteria also apply to this recent addition? "The Heartland Institute no longer discloses its funding sources, stating that it had ended its practice of donor transparency after experiencing the organized harassment of its donors." [1] Hugh (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Jess is exactly right. I agree with her separation of the two claims, the first of which is a reasonably neutral statement and is acceptable to source to the subject. The second claim is much stronger, and requires an external source. It is not sufficient to simply avoid saying it in the voice of Wikipedia and quote the source. As illustration, if this organization or any organization declared itself to be “the top international thought leader on all subjects”, we wouldn’t consider inclusion of such a claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/criminal_referral_of_peter_gleick.pdf Heartland pdf page 9

Wonkette and CSI claims

I doubt that Wonkette is a reliable source. I'm not convinced that CSI offered the bet, but there is no doubt that the bet is unfair. The 30-year average is higher in 2015 than in 2014 if 2015 is hotter than 1985. As 1983 and 1985 are the two coolest years in the 1980s, being about 0.1 °C cooler than all other years since 1980, even if global warming was not occurring, the "warmists" would likely win the bet. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to include the bet without that analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with it not being a reliable source on its own for that and should not be in because of that. But as to the rest yes certainly trying to find out if there has been some analysis would be a good thing. However an OR study like that whilst it is fine in the talk page for inspiring a closer study is not a reason to stop something being used in an article. Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This suggest that the challenge was made, but that’s not sufficient to justify inclusion. In my best Marisa Tomei voice, suggest it is a BS challenge. As Rubin points out, the 30 year average temperature is almost certain to increase. However increasing is no more proof of global warming than failure to increase would be proof of the absence of global warming. I think the Heartland Institute is wrong on this issue, but this “challenge” is simply a media ploy and we should not be a party to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Misleading wording, dubious references

Just want to point out that the wording of the first section is quite misleading, and i suspect due to bias deliberately so; This wording implies that this group denies both global warming(or climate change), and that humans are behind it. This is two seperate statements, while on the surface only one is implied. The overall reader perception however is that it states the two things. They also use "and" twice in one paragraph which is generally poor form.

ie "It regularly rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[6] and that human activity is driving it,(7) and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[8]"


While if you read both reference 6 (bloomberg) and the later section on global warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Global_warming

It is quite clear that the heartland institute only denies "human caused climate change", likewise the "citation needed" on the global warming section could likely use reference 6 as well.


A better wording would be: "It regularly rejects the scientific consensus that human driven(7) climate change poses a significant danger to the planet(6) and that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.(8)"


Also in general the citations and references just seem dubious- many are youtube videos, blogs, political commentary, etc which I would think classifies them as self published or blogs. In topics of climate change those denying it often resort to such dubious sources. It seems odd that an article that is meant to be neutral (or in some ways against) the heartland institute, would resort to such sloppy citations, where in any other article wikipedians would immediately crack down on them.

203.123.90.144 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should improve the sourcing. However, changes as you prefer would appear to be a NPOV violation. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplication

I don't see why the "History" section includes this:

"In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. Starting in 2008, Heartland has organized conferences to criticize the scientific opinion of global warming."

That information belongs in the "Policy positions" section; most or all of it is already there.

It doesn't serve our readers to include policy-related actions, date by date, in the history section, and then provide the same information later in the article, but organized by topic. (I don't have any problem with all the rest of the information in the "History" section, at least as far as duplication goes.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless it is significant to both, which appears to apply in this case. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones

It is hardly surprising that Mother Jones magazine has a hit piece on a conservative organization. It is not noteworthy or surprising and I can see no reason to include their opinion piece.(By definition rankings of "disinfornation organizations" are opnions.) This isn't an attack blog, its supposed to be an encyclopedia, Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The magazine certainly has a bent but I don't see that it is so strong it would not be counted as a reliable source so I'm going to reinstate that edit. I would suggest you raise your concern about the magazine at WP:RSN. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You will note that I have not raised this as a reliable source issue. Mother Jones is entirely reliable for its own opinion, which this is. I suggest that this opinion in not, of itself, noteworthy at this article. An advocacy journal ranks its opponents? Pfftt, useless in an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a reliable source issue. As WP:RS says 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' You are disputing this is such a source. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"noteworthy" When an RS says "...is the most..." or "...is one of the most..." that is the very essence of noteworthiness. Hugh (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"opponents" How is Mother Jones magazine an opponent of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Mother Jones has a long history of reactionary and poorly researched articles as well as journalistic bias. The article HughD is using (and has inserted into a number of other articles) is really a muck raking opinion article rather than a well researched article. I would question including it and suggest that if HughD wants to include the information he should use the sources the single author of the article (given the opinion type nature of the article I think the reporter's name should be included) used, not the article itself. Really that article is more like a list with an into paragraph and a reactionary title. If the WP entries in question already cover the topic of climate change etc then I would move to totally strike the MJ bit from this article (and likely the others that Hugh is trying to blackwash with the MJ article). Springee (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
We agree Mother Jones magazine has a long history of bias in favor of our Mother Earth. As you know, our sources need not be free of bias, and as you know, in fact we are required to reflect significant points of view as provided by WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hugh (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No. We do not agree. Mother Jones is not a noteworthy addition to this article. It is reliable for its own opinion, that doesn't make it an important or significant addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, deliberately dishonestly summarizing the comments of others is a type of disruptive editing. Given your recent history in that area I would suggest you stick to the topic. The MJ article in question looks like an editorial article. As an editorial the author should be cited directly. It's also a source of questionable quality and in this case the opinion is not one based on fact but one based on the author's opinion. Thus it is questionable to include it at all. If the article is included it should be included as an editorial would be included. Springee (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Springee "Hugh is trying to blackwash with the MJ article" Your speculations about the motives of your colleagues is disruptive. Please assume good faith WP:AGF and help us all focus on article content and related policy and guidelines here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Respectfully you are reminded that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions and all collaborators are expected to demonstrate best practices. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Given your block history, edit warring and attempts to harass those who disagree with you I see no reason to believe you are acting in good faith. Certainly your reply to mine above does not reflect good faith as it tells a clear lie about my position. You have attempted to insert this MJ editorial bit into a number of articles now and 4 different editors have pulled it. This makes for a case of wide spread edit warring. I would suggest that we all steer clear of such a thing. Springee (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please help us all focus on article content and related policy and guidelines here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Other venues are available to you for your expressions of concern including but not limited to user talk pages and noticeboards. Respectfully you are reminded that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions and all collaborators are expected to demonstrate best practices. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I really do not see why there is a reluctance on the part of the people objecting to take it to WP:RSN to se whether it qualifies as a reliable source or noot. Just saying it isn't a RS question and then saying all sorts of things about it not being a good source is just wrong. That would be much more productive than personal attacks on other editors. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a WP:RS issue at all, but WP:UNDUE. Having said that, I think it can stay.StAnselm (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If the underlying reason for the objection is undue I can sympathize with that a bit. They are promoting pseudoiscience and we tend to shout the mainstream position in accordance with WP:FRINGE. However how that should be tackled I believe is for us to always give the position of the organisation or whatever in a straightforward neutral way rather than removing things. So for me the way to deal with UNDUE here is to make sure the Heartland Institute's position is stated clearly and straightforwardly without banging on about the mainstream scientific position whilst doing so. The scientific position and reception can then follow. And I think that is done here except for a couple of citations missing. Dmcq (talk)
There is no indication that this is an important addition. It is not a straight news article and in fact it can not be. Who has objectively determined this ranking of "disinformationists"? Just the Mother Jones writer not an independent org or researcher. What is the objective standards that were used? None. Rankings published by magazines are ordinarily simple opinion pieces, throw-away articles, filler. Those rankings that aspire to be more publish them annually, set objective standards, publish the standards, etc. and even then they acknowledge that the ranking is their opinion (e.g. U.S. News & World Report College Rankings). This piece is a one-off (2009), brief, poorly written, never repeated and one that that gained no broader currency in other news reporting. Its use and inclusion is most certainly undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a notable addition. The article, as used, is reporting the opinion of MJ's editorial staff. It is not being used as a factual reference. As an opinion it is being given undue weight and it isn't properly inserted as an opinion article. I agree with Dmcq's suggestions for how the information could be inserted (ie, find sources that show where THI's position is in conflict with other sources). Springee (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You're now starting to tread on the toes of WP:OR. Reporters are okay for analyzing the data and giving opinions as far as Wikipedia is concerned. When a reporter says the economy crashed that is what we say. If a reporter says a fire is huge that is what we say. What we're interested in is whether they are secondary sources, and whether a reporter is under editorial control, basically whether it is a reliable source. As to notability that applies only to creating articles, I believe Springee meant WP:UNDUE which is noted above. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. MJ is a very one sided source. When they are reporting facts the general view is those facts are generally correct. When they interpret the facts they are heavily opinionated. If you review the RS noticeboard you will find that MJ's editorializing on a subject is typically considered an opinion even if the evidence they present is considered reliable. That said, I see how you added effectively the same article to the Christopher Monckton article and I think it was a perfect way to do the addition. It removed the opinion content while keeping the facts. I would have no objection to a similar insertion here. Springee (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I just had a look at RSN and I did not see quite the one sided characterization of Mother Jones you did but I'm okay with WP:BIASED being followed. As far as I can see on the article 4 people have put in the change and you and Capitalismojo have objected so I do not think there is a no consensus on its inclusion. For the moment I think I'll just wait and see what HughD's response is to your objections. And I think if it is included it should point to the specific page about the Heartland Institute there rather than just the top level list. As to the Monckton page I was just showing that the RfC had just been used to keep a hatchet job in place, the RfC was ignored despite the summary and the objections in it. I guess the people involved should have done WP:BRD rather than doing the RfC without the R part. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In 2009, an article in Mother Jones magazine identified the Heartland Institute as one of the twelve organizations most significant in promulgating climate disinformation.

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
Support inclusion Of course you did not find a blanket blacklist of Mother Jones (magazine) at WP:RSN, because of course reliability of sources depends on the context. Here we have a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of highly noteworthy, highly significant point of view. We are obligated to include noteworthy, significant points of view by WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. In an era of crashing revenues in professional journalism and vanishing resources Mother Jones (magazine) has for years maintained a staff dedicated to investigative journalism on the beat of the financing of politics and in particular the funding of politically active non-profits, and, as you saw on WP:RSN, some would prefer to blacklist Mother Jones (magazine) for this. We don't get into this whenever we cite Fox News. To look the other way on this reliable source WP:RS is non-neutral WP:NPOV. The proposed content is not in Wikipedia voice, it is clearly attributed in-text, and perfectly verifiable and in complete conformance with WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:VER. According to WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." No valid basis in policy or guideline for exclusion of this content has been advanced. (Please this is not the appropriate venue for discussion of the content of other articles, thanks.) Also, WP:DRNC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So are you saying you want to cite the top level which has practically no content except the list rather than the actual page which describes the Heartland Institute and gives the basis for what the author says? That list on its own doesn't seem to add to what is said in the previous paragraph. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec)This same source is being discussed at Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial.
For the reference to be used per NPOV, specifically WP:DUE, what is required? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Object to inclusion My objections to the MJ "12 worst" inclusions here are the same as they are going to be any of the other times HughD has attempted to insert the list. As I said at Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial, the issue with the inclusion is two fold. My primary concern is that the list and it's use here is an opinion. However, Hugh is trying to insert it as a notable fact. Second, and having just answered a question about WP:UNDUE on the Freedom Works talk page my view is the same here, the MJ list is not notable thus inclusion on it isn't notable. The facts which MJ cited as reasons for adding an organization to that list might be notable and thus could be included. Simply being on a MJ list is not. The four editors who objected to HughD's addition spans the articles in which he added basically the same information. My comment to HughD about the mater can be seen on his talk page. Note that one editor didn't remove it but edited the entry to deal with some of the issues. When HughD restored a removal he did not retain those edits. Springee (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I was questioning the point of citing the the top level page [3] which just gives the list and practically zero facts rather than [4] which is specifically about the Heartland institute. I mean so what if some redlinked author in a magazine write down a list and anyway what does 7th in a list mean? Are there lots of them or very few and it is near the end? At least the Heartland Institute page describes what the author sees as his reasons. I do wish use of the word 'notability' was avoided where it is inapplicable. Undue is the word. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and for your collaboration. Sorry I did not reply to your suggestion earlier. The source is essentially one article spanning 13 web pages. The proposed content is a paraphrase of a sentence from the lede of the source. I believe if we pointed the url in the ref at the Heartland specific page, the content would be deleted in a nanosecond as failed ver. While perhaps not the most informative url with respect to the Heartland Institute, the url of the source of the paraphrase is the correct url for a ref in support of this content. For Wikipedia purposes, the source is Mother Jones (magazine), the author is less important; regardless of the author, the source was reviewed by the editorial process at Mother Jones (magazine). Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Springee "HughD's addition" Please WP:FOC and endeavour to depersonalize your discussion of content and policy. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"HughD's addition" is focusing on the content. The content in question was your edit. Including the above message can be seen as a passive aggressive way to attack someone who doesn't agree with you. Perhaps you should also focus on the content. Springee (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
how about try "the above proposed addition" or "the disputed content" or equivalent? Hugh (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, that seems like an acceptable alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. Springee (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how the page giving details about the authors reasons would fail verification. OIt lists the complete list at the top right and it has number 7 at the top. I think I will have to object to the list itself being referred to as being just too uninformative and with too little relevance to the Heartland institute in particular. We don't need a multiplicity of sources saying the same sort of thing and the top level page does not add to the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Our source is 13 web pages. I think the best url to use in the ref in support of this content is to the very web page that contains the source that is being paraphrased. The proposed content is a paraphrase of a sentence from the third paragraph of the first page of the source: "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine." If we were to link directly to the eighth page of the article, the Heartland Institute detail page, an editor might not "read backwards" to see that the content is in fact a reasonable paraphrase of the source. Beyond the currently proposed content, if there were other content on the Heartland Institute detail page we wanted to summarize in our article, we can support that content with a ref that includes a url to that page. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
They don't have to look backwards. It is on the top right of the page. I am getting to agree more and more with the idea that you are simply spamming a page of little content. The aim here is to improve the article not to disseminate some citation you like. The article already gives a couple of publications that say it is one of the main deniers, and they actually say something to back up the claim and are more reputable. We don't need a multiplicity of lower quality citations for the same sort of thing. A page which gives nothing except some redlinked reporters opinion of list is not a good quality source to add with those others. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The top right, where it says "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Denial," is that what you mean? Sorry, I missed that. We agree the eighth page of the article, the Heartland detail page, of course has more meat about Heartland. I see what you are saying, our article already identifies the subject as the primary supporter of climate change denial in the body and the lede. Either url will work for us. Thank you for your patience. Hugh (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


"The dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine"? How is that not an editorial claim? Sorry, this list just isn't notable. On the Donors Trust talk page you are making the claim that a MJ comment is noteworthy because it is quoted by others. [[5]] Where is an example of other reliable sources quoting this list? Springee (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition (with revised url in ref):

A 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine identified the Heartland as one of the twelve organizations most significant in promulgating climate disinformation.

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 21, 2015.

Hugh (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't mater how it is phrased. The list is an opinion work by MJs. It also has not been show to be significant and thus inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. My view applies similar insertions of the MJ list/reference in other articles. Springee (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is not a list, it is not an editorial, it is a feature article spanning 13 web pages. The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine). The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed under "Top stories." I understand you do not like the proposed content. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Springee:If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Really? There is another source, a reliable source, that says this foundation is in the top dozen "disinformation" organizations in existence? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
How about answering the question, noting that I wrote, "rewording to emphasize the most important aspects". --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your question and for repeating your question. Sorry I did not mean to step on your question with my reply below. I agree an answer to your question is key to this sad dispute. I too would like to hear an answer to your question. It is difficult to collaborate with colleagues who know only the delete key. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your question. May I offer a reply. The New York Times says the subject of this article is in the top one of climate disinformation organizations, as stated in the body and in the lede of our article. The proposed content supports a claim in the lede of our article and so is entirely appropriate. The proposed content and reference are entirely conformant with policy and guideline, including WP:DUE, WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:BIAS. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Gillis, Justin (May 1, 2012). "Clouds' Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters". New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 2012. ...the Heartland Institute, the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism...
  2. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Routledge. 2010. p. 256. ISBN 1135998507. The Heartland Institute, a leading think-tank promoting climate change denial...
  3. Michael Mann (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. p. 64. ISBN 0231152558. Many organizations have settled in the Potemkin village of climate change denial. Among them are the...Heartland Institute...
  4. James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Greystone Books Ltd. p. 79. ISBN 1553654854. Similarly, the Heartland Institute, a small regional think tank in the 1990s, emerged as a leading force in climate change denial in the past decade Hugh (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that, contrary to the statement, the NYT does not use "Disinformation" anywhere in the article. None do that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion This opinion piece is most certainly undue. It's also a poorly written piece of clickbait. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Restored per above discussion and the four supporting refs added to discussion just above. Vsmith (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the reference until this discussion is complete. The issue is not if MJ's had reasonable supporting references. The issue is that the "12 worst" is a MJ editorial list and not a notable one. That has not be addressed with the above 4 references. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't see much to discuss as the 4 references listed just above rather support it (just not maybe the #12 bit) and it is attributed to a reliable source. Most of the comments against above can be summarized as I don't like it. Vsmith (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Your reversion is incorrect on two counts. First, it is clear that there is an on going discussion regarding the insertion and that consensus has not been reached. Thus, regardless of other reasons it should not be inserted at this time. Second, your summary of the above is wrong. The article is being used to express an opinion and the insertion contained only the opinion. If the reference was used as a source to support the insertion of facts, the facts on which MJ's based their conclusion, then it would be a reasonable insertion. Finally, given that the insertion was by mentioning the MJ's list, it needs to be shown that this is a significant list or even that it is significant that MJ would apply a subjective title to the organization. That has not been shown. Springee (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow ... It is a WP:RS, if you feel the wording was less than optimal - then suggest a different wording, or just reword the entry with an explanation or use one of the other reliable sources above rather than edit warring and wikilawering to keep criticism by reliable sources out. Aw well - seems it's been deleted again. Carry on. Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
As a side note the RS refs above don't support or say anything about "disinformation" that I saw, they are talking about climate change denial and (in NYT) dissent. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, when I am uncomfortable with one word, I try to re-paraphrase, I don't delete a good faith, neutral, verifiable, well-reference contribution from a colleague. Hugh (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And if I felt that this opinion piece added anything of value to the article I might just do that...Capitalismojo (talk)
  • This discussion strikes me as a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Some people don't like the fact that Heartland is at the heart of the climate change denial industry, and thus oppose any content that shows this to be the case. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Heartland Institute is widely identified as a key player in promoting climate change denial, and this is a good, well-balanced source discussing that fact. Guy (Help!)
  • I would disagree. I have nothing against including the actual meet of the article. The MJ article, once the reader clicks through a link, does say why it thinks this group is on the list. Those reasons could be added to the article as stand alone facts with MJ as the source (this has been suggested several times). If MJ says Heartland did X,Y and Z, include it and cite it. What is not correct is to include the opinion portion of the MJ article as if the opinion of MJ was notable on the subject. If an MIT based climate working group issued a list of the 12 worst then it may be notable because MIT is a notable source of such information. MJ is not. Dmcq expressed the issue on Aug 21st [[6]]. Furthermore, since the inclusion is currently a subject of discussion, it's inclusion should be held off until some consensus has been reached.Springee (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"I have nothing against including the actual meet of the article." Then why did you delete the content and the reference? Speaking for myself, I try not to delete references contributed by my colleagues, I try to suggest an alternative summarization. This whole sudden burst of pseudo-compromise sentiment strikes me as something of a little boomerang deflection in the immediate wake of your most recent WP:ANEW filing. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The only part removed was the MJ opinion that HL was on a MJ list as well as the associated citation. There was no other MJ content inserted. If there is other information in the link that was not previously in the Wiki article and is not WP:UNDUE then I would not object to such additions. Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Those reasons could be added to the article" I look forward to collaborating with on summarizing more content from Mother Jones (magazine) in our encyclopedia. Meanwhile, in summarizing this particular source, of course you would agree, the main point of the article with respect to The Heartland Institute is the fact that Mother Jones (magazine) included The Heartland Institute in a survey of the most prominent voices in climate change disinformation. We are asked to fairly and neutrally summarize sources. A summarization of this article which draws other content but looks the other way on the main point would be grossly non-neutral. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is covered in the discussions above. Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"notable" Of course Mother Jones (magazine) is highly distinguished for its coverage of environmental issues. I'm sorry you do not like it. We don't go through all these apoplectic objections whenever we reference Fox News. Hugh (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please prove your claim that MJ is "highly distinguished for its coverage of environmental issues." Springee (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include Mother Jones. Mother Jones has a long history of excellence in journalism.[7][8][9][10][11] The piece in question was written by veteran reporter Josh Harkinson who is a Mother Jones staffer. The information is relevant and significant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion - It's attributed, the publication is well known, and its opinion is notable. The content is also consistent with what other RS say about the subject of this article. Yes, Mother Jones has a liberal bias - but that can be balanced with other sources. It doesn't mean its opinion is worthless or not worth noting. I'm not seeing a valid reason for excluding this beyond IDONTLIKEIT. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of MJ's opinion as a notable (but not expert) opinion. If the other sources mentioned support something similar as a fact (which I haven't checked), MJ's opinion should not be combined with it. A "top" (or bottom) 12 list cannot be used as a source of fact. In order to include the opinion, we must also include sufficient information for the reader to see it would be expected; e.g., a sourced statement that MJ is "progressive" and Heritage is (considered) "conservative". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose. Some of the other sources legitimately can be used for the statement that Heritage is a climate change denial organization. MJ's opinion adds nothing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS The source for the contended content, Mother Jones (magazine) "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" is referenced by Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright in a landmark chapter entitled "Organized Climate Change Denial" in the "The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society" editted by notable scientists.

Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 9780199683420.

chapter PDF: [12]

Hugh (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I found that too, but not how it was used. Being a reference alone means nothing. It's used in the section, "Organized Climate Change Denial". --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has access, page 153 seems to reference it in a paragraph about climate denial blogs. Unless it's used elsewhere in a relevant context, this amounts to nothing. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Harkinson is cited in support of a paragraph on Mark Morano, Climate Depot, and CFACT:

...Mark Morano exemplifies the deep roots of climate change denial in conservative circles. Before setting up Climate Depot, which is modeled on the popular right-wing "Drudge Report" and supported by R. M. Scaife's CFACT, Morano - who has a BA degree in political science - worked for Rush Limbaugh, right-wing Cybercast News Service (where he played a key role in the 'swift boat' campaign against 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry), and then for Republican Senator James Inhofe.

Hugh (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You proved the point that the "dirty dozen" label and the inclusion on the list are WP:UNDUE. The MJ article is not cited by name and only cited as source of supporting facts. The opinion part that we have argued against was not mentioned at all in the pdf you included. Springee (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"The MJ article is not cited by name and only cited as source of supporting facts." It is an academic paper. Citing sources in support of facts is what they do. It has a style guide just like we do. The source of the contended content is cited by name in the references section of the article. Hugh (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: "amounts to nothing" Respectfully disagree. Dunlap and McCright is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. It is highly significant that a mainstream media article was cited in this paper before there were many academic papers to cite. Another Harkinson Mother Jones (magazine) article is cited as well. In other words, the record is clear that Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study. While this example of WP:USEBYOTHERS does not specifically support the use of this source with respect to Heartland, it speaks volumes about the significance of Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson, which some have denigrated, and it very strongly supports the use of this source and this author in our encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed way to add the MJ citation

I've added the MJ reference into the article. I hope the addition is acceptable to all so we can close this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. After the New York Times and the Economist I am somehow remonded of Pope's "Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey, Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea." Really it is just another one saying the same sort of thing. Isn't there any usable content i n it which could add to the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the MJ source simply further backed what the others were saying. However, I think that how it was added is a better way to add that content to this and the other subject articles. States clearly that MJ has noted the organization yet avoids the WP:LABELs that are emotion laden. Searching for examples of other sources citing this article turned up only a few (other than blogs, forums and other MJ pages). None used the MJ labels. Thus I feel that stating that MJ noted the oranization but avoiding the loaded terms is a good compromise for the general use of this article §as a source. That said, I have done my BRD cycle and it has ended without a strong consensus. Springee (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The title of the reliable source is "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial."
  • The lede of the source says "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine."
  • The Heartland page of the source says "Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you."
How do you figure "a climate change denier" is a non-neutral summarization of this source? The source is not a list of all known climate change deniers in the world. The source is not saying that the subject of this article is merely "a climate change denier," it is saying that the subject of this article is a distinguished climate change denier, distinguished by its outspokenness. It is non-neutral for us to summarize this reliable source as you did. Of all the deniers of climate change in the world, our reliable source is very clearly saying that the subject of this article is among the most vocal climate change deniers. This type of distinction is the very nut of notability and noteworthiness. No policy or guideline including WP:LABEL in any way authorizes exclusion of this content from our encyclopedia. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, currently the consensus is no consensus to include the article in any way shape or form. My edits were an attempt to bridge the consensus gap. I referred to the article in a fashion similar to the precious few who cited it used it. The Atlantic did not mention any of the loaded words that MJ used. Your source mentioned it almost in passing. The article is hardly crossing the bar of WP:UNDUE (even that is questionable here). I would hope you try to work with this consensus view rather than sabotage it because you wish to include WP:LABELs. Springee (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"loaded words" What loaded words? I'm afraid to ask, but how are you applying WP:LABEL here? Hugh (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's first get the significance of the MJ reference out of the way: The Atlantic wrote, "Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group." Can we all agree that this new source demonstrates the significance of the MJ list? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice find. There's really no excuse for not including the original addition at this point, although we should probably attribute it to the author instead of just "Mother Jones." Both the article and other works by the same author (published in Mother Jones) have been repeatedly cited in other RS, including academic works. The source is reliable, and its content is notable (including the exact content that Hugh's been wanting to include). I see no reason for leaving this out now. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree that we should include the original insertion. Despite climate change being a very hot topic and almost 6 years after the original publication of the MJ article, we have only two RSs which cite the MJ article. Neither, particularly the academic article, carry over the loaded language of the MJ reference. The Atlanitic says MJ noted these corporations (organizations since not all are companies) as climate change deniers. Both are examples of using the MJ article as a reference in a neutral tone. Given the other source such as the NYTs and The Economists which are saying basically the same thing I agree with those who feel this additional citation adds little to the overall article. To me that says the article is still on the UNDUE fence but I'm willing to side with inclusion in a way similar to how it was used by other RSs. I tried to do just that with my recent insertion of the MJ reference. Springee (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"loaded language" What loaded language? Hugh (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We are asked to fairly summarizes our sources. We are under no obligation to summarize a source the same way other sources summarize that source. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"loaded language" Please be specific, what loaded language? I see no loaded language. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If you cannot see the loaded language, you have no business editing (the English language) Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

...because this ref is used on several pages. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Section is much too large

The "February 2012 document misappropriation" section now makes up about 20% of the body of the article. That seems to me to be clearly disproportionate to its importance, and thus a WP:UNDUE problem. Does anyone disagree with setting a goal of reducing the length of this section by about half? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Grossly large, and drifting into coatracking.
A lot of it is hard to follow, especially the recently restored [13] first paragraph, which I assume is trying to summarize.
I suspect if the section focused on what it means to the institute as identified by independent sources, it wouldn't be remotely as large. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree; I've chopped it. Notes: I took out most refs to the "climate strategy" doc because describing that accurately is hard, and not terribly relevant to the overall thing, exciting as it was at the time. I've also chopped most stuff about Gleik; this is the Heartland page. Ditto Golkany William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Great work! --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, not so much. The fake "strategy document" was how the media idenified Gleick as the perpetator of the incident. It is also the heart of the matter. Respected scientist engages in fraud/identity theft to acquire documents in order to (successfully) damage a ideological opponent. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Riiiight. I'm sure you were just as outraged, if not more so, by the "Climategate" email theft. :P More to the point, though, you need to mind BLP. Gleick used deception to obtain the documents, but did not "fake" or forge any of them. If you intend to accuse him of that, then you need actual reliable sources. Consider this a gentle BLP reminder. MastCell Talk 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I accuse not at all, and I'm not outraged, I am recalling this page's previous material. We had abundant refs about his public identification via the forged document until this page was washed. We had also included the information that Heartland had demanded that the US Attorney prosecute Gleick for fraud and forgery. That has been removed as well. Moreover, Gleick was not "cleared" by any independent investigation. His board, the board that he had hand-picked, for the organization that he created and led anounced that he was cleared by their "external investigation", whatever that might mean. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One might consider reading the Guardian ref which specifically mentions that it is unclear what the "investigation entailed" and mentions not that the document in question was not a forgery, but that his board concluded that he had not forged it. The Guardian then links to the statement by Gleick saying that he had received the "climate strategy document" anonymously in the mail and that its arrival had prompted his deception against Heartland. As editors will recall from this page previously, the metadata on the documents show just the reverse. The material from Heartland were delivered before the creation of the strategy document, and the metadata was how Gleick was identified. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is the Christian Science Monitor article as a reminder of how Gleick was identified, and the basics of the incident. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That article attributes the claim that Gleick wrote the document to the Heartland Institute and nebulous "bloggers". While it could be true, the source does not establish it as fact. And actually it hardly matters: Poe's Law applies, basically. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heartland_Institute/Archive_3&oldid=1144367671"