Talk:Bradley Foundation

Untitled
This article needs some very serious work and when I get some time I will try and fix it myself. The bulk if not all of the article is sourced from a anti-conservative organisation, and no opposing view is presented. This must be political bias, and simply wont do

jucifer 03:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Bradley a think tank? I thought they were just a foundation. -Willmcw 09:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the Schools listing because the research grants given by foundations are rarely, if ever, unrestricted, general grants to a university. Instead, the grants are earmarked to fund a particular faculty member's research. Without knowing who the grant has been designated to benefit it is uninformative to simply list the institution that handles the money. -Willmcw 06:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I grouped the grants by amount, because there is a difference between giving $15 million and giving $37,000. I deleted the think tank references, but if anyone finds evidence they function as a think-tank then please incorporate it and add the designation back. -Willmcw 23:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
This is not in its current state a Neutral Point of View article. It is a laundry list of complaints about the Bradley Foundation from sources that oppose it. The NPOV tag should stay in place until a rewrite is done.&mdash;Linnwood 03:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It does have a section on criticism. But the bulk of the article expresses their achievements. Can you be more specific? Thanks. -Willmcw 03:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Being a native of Milwaukee Wisconsin and familiar with Allen-Bradley Manufacturing and its work in the community, and later the foundation, I'd be happy to assist in researching the foundations background and activities. Nobs 03:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That'd be great - so long as it's verifiable, non-original research of course. Cheers, -Willmcw


 * Also this article reads like a guilt by association piece, focus on things the Bradley group does not what people who took money do. It is not enough to find a quote in a newspaper which receives money to suggest that the group is horrible, they also are large funders of students (for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.176.4 (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

new edits
Fixed the NPOV, by first figuring out what Bradley spends its money on, then moved all the critisism to Critisism and placed a conclusion of what they do, based on their expenses. I also added parts of the Foundations statement from the Bradley website. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerdark (talk • contribs).


 * Thanks for your edits. However please don't copy material from other websites without making it clear that you are doing so. I've marked the material as a quotation, but it'd be better if we summarized it in our own words. -Willmcw 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. I rewrote the copied part and removed it.
 * Hey, I wonder if those guys can't help financing Wikipedia.. Apparently they support public knowledge projects...
 * User:killerdark


 * That's much better. I don't know if Wikipedia has applied for grants from anybody. That'd be handled by the Wikimedia foundation, I believe. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The (not) Criticism Section
To me the only two things that appear as well-described criticism are the last sentence about what Wiyalto said and the next one regarding the People for the American Way. I don’t think the first two paragraphs/items listed in the criticism section belong there at all, as they seem to be neutral statements of fact. Including them in the criticism section without any further explanation presupposes they were inherently wrong. I'd like to take them and move them to the main section directly above. Comments? :-) Lawyer2b 14:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. -Willmcw 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved parts to criticism, because of this: In the early 1990s the foundation helped support The American Spectator magazine, which at the time was researching damaging material on President Bill Clinton. Before that, it had paid to have David Brock's attack on Anita Hill published. Seems to be in conflict with the NPOV. It paid to attack seems, not neutral... and here the same thing: In early 2003, Joyce bragged to a local paper  So an important CEO of a foundation, goes to some local paper and brags? NPOV conflict right?


 * Let me know what you guys think. In the mean time, I will see if I can find some info about that book that Brock wrote and what happened in early 2003. Killerdark 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From the american specator wiki:

The March 1992 issue contained an expose on Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill, famously calling Hill "a bit nutty and a bit slutty." A January 1994 article about Bill Clinton contained the first reference in print to Clinton accuser Paula Jones, although the main topic of the article was Clinton's use of Arkansas state troopers to facilitate his extramarital sexual activities and it only referred to Jones by her first name. Both articles were later recanted by author David Brock. The second story caused the magazine's circulation to reach 300,000.


 * Now, my last issue is, in how far is a foundation responsible or can be held responsible publicly (that is what we are doing here) for accusations that are made by one slightly more extreme rightwing author in a rightwing magazine, and those accusations were later withdrawn by that same guy, offering his apology at least to Hill. It is good info. And it did happen, but should it be on this page? Seems in conflict with NPOV.


 * Killerdark 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Killer: What NPOV are you talking about? I don't know of any restrictions, besides not endorsing a political candidate or party, on a public foundation as long its actions fall under its chartered purpose (which can be very broadly interpreted.) Lawyer2b 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

JS Online
This is what the Milwaukee article says: ''Joyce said it was inevitable that the younger Bush would embrace the neoconservative view. "I'm not sure September 11th did more than push the timetable up," he said. But press accounts suggest that the events of Sept. 11 were crucial for Bush, and even after this his thinking changed gradually in response to several things:''


 * Joyce is quoted saying "I'm not sure September 11th did more than push the timetable up," Then the article goes on about press accounts. In the wiki it is stated that Joyce "brags". Killerdark 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Conference on the Study of Religion and Terrorism JOHN M. OLIN INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES


 * On November 20-22, 2002, the conference investigated "what now appears to be a new form of political action with international consequences. Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism was far from unknown, and political conflicts with religious elements were frequently encountered. The attacks of September 11, however, make us question whether we adequately understood the role of religion and its relation to political violence. Among the questions the conference sought to answer are: Does religion add a distinct and different character to political action? What does Islam say about inter-religious conflict? Does terrorism fundamentally alter the political structure of the time and place where it occurs? What are the policy implications of September 11 for the American military and U.S. foreign policy?"


 * I don't think the above text can be interpreted as: provoking to attack Iraq. I cant find any other documents that prove any provoking to attack iraq. Killerdark 08:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Marquette Law School Gift
The Bradley Foundation recently pledged $1 million to Marquette Law School to be used toward the construction of the new law school building. Doesn't that belong on there?Wpride33 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Government that Controls Us All
You'd think there'd be more info about the result of their investments. Miserlou (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Phil Wilayto
He doesn't appear to have any credentials, can't seem to find anything he's published, and he doesn't appear to be a WP:RS. "The Feeding Trough" is self-published WP:SPS: send him $12 and you can get a copy. "Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Phil Wilayto, former coordinator of A Job is a Right Campaign in Milwaukee and a contributor to MediaTransparency, a left-wing Web site that tracks the funding of right-wing politics, writes:

"The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off."

Wilayto also published a 140-page report on the Bradley Foundation, The Feeding Trough, on behalf of the "A Job is a Right Campaign" in Milwaukee. The report claims the Bradley Foundation commissioned the studies that supported the welfare reform legislation in Wisconsin, which he contends harmed the state's poor residents. He also claimed the Bradley Foundation exploits Milwaukee's black community. Lionel (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're using the "Trough" report as a source. It's just mentioned. It's not that important and we can leave it out.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No more criticism?
It is somewhat alarming that at present, there is no criticism in this article. It has been completely scrubbed clean of any controversy, and is no longer in step with other Wikipedia articles. For instance, David Horowitz received $4M, and Bradley is mentioned in the "Allegations of racism" section in that article. Not to mention, the book, The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve article mentions that sources used by the book were funded by the Pioneer Fund. But the co-author, Charles Murray, is sponsored by American Enterprise Institute, which receives money from Bradley. The Bradley Foundation has funded various entities, for which the respective Wikipedia articles include criticism of racism, but the Bradley Foundation has no mention of this?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a article containing the links between Bradley and these other organizations:
 * http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/into-the-mainstream?page=0,1]

At minimum the various associations with controversy that Bradley Foundation maintains, should be documented. 216.113.193.87 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bradley Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051218031944/http://www.bradleyfdn.org:80/about.html to http://www.bradleyfdn.org/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Bradley was a founding member of John Birch Society, it is relevant to have a link to the John Birch Society page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk)


 * This article is about the the Bradley Foundation, not the Bradley brothers. If this information is relevant it belongs (with a source) in their (Harry Lynde Bradley, Lynde Bradley) articles, not here. 32.218.43.95 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The founder of the Bradley Foundation was a founding member of John Birch Society, which makes a link to the John Birch Society page relavant. Per Wikipedias Manual of Style "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." MeropeRiddle (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is relevance, it belongs in the individual's article, not here. This is the epitome of tendentious editing. 32.218.38.139 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the relationship, expressed in reliable sources, between the subject of this article and the JBS? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The enitre purpose of the organization's existence is an attempt to preserve and extend the principles and philosophy of the Bradley brothers. It is not unreasonable to reference an existing organization of which they were a known member and supporter that also share similar principles and philosophy. i.e. extending quality education to children through charter and voucher programs. 1. Here is a regional article referencing that he was a supporter: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/from-local-roots-bradley-foundation-builds-conservative-empire-k7337pb-134187368.html 2. http://www.bradleyfdn.org/On-Lion-Letter/ID/479/Top-researchers-evidence-points-to-school-voucher-effectiveness


 * So the foundation wasn't established until after the death of one brother and didn't become prominent until both were decades dead...the possible JBS membership of one of the long dead men is irrelevent. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I also note that the jsonline ref added above specifically undermines the contention of relevence: "In 1985, all changed with sale of the Allen-Bradley Co. to Rockwell International for $1.65 billion. A portion of the proceeds boosted the foundation's assets to a stunning $290 million.With the cash came a new name, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and a broadened mission - to promote conservative ideas and values on a national stage.  So we have an organization decades removed from the death of the founders, with a new mission, and no evidence of any meaningful connection whatsoever to the foundation and the John Birch Society. None. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of date of establishment or decades dead, they are Wisconsin organizations that share similar/common goals which makes it reasonable to to reference as an indirect and/or tangentially related topic. I'mn ot sure what the goal is in removing something that is tangentially related to a topic, when the purpose is to allow people to explore. JBS is an Educational and political advocacy group and Bradley Foundation is very philanthropic/involved in charter school funding. Just because an organization has increased funding to extend their missions on a national level, doesnt mean they arent indirectly or tangentially topically related to smaller organizations. It doesn't change the fact that the mission of the organization if to preserve and extend the principles and philosophy of the Bradley brothers, they just have the capacity to do so on a mauch larger scale. JBS is also conservative, which makes them another wisconsin/conservative organization. It is not unreasonable to reference another wisconsin conservative organization. MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments are increasingly tendentious. The John Birch Society is a bunch of wackjobs that were famously drummed out of the conservative movement in the 1960s. It has never, ever, ever been an "Educational" advocacy group. There are no reliable source refs that suggest that the Bradley Foundation has any connection to the John Birch Society. Period. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "is a bunch of wackjobs" I was unaware of this. I simply thought they were similar Wisconsin-based organization with some shared goals in regards to edcucation reform.  Upon further googling, I see a lot of articles that go off on the deep end.  MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please review the rest of the external links in the light of WP:RF, WP:SEEALSO, WP:EMBED, and WP:OR. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that our readers, after finishing reading our article on the Bradley Foundation, would next naturally want to read more about the John Birch Society; WP:RF, WP:SEEALSO, WP:EMBED. Both conservative, ok; some common actors, ok; both Wisconsin based, maybe; without WP:RS this seems like a stretch to me WP:OR. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with HughD. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bradley Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603234420/http://www.bradleyfdn.org/pdfs/Grants2008/08EconomicGrowth.pdf to http://www.bradleyfdn.org/pdfs/Grants2008/08EconomicGrowth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Gorsuch and union busting
Will be looking for entire section of tie in and victory trot at Trump's Washington hotel. Wikipietime (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Failure to document that the group is a right-wing org
The article misleadingly presents this organization as a normal charity that gives to typical charity causes. However, this is a right-wing advocacy organization that primarily funnels money towards groups that push right-wing policies, including climate change denial, union busting, and social conservatism. RS make it clear that this organization primarily funds conservative advocacy organizations, whereas the only sources in this article that blandly describe it as a "charity" are self-sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "normal charity", but as a matter of fact, the Bradley Foundation is an IRS-designated tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, classified as a T21 ("Corporate Foundations within the Philanthropy, Voluntarism and Grantmaking Foundations category"). This means that legally it gives money to other 501(c)(3) organizations. It would have to have a 501(c)(4) designation to engage in advocacy or lobbying activities. Our article, based on reliable sources, documents that the Bradley Foundation often gives money to conservative groups. So, it is accurately described as a nonprofit charitable foundation that donates to conservative groups. Marquardtika (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not describe it as a "nonprofit charitable foundation" or "charitable foundation". They do not describe it that way because doing so would be misleading in the extreme. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's literally true that it is a nonprofit charitable foundation. It's an IRS legal designation. You changed the description to "right-wing advocacy organization" based on a source which says no such thing. The source describes the Bradley Foundation as "a leading source of ideas and financing for American conservatives." It also says "The foundation — named after brothers, Lynde and Harry Bradley, who were well-known Wisconsin industrialists — has more than $800 million in assets. It supports arts, education and health organizations in Wisconsin as well as, increasingly, the goals of American conservatism." Where did you get "right-wing advocacy organization" from that? If you want to introduce a new description of the group, you should find some sourcing that bears it out and integrate it with the existing content and sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)