Talk:The Heritage Foundation/Archive 1

2004 and 2005 comments
The factors used to calculate the Index score are [...] rule of law and the ability to enforce contracts [....] A large amount of any of these will result in a lower score on the Index.

That doesn't sound quite right, but I'm not sure my fix is NPOV. &#9829; «Charles A. L.» 14:46, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank located in Washington, DC, is widely regarded as one of the world's most influential public policy research institutes.

Wouldn't it be more correct to talk of "most influential public policy research institutes in the United States"? I can be wrong, but my impression is that Heritage is focused on US policies, and the current formulation makes it appear like it intervenes in many countries. David.Monniaux 14:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Think tank members

 * Ari Cohen (related external link)

The article Ari Cohen is up for deletion (VfD) and I glanced at this article looking for whether a members' list would be provided; it is not. Therefore, I place the information about to evaporate here for later use.

Courtland 05:27, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Editor,

This paper published a Guest Commentary from Ed Feulner on July, 20th, titled The Rise in Dependency. This commentary was misleading and misguiding and patronizing to anyone who has thought for more than a half an hour about the causes of poverty. In the column the author cited “. an objective measure. . by the Heritage Foundation,” which is a published study called the Index of Dependency. Interestingly the small type, on the following page of this article indicates that Mr. Feulner is in actuality the president of the Heritage Foundation (in other words, he was doing his job, less than he was expressing genuine interest). The Foundation is a conservative think-tank infamous since the Nixon days for fighting against social programs which by, fair share progressive taxation, takes of the rich Heritage Foundation donors and members, and gives to the poor and unlucky. Something well earning conservatives anguish in their sleep over. Feulner fuels the reader’s anger early in the commentary by stating “. . it paints a frightening picture.” The Index of Dependency, is supposed to further scare the anti-government crowd, the hundred-thousandaires and the millionaires whom through the natural progression of greed, can’t stand to give more when they have more. Observe that the title of the study is not Index of Needs, or Index of Assistance, but “Dependency,” a bad thing, be frightened rich people!

The major flaw with the Heritage Foundation’s study, titled the Index of Dependency, is that it assumes that “community groups, family networks and local governments. .” somehow used to meet the needs of those now taking advantage of government sponsored programs. The truth is lost in reality. Healthcare, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, Housing assistance and Social Security were all formed out of the clear and long suffered inability of these thousands of small groups to meet those very needs. A man, who was a Republican, when that party was new and the “progressive / liberal,” party in the US, once explained eloquently what Ed Feulner and his cohorts seem to not understand, or refuse to, when he said “. . government is the coming together of peoples, or groups of people, to accomplish as a whole, what they could not accomplish as individuals. .” That wise man was named Abraham Lincoln, our sixteenth president. Find a current government program in which there is past evidence for it’s need having been accomplished by small groups of people, individuals, family networks, churches or local governments, then seek to destroy the program using the argument of that evidence, or else become intellectually honest and support it in working..

All roads of thought from the Heritage Foundation lead one to surmise that eliminating taxation should be a priority. Whether the subjects are domestic or foreign policy, or morals, or economics, they hide their motivation with tactfully worded studies that paint a world of doom resulting from our helping each other. The causes of poverty are never addressed by the Heritage Foundation because that would lead to discussion of solutions and would really “paint a frightening picture,” to Heritage members. That picture would have to include government restrictions on greedy corporations who seek to re-import sweat shop goods, deceitfully avoid their taxation share, seek to keep laborers at or near the poverty line as a basis for being able to compete. Discussion may lead to universal health care or extended Medicare and an end to for profit health insurance company’s towers of gold and multi billion dollar profits. Solutions would lead to an education revolution in the US where teachers would be paid as professionals, our children would have ample facilities and small classrooms and our children would become the smartest on the Earth – because education is the greatest determinant factor to avoid poverty in any one’s lifetime.

"Sir", you seem to have all the answers figured out, don't you? You have undoubtedly never read anything by the Heritage Foundation in your entire life, maybe you've been reading too much Marx and Engels? The US has sunk a trillion dollars into welfare and social programs over the past 60 years and poverty continues to exist, arguably it's gotten worse in the inner cities. Grow up and try to figure out basic economics, as well as understand that Wikipedia isn't run by one person, but by many.


 * I don't think this letter should be here. This is page for discussion of the Heritage Foundation article, not the Heritage Foundation itself.  If you think a critique of the Index of Dependency is important, there are many free web-hosting sites available for doing this - an external link can then be added to the article Crosbiesmith 17:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Links
There's a link to the SourceWatch entry for Heritage. I added a link under that to a critique of SourceWatch which was removed within five minutes as link spam. Why should Wikipedia entries for conservative outfits be spammed by links to SourceWatch (an ideologically biased poor cousin of the wiki idea) without a way to suggest that those links in themselves are questionable?

Are all of them necessary? Should they be broken into categories? What categories? Rkevins82 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed three links and fixed one. I think the number remaining is about right; the problem is that the article is too short given the importance of the organization, so it still may appear that there are too many links.  John Broughton 12:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How many Bill Berkowitz articles should there be, and which? Rkevins82 01:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd vote to take out the October 22, 2001 article, and leave the other three. What Wikipedia is not -- John Broughton 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies if my newly-added CBC interview link is deemed to be another extraneous link. The interview seems worth capturing somewhere on the page, as it shows a member of the HF in action -- and in impolite action at that! -S  72.138.234.210 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Desegregation Litigation
I recently read an article about the HF's wrangling with the NAACP over integration in Loisville, I think. I wondered if there are any other editors think it would be appropriate to include a section on this case in the article. Perhaps it could be part of a larger heading on HF and race relations? Any thoughts on the matter? Aelffin 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link that you could post here, so others could take a look? John Broughton  |  Talk 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Page should reflect accurate views on 501c3 and lobbying
On 5/19/07, editor Thelonious Monk deleted my 5/19/07 revision under "finances and lobbying".

My revision referenced the H election that federally tax-exempt 501c3 organizations may take that allows them to spend roughly 20 percent of their tax deductible contributions on direct legislative and appointment lobbying.

I'm changing it back to bring it into conformity with the laws relating to 501c3s

Jackjump 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversions
TheloniousMonk, I'd appreciate your explanation of how your 5/19/07 reversion of my edits conforms to Wikiquette on Reversions. Jackjump 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HeritageFoundationLogo.gif
Image:HeritageFoundationLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the telephone?
Why does the Heritage Foundation have a telephone in its logo? Does anybody know? Seems rather curious. It would be nice to add a short explanation about the history of the logo to the article. Cambrasa (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the liberty bell... Saksjn (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Code Pink protest reference
A wikipedia entry is not a press release for activist groups to inflate their significance. This reference belongs in the code pink entry, if anywhere at all. The "protest" was not significant given the 30+ year history of the organization, which is summarized in roughly six paragraphs. It seems to serve only to link to the possibly illegal video produced by code pink (filming is against Heritage policy for public events). 66.134.221.75 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs a photo
This article could really use a photo of the Heritage Foundation's HQ in DC. --D. Monack | talk 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy Section?
This organization, I imagine, has some legitimate noteworthy criticism, or has generated controversy. Where is it? Mrrealtime (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that a Criticism/Controversy section is certainly in order. I want to discuss the elements first, however, and gather sources.
 * Potentially notable inclusions (that I can recall) include the following:
 * - THF's controversial positions on individual liberties (despite one of their core tenants being protection of "individual rights" [1]
 * - The firing of THF employee John Hulsman (purported by many to be a result of his criticism of the Bush administration.) [2]
 * - Critics on the left cite the supposed buying of platforms and opinions expoused by THF by outside interests. [3]
 * - Ties to other controversial groups or people (Jack Abramoff, Americans for Tax Reform) [4]


 * [1] Need to locate source for this -- relates to positions on death with dignity and medical marijuana
 * [2] Chris Preble of the Cato Institute (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/07/heritage-fellow/)
 * [3] People for the American Way, Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics (Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way, 1996): p. 5.
 * [4] http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=153


 * Obviously prose will need to be written, and sources gathered, but that should be a decent start for ideas. These sources are pretty far to the left/fringe, so more mainstream ones should probably be used.  The CATO Institute's criticisms made the NYT and/or The Chicago Tribune I believe.
 * Unabashed Fornicator (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Heritage-logo.jpg
The image File:Heritage-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

American values internal link
It occurs to be that the conservative term"traditional American values" does not equate to the broader definition of American culture in the linked article. Just a thought, I'm not sure what if anything could replace the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.153.118 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
The vast majority of links to this page come from Heritage Foundation. Either this page should be changed back to Heritage Foundation or (preferable, I think) those pages should be changed to reflect The Heritage Foundation to avoid redirects. ObjectivityAlways (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by your preferred option. The article is either going to be at The Heritage Foundation or at Heritage Foundation, and the other page must be a redirect.  There is no way to avoid one page being a redirect, short of actually deleting a page (which would be a huge disservice to readers; I doubt any admin would agree to such a proposed deletion).  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for changing the page back to Heritage Foundation, the relevant guideline is Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Since the foundation (at least on the one page I looked) seems to always capitalize "The", it would appear that "The" should be part of the article, as you suggest (I think).  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The page should remain as The Heritage Foundation. Linked citations of Heritage Foundation on all other pages should be changed to The Heritage Foundation.  ObjectivityAlways (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. I'm not sure that I agree that this is a problem; a reader who clicks on a link in some text in an article that says "the Heritage Foundation" and ends up at the page The Heritage Foundation isn't going to be confused.  But if you or someone else want to go through each of the more than 500 articles that link to Heritage Foundation and change them, more power to you.  Or you could request a bot owner to make those changes (there is no guarantee that anyone will accept the request, but you won't know unless you try).  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section
I don't see why the information on Ted E. Schelinski should be deleted. I did not add the information to the article, but the justification (WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP) don't seem to apply here. It seems more like User:TedFrank is fishing for a reason to delete something that he'd rather remain buried, especially considering that the source is the Washington Post.Athene cunicularia 13:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also WP:COATRACK. An alleged road-rage incident involving a non-public, not-notable, mid-level employee in his private life has no business in the Wikipedia article about his employer. Insertion violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP.  Administrators should scrub both the article and the talk page. THF 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The guy isn't a spokesperson or any kind of a public figure, and the assault happened away from work. I don't see any way this could possibly reflect on the HF as a whole. &larr;BenB4 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Morphh   (talk) 14:53, 09 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for my view here. And before you baselessly accuse me of any sort of fishing, bear in mind my views are mostly diametrically the opposite of what the Heritage Foundation espouses Nil Einne 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reported User:76.26.145.235 to the Admin Noticeboard. I had left a message on his/her talk about the discussion here to present the argument for inclusion but they have ignored the message and are continuing to violate 3RR. Morphh  (talk) 17:42, 09 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was already done... removed the duplication.  Morphh   (talk) 17:53, 09 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted this on the Noticeboard, but I wanted to also post it here:
 * I am not necessarily opposed to leaving the information out, but isn't/wasn't the person in question a Vice President of the organization? It sounds like he's a representative employee to me. Take, for example, that the Washington Post article exists in the first place. If he was a non-representative employee, it wouldn't be newsworthy, but the Post obviously thought that this detail made a relatively common occurrence newsworthy. I'm willing to be convinced, but the information is obviously not libelous, and I'm also not sure that BLP and WEIGHT apply. I also think that the anon user is behaving inappropriately. It doesn't mean that the information is irrelevant, though.Athene cunicularia 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He was not the VP of the organization, he was a VP for finance and operations. Most orgs have VP's for each department (this guy), then Senior VP's, then CFO/CSO/CIO, then VP, then Pres.  It is an arrest (not yet convicted - could be dismissed...) on his personal time for an assualt (doesn't mention battery - so he may not have even made contact), which is typically a misdemeanor.  I'm not trying to defend the guy but come on... Heritage Foundation has 30 plus years of public policy that includes their contributions and criticisms in the the field - are you really suggesting it may be encyclopedic that some mid-level VP got arrested?  Wikipedia is not the news (try Wikinews)  Morphh   (talk) 21:25, 09 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to have a discussion. There are a lot of assumptions being made here, and the section in question is pretty much objective, with a legit source. Regardless, current events have a place on Wikipedia, and you can save your condescending remarks for someone else.Athene cunicularia 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I'm fine with good reasoning, as long as it's good reasoning. I'm not trying to get into a revert war, I was just looking for some useful clarification, not links to Wikipedia rules that don't apply.Athene cunicularia 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old discussion, but I am a bit divided on it. In support of removing the material, I see that the washington post article is primarily about the accident involving the bicyclist.  The relationship to the Heritage foundation is incidental--and the foundation is not discussed in the article except in a passing mention of the man's employment.  The headline "Convergence of Driver, Bicyclist Ends in Arrest" doesn't mention the foundation.  On the other hand, reading the article, it seems a pretty severe incident...to respond to Morphh's comments, the article describes him making physical contact.  And Heritage has a public page on him on their site: .  I would be inclined to say that this material does deserve a sentence somewhere on this page.  I would put the material under the "Leadership" section, which I think should be expanded anyway because this page would be enriched by including more material on the major individuals in this organization.   Cazort (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

dKosopedia link removal
I removed the link to Critical/liberal profile at dKos that was added by User:ObjectivityAlways. "dKosopedia" is a site run by Daily Kos and has an openly admitted liberal bias. I think it's problematic to link to POV wikipedia-like sites. The way I view this sort of thing is as follows:


 * That article is completely unsourced...just POV assertions.
 * Anything on that site that is relevant to the topic and sourceable in reliable sources probably belongs in this article.
 * Anything that is sufficiently off-topic or not sourceable in reliable sources is not worth linking to. And it's never worth linking to a wiki article that is totally unsourced.
 * Maybe this is a bias of mine, but I love wikipedia, I think wikipedia's stricter standards for reliable sources and against original research result in much better articles. And I don't want to encourage / support POV wikipedia clones (no matter what their political bias) in any way or form by linking to them.  Doing so lends them credibility, sends them traffic, boosts their google rank, and in my opinion, makes wikipedia look bad by linking to something with little or no standards of academic rigor, and these are all things I'd rather not do.

Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AEI Neoconservative?
Both Heritage and AEI have some similar roots and beliefs - Coors, etc

I believe that it is a matter of opinion to classify AEI as "neoconservative" compared to Heritage since neither actually claims the term.

For a good article on "neoconservatism" se Irving Kristol's article in The Weekly Standard.

By differentiating AEI with the neocon label gives the reader the impression that Heritage is more paleoconservative like Pat Buchanan, which is clearly inaccurate, just look at the definition of views in the current article.
 * I would not say that AEI is neoconservative. See Talk:American Enterprise Institute.  It certainly has neo-cons within it, and has put out neo-con rhetoric (including stuff blindly defending George W. Bush's administration) and I think it's appropriate to reference that in that article, but, I don't think this is an accurate way of labeling it as a whole, for the reasons I and others give in that discussion...such as its views on agriculture.  Cazort (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like it was written by someone very sympathetic to the organization. E.g.: "Unlike traditional think tanks, which tend to house scholars and politicians-in-exile who produce large books, Heritage tends to employ bright, aggressive public policy analysts", "Heritage's operations have transformed the traditional concept of the 'think tank'", etc. However, I'd like someone to confirm this before I remove/rewrite. --Eyrian 08:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read some texts on ideological groups you will find that political scientists would agree with those assessments. Rkevins82 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to add to this article a bit more of the criticism that the Heritage Foundation has been subject to. For example, David Brock, a former high-profile fellow, blasts the organization in his book "The Republican Noise Machine".  I just read about it.  I guess I would find it reassuring to see some mention of that criticism in this article and possibly a response to it.  --Ben Houston 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ben Houston - there is far more criticism of the Heritage Foundation than there is praise out there. I came here to get information about how they were started with Nazi money and the article doesn't even mention that. I think its also important to talk about the "anti-fed" conspiracy theories, Ron Paul and the Tea Party protesters here. This article sounds like it was written and edited by the Heritage Foundation itself. 98.203.23.189 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The external links section of the article as it stands on May 20, 2007 seems clearly to violate NPOV, which says, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Editor Thelonious Monk removed my 5/19 edit to the external links section which added a section on "praise". He also deleted one link I provided in the praise category from an undersecretary at the Department of Defense. It seems clear enough to me that that link was of equal authority to the links under the "criticism, etc." section.

The external links section, if it includes links to articles criticizing Heritage from (in my opinion) fairly marginal hardleft critics, it ought to include links to articles praising Heritage, even if they are from sources that someone like Thelonious Monk might regard as a marginal hardright figure.

Jackjump 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+++ In the "Major donors" section, I changed "money has come from...right-leaning foundations like the Bradley, Olin and Scaife foundations" to "from...conservative foundations Bradley, Olin and Scaife."

Thelonious Monk deleted my revision on 5/19/07. C'mon, Thelonious.

The part I changed is problematic in two ways. This is an encyclopedia. It should not contain vague locutions about vague, unnamed foundations that resemble other foundations. If the editor wants to name the other foundations, he or she should do so and not include them by alluding to an unspecified and probably contentious claim about their alleged similarity to three other foundations.

Also, why do you insist on characterizing the foundations as "right-leaning" rather than "conservative"? There's no article in Wikipedia that defines "right-leaning" whereas there is an article that at least attempts to define "conservative". "Right-leaning" has different shades of meaning in different English-speaking countries.

Jackjump 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one find this institution to be a complete piece of garbage.

-G

I want to add another vote to the criticism of this article as violating NPOV. It is more editorial than factual. I think that it should be revised.--Krimsley 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a promotional brochure. Foxparse 09:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

School Textbooks?
Did they ever produce textbooks for schools? I seem to remember having textbooks with the Heritage Foundation logo on it in elementary and middle school (about 15 yrs ago). Jigen III (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any information on this in a brief google search. This would be very interesting...it could be you're remembering a very similar logo of a different publisher?  If they've published textbooks though, I would like to find out about that and include it on this page.  Cazort (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was Houghton Mifflin, not Heritage. Jigen III (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Conservative vs. right-wing
I really don't have a preference for which term is used, but the idea that neither term is used and the HR presented as a plain-jane think tank (like the Rand Corp.) is not going to fly. Let's see, founded by Paul Weyrich (coiner of the term "Moral Majority" and founder of the arch-conservative Free Congress Foundation), headed by Edwin Feulner Jr. (former staff director of the House Republican Study Committee), Richard V. Allen (disgraced Reagan admin. National Security Advisor), L. Paul Bremer (Bush crony and defenestrated former director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq), Elaine Chao (Bush appointee, current Secretary of Labor), Lawrence Di Rita (former assistant to Kay Bailey Hutchison), Michael Johns (conservative policy hack), John F. Lehman (Reagan's Secretary of the Navy), Edwin Meese (no comment needed here). There's not a notable liberal or a progressive in the bunch. Heritage Foundation is conservative by definition. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Conservative is probably a better term. FM - what a screed! Rkevins82 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the "american conservatism" article I agree. I would prefer a more specific term, since they are clearly something different than traditional conservatives, but these are all included in the defintion given in the article. Pertn 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of labeling Heritage Foundation as being conservative. I think the current text that reads "The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study..." is a good way to handle it.  This clearly identifies the foundation as being connected to the Reagan presidency's policies.  This is important for someone like me who can sometimes identify as a conservative, but who does not identify at all with the policies of Reagan.  Conservatism is complex and it's generally not safe to label a think-tank as "conservative" or "liberal".  While in everyday conversation over dinner, I might refer to Heritage Foundation or something it publishes as "right-wing", I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I think it's always best to use more expanded, descriptive language that speaks for itself--say what specific biases it has, what views it promotes, which politicians it has successfully influenced, etc.  Cazort (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement
There is no mention of the dozens if not hundreds of organizations that are opposed to the Heritage Foundation. There is also a lack of opposing viewpoints to this organization. If this is not an ad, well, the article does indeed appear to be favorable or friendly to the Heritage Foundation. I say its an Ad and may need to be totally re-written.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific about what "opposing viewpoints" are missing from this page? Any organization that makes political statements, especially ones that are fairly far towards one end of the political spectrum like Heritage Foundation does, is going to have many political opponents.  But it's not appropriate to include "opposing viewpoints" in this page if they're just different perspectives--because this material isn't really relevant to the foundation.  What is relevant, however, is when people criticize the foundation itself, and/or its publications or stances on issues, and when this criticism is documented in reliable sources.  For example, see the Malaysia controversy section.  This sort of material definitely belongs on this page, and if you can find more material like this, then get to work adding it!  On the other hand, "opposing views" not mentioning the foundation, or non-reliable sources (like the dkosopedia article describing the foundation), I think have no place here.  Cazort (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiss ass article
There is an abundance of criticism of Heritage's reactionary, imperialist, and capitalist policies. Heritage actively encouraged terrorism in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Angola, and elsewhere for the sake of trying to contain the imaginary "Soviet threat". Heritage is therefore responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands. Heritage's agitation in putting forth deregulation and other capitalist rollbacks resulted in an economic catastrophe in the 1980s. Jacob Peters


 * Though I wouldn't use your exact term, I do agree the article as it currently stands glosses over much of the current criticisms of the foundation, which are notable and significant. Time has come to fix this issue. Which first? FeloniousMonk 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a term that can be agreed upon? Resistance movements do not accurately describe these groups or actions. --P89trd (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - their response to Hurricane Katrina, and now, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti (as uncovered by Democracy Now!) should be included. --24.235.170.111 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonpartisan?
How does this qualify as a nonpartisan organization? Heritage is so right wing that I assumed its listing as "nonpartisan" was a typo, but it has been restored. The article itself admits they worked closely with the Bush administration, not to mention the John Hulsman controversy which remains off this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.199.25 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know they act extremely partisan - and it's just plain obvious, but in general, when an organization describes itself as non-partisan, it's considered non-partisan. It's generally different for organizations that focus on social issues, though, as they can be labeled Christian organizations, or some other variant.  I'm not sure, but I don't think there's reason enough to change.  The non-partisanship is clearly a guise, but what do we have to really associate them indisputably with the GOP - and just the GOP?  98.168.192.162 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with self-description - if an organization endorses and works for a party or party candidates it is a partisan organization, if it does not, it is not. The Heritage Foundation does not endorse candidates or parties and would not be able to keep its 501c3 status if it did. - 173.49.160.228 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above, all non-profit organizations are, by necessity, (as is Heritage) "non-partisan." ObjectivityAlways (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points.
 * So why include the category, when it's a given that all non-profits are non-partisan, and it's already listed in the category of Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.?
 * A bit off topic, but shouldn't the category be filled with companies? http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profile1.php?state=US indicates there's over 1.5 million of them. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they use the term "extremist" so often can it just be applied to them? And what's with the "The" in the title? Hcobb (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since about 40% of the US population is conservative and about 20% of the population is liberal, take a guess at which ideological organizations best qualify for the term "extremist." Drrll (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonpartisan (American organization) is a taxation category. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a few good...
Editors! Report for duty here. Lionel (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

November GOP debate
The article currently mentions that the November foreign policy debate was planned, however it has not been updated to note that the debate took place. There is also no mention of any commentary on the event. Since there was significant coverage of the debate and Heritage's involvement, I'd like to make a suggestion that a new section called "Republican presidential debate" be created within "Policy influence". I've drafted up some wording for the section, using the existing material from the article and news coverage following the debate. Since I work for The Heritage Foundation, it would be preferable to have another editor look over my suggestion and add the information if they think it is suitable. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the section I have put together:


 * ===Republican presidential debate===
 * On November 22, 2011, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute co-hosted the Republican Party presidential candidates' debate on foreign policy and national defense held at Constitution Hall. The event was the first presidential debate to be sponsored by either Heritage or AEI. During the debate, Heritage fellows Edwin Meese and David Addington were among those who questioned candidates on policy. The debate was praised by The New York Times for putting "pressure on candidates to show their policy expertise". According to conservative commentator Michael Barone, the debate was "probably the most substantive and serious presidential debate of this election cycle."

Blog and social media
There's little discussion in this article of Heritage's more recent strategies to influence policy and reach the media and individuals. I've put together a new section that I'd like to suggest be added to "Policy influence". The section I've written is based on media coverage of Heritage's blog and its social media use. As I mentioned above in my previous request, I work for The Heritage Foundation and specifically with some of the people mentioned here, so I'd prefer if another editor could take a look at the wording I've suggested below and add it into the article if it's acceptable. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ==Digital communications==
 * The Heritage Foundation publishes a blog, The Foundry, with reporting provided by Heritage staff and fellows. News stories originally published by The Foundry have been reported by media outlets, including reporting on a 15% Christmas Tree tax proposed by the Obama administration. Following a Heritage blog post by David Addington that was critical of the tax, the story was reported by ABC News, and according to Fox News, this criticism in the media led to a delay in the implementation of the tax.


 * Since 2006, the Foundation has hosted "The Bloggers Briefing", a meeting of conservative and independent bloggers organized by Robert Bluey. According to Bluey, the meetings were launched to provide conservative bloggers with greater understanding of conservative policy debates and a forum to discuss ideas, as there was then no regular meeting of people involved in the conservative blogosphere. Guest speakers at the meetings have included Jon Huntsman, John Boehner and Robert Novak, and the briefings are video recorded and live streamed on the Internet.


 * In June 2011, Heritage launched "Scribe", an investigative journalism feature by Robert Bluey for its blog, The Foundry. At the time of its launch, Bluey stated that Scribe would feature "long-form investigative stories" focusing on important policy issues, video report, analysis and breaking news. Scribe is part of a trend of "think tank journalism" using the knowledge of Heritage policy experts to inform investigative stories.


 * According to The Next Web, the Foundation "has strong followings on most major platforms — from YouTube to Twitter to Facebook". Rory Cooper, the Foundation's communications director, stated that the organization uses social media platforms such as Facebook for issue-based campaigns to provide individuals and the media with information directly from the Foundation.

Adding info about Istook Live!
I would like to suggest adding information to this article about Ernest Istook's radio show Istook Live!. The show broadcasts live from The Heritage Foundation and is supported by Heritage Action for America. I believe this information should be added to the Other media section. Below is the addition and citation I've prepared. As an employee of The Heritage Foundation I won't be making this edit myself. I would appreciate it if an editor here could review this request and make the change if it looks ok. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In July 2012, the radio show Istook Live!, hosted by former Oklahoma congressman and current Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook was launched. The show broadcasts live from the Heritage Foundation.
 * this is promotional wording. But the first question I need to ask you, is what evidence have you that HAA cosponsors it; the show page says only that the Heritage Foundation sponsors it. Or is it actually sponsored by the HF, and merely broadcast from the HAA studio?  And are either of them involved with other  shows? If they do, they should all be mentioned equally. But if this is the only one you know about,    I suggest:

"The foundation sponsors the ratio show Istook Live, hosted by former congressman Ernest Istook (ref) " DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, thanks for looking at this request. As I've also explained on the Heritage Action for America talk page, I've found three sources that make clearer the relationship of HAA to the radio show: this press release from HAA explains that that show is a project of the organization's media division. These two radio news website articles about the show's launch also mention HAA's link to the show:






 * From these sources, I think the wording should be more like:


 * The foundation sponsors the ratio show Istook Live!, which is hosted by former congressman Ernest Istook and a production of Heritage's sister organization, Heritage Action for America.


 * Does this sound ok to you? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds ok. Done.--Polmandc (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Polmandc! I've also got similar requests on the Ernest Istook talk page and the Heritage Action for America talk page, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those too? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation and anthropogenic climate change
Why is there no discussion of the Heritage Foundation’ dissemination of misinformation on Global warming? Nursebhayes (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are right? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Spelling error: the correct spelling is Maher in the following reference.
^ "Heritage Foundation advocated for Iraq war?", Bill Mehre show".
 * ✅ — Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Demint taking helm January 2013
Need a new section for this topic. Gathering ideas for inclusion. On December 6 2012, Rush Limbaugh hosted Jim Demint and Edwin Feulner for joint radio interview announcing decision of appointment. Demint's committed to win the minds and souls of the "low intelligent voter" by employing his marketing background. --Wikipietime (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The history section is organized by administration, but is missing subsections for Bush II and Obama. This announcement would fit best under a subsection for Obama. Gobōnobō  + c 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking a seperate section titled, leadershipWikipietime (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That works too. Gobōnobō  + c 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'M' is capitalized in Jim DeMint. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the transcript (for details) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC) :: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/06/ed_feulner_and_jim_demint_on_the_future

This Wikipedia article has a good picture at the top ("Early years") of Edwin Feulner. The new section should include a good picture of Jim DeMint. Also, a name for the new section could be something like, "New leadership in 2013" or something better, perhaps "Jim DeMint takes the helm in 2013." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

From an eMail note: "In April, I will succeed Ed Feulner as president of The Heritage Foundation." — Jim DeMint. Between January 22 and 25, Ed Feulner and Jim DeMint will hold events in New York, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. And between February 12 and 15, they will be in Dallas, Atlanta, Palm Beach, Naples, and Washington, DC. They will meet with supporters and discuss the next steps for The Heritage Foundation and the conservative movement. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with James Carafano article
I'm looking for help with a request I posted for James Carafano's article. I've suggested adding in a few sentences about Carafano's work on the Veteran Nation documentary. I have a COI here as I'm employed by The Heritage Foundation, so I'd like to ask that another editor review what I have prepared and make the edit if it looks ok. You can see my request on Carafano's talk page here. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Obama administration" section
I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation and I've been following the recent edits to this article regarding Jason Richwine's resignation from The Heritage Foundation. I noticed this afternoon that an IP editor again removed this information. However, after looking up the IP address I saw that this edit came from someone in the Heritage office. I want to be clear that this edit was not approved by The Heritage Foundation, and I'll explain to my colleagues why they should not make edits of this kind.

I've gone ahead and added the information about Richwine back into the article, but I'd like to discuss this section here on the talk page. Looking at the article's revision history you'll see that this material has been added and then removed a number of times over the last few weeks.

Here are my thoughts and I'm interested in hearing what other editors think:

The edit in question in the Obama administration section does not mention that the dissertation was written in 2009 while Richwine was attending Harvard, and is not related to his work for Heritage, though the source currently referenced supports both of these facts.

How do others feel about adding in the year and mentioning that this was his Harvard dissertation, to clarify that this work was not related to Heritage? I'll be watching the page for any responses. I hope that we can reach an agreement here and stop the back and forth editing. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Year and Havard mentioned in the source. No problem with adding it to the article.--Polmandc (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Polmandc. Are you comfortable adding that information in? I think it's best that I not edit this article. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Polmandc (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the edit, the wording is much clearer now. Thurmant (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone report 76.117.234.85? I would, but I don't know how. Keeps vandalizing this section. --Jun.rhee (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One person did yesterday before their most recent edit. I added a second one today.  See their talk page.  You can find more messages here: Template messages/User talk namespace or instructions on vandalism reporting here: Administrator intervention against vandalism. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a final warning. If the ip continues, report it at WP:AIV.
 * Given that other ip's have been doing the same thing recently, temporary semi-protection through WP:RFPP might be in order as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested the ip be blocked at AIV. If this continues, request semi-protection. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The other ip has returned. I've requested the article be partial-protected so these ip's cannot continue like this. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than protecting the article, both ip's have been given long blocks. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Heritage of bad science
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/09/19947425-richwine-returns?lite

Is it notable how they've gotten it so very wrong on immigration reform? Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of new Republican Study Committee policy
I'd like to discuss a recent edit to this article with editors here. As I've mentioned in my previous messages on this page I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation so I won't make any edits myself, but would like to hear what others think and ask that someone make any changes agreed upon.

The edit I'm referring to is this recent edit to the "Obama administration" section. I have a couple of concerns with this addition:


 * 1) I'm worried that readers might think there is a connection between the previous sentence about Richwine and the recent policy change by the Republican Study Committee. The source that was used to support this new information, found here, notes that the decision is the result of disputes over the farm bill. I feel that this is important clarifying information that should be added in. At the least, I think it would help to make this sentence the start of a new paragraph.
 * 2) I think that the addition leaves out some very important information from the article. The edit makes it seems as if Heritage and the RSC no longer have a relationship. Even the edit summary "schism" implies this. However, the sources also includes the following:
 * "The Heritage Foundation and the RSC have a longstanding relationship in developing and promoting conservative solutions to the problems facing our nation, and we are proud to continue that tradition to this day through regular joint events and briefings," said Stephen Bell, spokesman for Scalise and the RSC.
 * I feel that it should be noted that despite this recent policy change the two organizations continue to have a working relationship.

I'd really like to hear what others think about these two issues. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal:
 * In July 2013, following disputes over the farm bill, the Republican Study Committee of 172 conservative U.S. House members barred Heritage Foundation employees from attending its weekly meeting in the Capitol, limiting cooperation to "regular joint events and briefings" and reversing a decades-old policy.--Polmandc (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Polmandc. Thanks for looking this over and replying. I think your suggestion would work, I do have two comments though:
 * You've used limiting cooperation in your suggestion but I don't feel like this accurately reflects the source, which says "proud to continue". Would it be possible to replace this with something along the lines of will continue to work with Heritage through "regular joint events and briefings"?
 * The reversing a decades-old policy at the end of the sentence is a little out of place. Based on the source the policy reversal refers to barring Heritage employees from the weekly meetings, not the joint events and briefings. Can this bit either be removed or moved up in the sentence so that this is clearer. Right now I think its placement is a little confusing.
 * What do you think? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In July 2013, following disputes over the farm bill, the Republican Study Committee of 172 conservative U.S. House members reversed a decades-old policy barring Heritage Foundation employees from attending its weekly meeting in the Capitol, but continuing cooperation through "regular joint events and briefings".
 * What do you think?--Polmandc (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again. That looks good to me, though I think that continuing isn't the right tense for the sentence. Would continues work for you? Thanks for your help here. Would you be able to add this in in place of the current sentence?
 * Also, did you see that someone added a tag to the "Obama administration" section saying that it is "outdated"? I was surprised to see this since this section has been updated so recently and covers two events from this summer. Do you think this tag should be on the section? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Polmandc (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Polmandc! The revised portion looks great. I also see you removed the "outdated" tag. Thank you so much for your assistance here. Thurmant (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" section and Orrin Hatch
I noticed a recent edit to the Criticism section about Orrin Hatch's recent criticism and I wanted to point out an error in the addition. As an employee of The Heritage Foundation I don't feel it is appropriate for me to correct this information myself, but I'm hopeful other editors will have the time to look at this.

The section was recently updated to say:


 * "Senator Orrin Hatch criticized Heritage for warning legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise during the government shutdown of 2013:"

And then a long quote was added.

I would like to point out that it was Heritage Action, a related advocacy organization, that warned legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise. The source supporting this information clearly states that it was Heritage Action that made this statement and also explains the relationship between The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action.

Do other editors feel that this information should stay in this article or be moved to the Heritage Action article? If it stays in this article should it be adjusted to note the role of Heritage Action in this? I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I followed up with the editor who added this information and this is now resolved. Thurmant (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Update for "Funding" section
Hi there. By now I believe that the actively involved editors here will remember me, but for anyone new: I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation, so I won't make any edits here myself. However, as part of my work for Heritage I periodically suggest updates to this article for other editors to review.

A few weeks ago I was looking at a recent edit to the "Funding" section and noticed that the whole section could use updating. If you look at the current version you'll see that there are no sources provided in the first paragraph so I've cleaned up what is already in the section based on what I was able to find in online sources.

I've also added and taken out some information. I thought that the section was missing information about Heritage's tax status and how this impacts donations, so I've added this in. I removed the information about Heritage being a Koch Foundation Associate because this is does not seem to be related to the foundation's funding. Do other editors think it is important to keep this? Is there somewhere else in the article it would fit better?

I also condensed down the specific financial information to just mention the revenue and expenses from 2011, the most recent year available. Is it standard to have several years of financial information in a section like this, or does it make more sense to just include the most recent information available? Also, I swapped out the source provided here. The current source provided has no link and the website it mentions requires registration to view the information. Instead I used the same source that is used in the infobox for the Budget information. (If someone is interested in updating the infobox it still lists the budget from 2010.)

One final comment. What do editors think about removing the information about Joseph Coors from this section? His involvement in the establishment of the foundation is already covered in the "History and major initiatives" section and it seems like the information about him here is somewhat out of place.

Below is the revision I suggest:


 * In 1973, businessman Joseph Coors contributed $250,000 to establish The Heritage Foundation.
 * In 1973, businessman Joseph Coors contributed $250,000 to establish The Heritage Foundation.


 * Heritage is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization funded by donations from private individuals, corporations and charitable foundations. The foundation does not receive government funds. As a 501(c)(3), Heritage is not required to disclose its donors and donations to the foundation are tax-deductible. According to a MediaTransparency report in 2006, donors have included the John M. Olin Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. As of 2010, Heritage reported 710,000 supporters. For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 Heritage's total revenue was $72,170,983 and its expenses were $80,033,828.

I would appreciate help from any editors who have the time or interest in reviewing what I've written. Please view this section as a suggestion. I'm open to adding or removing information as other editors see fit, but I hope that we can agree on an improved version of this section. Also, I hope that someone will be willing to make any changes agreed upon. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Your suggestion seems fair.  I'm going to keep the information about the initial Coors' contribution and source it, as it is true and I don't want to engender claims about attempting a whitewash.  I'll probably tweak the text a little and add some other info.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Chris. Thanks so much for looking at this and updating the article so quickly. No problem about leaving the information about Joseph Coors in the section, I just wasn't sure if other editors would think it was repetitive. I also see that you held on to the information about Heritage being a Koch Foundation Associate. This is also fine, I just thought there might be somewhere else in the article it was a little better suited. Anyhow, thanks for your help. The section and your additions look great! Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Board of Trustees?
Does it make sense to have a listing of the Board in this article? I recently updated the Institute for Justice page, and another contributor suggested that we remove the list of company officers from that article. He referenced WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and while that guideline does not specifically mention this case, the idea may apply here. The Heritage web site has a complete list of board members. The list here is going to be out of date at least some of the time. For example, it's out of date as I write this, not mentioning Jim DeMint, who is on the board, and including Kathryn Davis, who is no longer listed on the Heritage page. Also, the list in this article has many red links and unlinked persons, which points up the fact that they are not currently noted in Wikipedia. For the IJ page, I removed the list of officers, and included notable employees (who weren't already mentioned in the article's text) in the "See also" section. That's one possible approach here, or we could just rename this section something like, "Notable personnel" and remove links to any board members who don't currently have a Wikipedia article. Either approach would add a place to link articles about other people who have ties to this organization, but who are not on the board. James Cage (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gulag paintings of Nikolai Getman
The paintings are by former prisoner Nikolai Getman. Some images were placed on Commons by User:Mike18xx who posted the following quote from his email: ''You do have our permission. Just be sure to mention Jamestown as a source in the Wikipedia listing, and reference us with a web link to the paintings in your posting. Use this email as our special authorization. Thanks, Glen Howard, President, Jamestown Foundation, 6/14/2006.''. However, a deletion discussion, and the images may soon be removed from Wikipedia. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you wondered what this has to do with the Heritage Foundation, you may be interested in this link:
 * Link: http://artgetman.1gb.ru/index.php/ru/artist/87-en/artists/n-getman/863-bio-n-getman
 * Quote: "2009 (September-December) - the exhibition "Art in GULAG", organised by "the Heritage Foundation", Washington DC, USA."
 * — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles, thank you for your interest. I have found some information on the Internet:


 * "... Before his death in 2004, the artist sought ways to transport his Gulag paintings to the West, fearing they would be destroyed once they were out of his safekeeping... "


 * "... The paintings, a gift to the Heritage Foundation from the Jamestown Foundation..."


 * Unfortunately we have no idea what copyright agreement Getman had with Jamestown Foundation / The Heritage Foundation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Address
The address in the info box is lacking. It gives a street address, then NE. What city is it? Who, outside of the US, knows that NE is the postal abbreviation for Nebraska? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

right|200px
 * Massachusetts Avenue is divided into Northeast (NE) and Northwest (NW) segments to reflect how the city is split into quadrants. The article on D.C.'s streets and highways explains this.  The address given is correct and you can mail the Heritage Foundation using that address. I understand that it looks confusing but it is correct.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Positions on legislation
Hi all! I write a lot of articles about federal legislation. Sometimes I cite positions someone at Heritage or that Heritage itself have taken (or appeared to take) on legislation. A few questions: First, I know that some organizations are legally not allowed to take actual positions for or against a piece of legislation - is that true of Heritage? Second, assuming the organization can take a position, how should information about this be incorporated into the article?

For instance, in Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014 (H.R. 1872; 113th Congress), I noted that someone at Heritage wrote a report in favor of that bill. Right now there is a history section and a section on policy influence, but not a section on the actual policies supported. Does anyone have any comments about creating one? Thanks HistoricMN44 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi HistoricMN44. I'm not sure if we've interacted directly before but perhaps you've seen messages I've left on this talk page in the past. I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation and ask for help here from time to time to update this page. I wanted to jump in and answer your first question.


 * The Heritage Foundation can publish information about the positives and negatives of proposed policy, but cannot officially endorse or oppose policy. I hope this helps! Thurmant (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section needs rewrite
Under the "Criticism" section, it states "A 2011 study on poverty in America was heavily criticized for being 'distorted', 'misleading', and 'wrong', and for embracing 'anti-poor stereotypes' in order to justify the further retrenchment of the social safety net." This does not conform to WP's standards. The section needs to be rewritten to state in the section (not just linked to sources below) which study was criticized, and by whom. For all that readers know, said study was criticized by a barber in Bengal, rather than by some major, reputable news source or journal. Furthermore, although four terms are listed that are allegedly excerpted from the source(s), for all anyone knows (unless they bother to follow each linked source), those sources said those things but then heaped praise on the Heritage Foundation as well. Criticism can't be vague the way it is presented here. I'll give other parties a few weeks to rewrite it; if no one steps up to do that, I will. Bricology (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed images and "See also" section
Hi there. I noticed a several edits were made to this article earlier today and wanted to discuss a few of them here.

It appears that two images were removed from the article so now there is just one image remaining. These are the two images that were removed:
 * File:Edwin_Feulner_publicity_shot.jpg
 * File:US Navy 100513-N-8273J-010 Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead speaks at the Heritage Foundation.jpg

Also, the section that was previously titled "References" is now titled "See also".

My thinking is that the images should be replaced, as they are related to The Heritage Foundation, and the "See also" section should be changed back to "References", which I believe is the more commonly used section name.

I would like to hear what others think should be done here, or if these changes should stay as they are. As a reminder: I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation and for that reason do not want to make any edits here. I'd appreciate help from any editors who are available. I'll be watching this page for any responses. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * CNO image restored as it tends to show impact of THF with policy people. Feulner left out -- he was one of 3 founders, so 3 images would be excessive in that regard. Adding him to the board of trustees section would be undue as well. References section heading fixed. Other tweaks done too. – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help S. Rich. I think all your edits look good and I completely understand why you decided against adding back in the image of Feulner.


 * Also, I see the tag you left on the "Criticism" section. I think that because I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation my involvement is probably not welcome here but I just wanted to make sure you had seen the comment above that Bricology left a little while ago. It seems like they were interested in rewriting this section so maybe you could reach out to them. Thurmant (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thurmant, your commentary is certainly welcome. As you have in the past, feel free to make editing suggestions. – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision for Heritage Action article
Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a revised draft I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. I am posting about this here because, as editors familiar with The Heritage Foundation know, Heritage Action is a sister organization focused on lobbying and advocacy. I have, so far, left messages at three WikiProjects (Conservatism, Politics, Organizations) but have yet to locate any interested editors. I'm hopeful editors here might be interested in taking a look at my draft.

I have prepared this draft on behalf of Heritage Action and would like to acknowledge my conflict of interest with this topic. Followers of the page may be familiar with User:Thurmant, but he is uninvolved in this project because he is not a part of Heritage Action. Because of my relationship to the subject, I am asking that other editors review what I have prepared and provide me with feedback I can use to improve the article.

I've left a detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action explaining the differences between my draft and the current version. The message also links to the draft in my userspace.

Looking forward to discussing this draft with editors. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating logo in infobox
Hi there. The Heritage Foundation recently updated their logo and I wanted to ask if an editor here could help me by replacing the old logo in the infobox. I've already uploaded the image and it can be found here: File:TheHeritageFoundation.png. Would someone be able to add this into the article in place of the existing logo? I do not feel comfortable making any edits to the page myself as an employee of The Heritage Foundation. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, after confirming the updated logo was correct by viewing Heritage's official website. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating Board of Trustees
Hi there. I recently noticed that the "Board of Trustees" section of the article is out of date. The list includes three deceased deceased board members: Richard Mellon Scaife, Doug Allison, and Kathryn Davis. In addition, Barb Van Andel-Gaby is now Vice Chairman. For reference, here's the list of current board members.

Would someone be able to remove those three names and also add in Vice Chairman to Barb Van Andel-Gaby's description? As a reminder, I prefer not to edit the page myself as I am an employee of the The Heritage Foundation. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.--Polmandc (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the updates. Looks good! Thurmant (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Koch Associate question
This material is original research ref'd to the Charles Koch Foundation website. It is reasonable to believe that it accurately describes Heritage being one of the 18 organizations that participate in this intern/work study program. Because this is not from a RS (media or academic) we have no reason to believe it matters. Of what import is this generally or to Heritage in particular? Does it come with certain funding? Apparently not directly. Is that funding significant to Heritage's budget? No, it apparently goes to the individual intern/work study participant. Does this designation matter to Heritage? We don't really know the answer to these questions because it is original research from a primary source. Absent a RS ref it should not be included here. I would suggest it might be more appropriate at one of the Koch articles. (the Charles Koch foundation page?) Capitalismojo (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. It is sourced. It is sourced to the Charles Koch Foundation website. I'm very sure you could raise any number of questions which you believe are left unanswered, and unless answered prohibit inclusion of this content, but the content says only what the source says. That's all. The content is not controversial. I don't know for sure but I feel fairly confident that neither the Heritage Foundation nor the Koch Foundation is uncomfortable with this aspect of their relationship. You are raising concerns as if there were two sides to a highly controversial issue. You don't need to. No sources say the Heritage Foundation does not participate in the Koch Associate Program. Let's revisit deleting this content as we get closer to our maximum page length guidelines. Meanwhile, please try to remain calm as a fellow editor tries to write articles that actually convey information to our readers. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * :) gosh, I don't think I have ever not been calm regarding these discussions. I am gently sharing my concerns with a small piece of one sentence. This is original research. Original research doesn't mean unsourced. This info isn't from a secondary source, it's been dug out of a primary source. I think it is meaningless on this particular article. Heritage apparently has 70 to a 100 interns each year, the CKF program educates or funds one? Two? We don't know exactly. Is this meaningful? Is it encyclopedic? I suggest not. If the NYT or WaPo  (or frankly any media org) had written about this I'd say fine. Someone with news judgement somewhere decided this was important to Heritage. We don't have that. It is, in my opinion, undue at this page.  It would be fine at CKF page or probably Political activities of the Koch brothers article. While minor, I don't think this is a great addition at this article page. Is it the end of the world? No, but it's not an improvement.  Capitalismojo (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not OR. It is not meaningless. OK, your opinion, fine. Yes, yes, there's all sorts of things we just don't know! We have collaborated in this area of non-profits; as you well know, a goodly portion of neutral, non-controversial WP content in this area is from organization websites. Are you advocating for deleting all content which is not derived from secondary sources such as the NYT or WaPo? Yes, it is minor. May I ask, what articles are you working on lately? Hugh (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not big on this addition but, meh...What am I working on now? I have been doing a lot more with the Stiki anti-vandalism tool, that takes me to a lot of different pages. You should check it out, if you haven't already. I have been trying to do more at New Pages Patrol as well.  I had started work on a sandbox page to stub and reboot the (puffery filled) Intercollegiate Studies Institute after an AfD discussion, but another editor reverted back several years to a better article version, so instead I'm trying to clean that version. I haven't done much at the 302nd MEB yet.  Looking at watch list daily usually. Do have any interesting ideas to work on?  Capitalismojo (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the Koch thing, isn't it? When I first started working on this article, it had NO mention of the Kochs. Now it mentions the associate program. That's it. Is your goal an article on the Heritage Foundation that makes no mention of the Kochs? As an active editor of this subject, intimately familiar with the reliable sources, do you believe the current weight of the Koch connection in this article is a fair summary of reliable sources? More Koch related content is coming. Get used to it. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All well ref'd information that is suitable for inclusion in an article about Heritage is, of course, welcome. An expressed agenda to add Koch material to Heritage is interesting, as long as it is properly sourced and not undue I'm sure that will be fine. As an aside, you are aware that the Koch's have traditionally been part of a different and competing flavor of conservatism than Heritage. They were always Cato/libertarian/organize the people types. Heritage was the archtypical establishment conservative/let's write a policy paper type. There was traditionally not much overlap. Over the years there was a lot of sniping and snark back and forth that occasionally spilled into the public. If that has changed it would be important to include at the article. Go for it.Capitalismojo (talk)
 * Hugh, would you feel comfortable using this website, "Koch Facts," which is published by Koch Industries, as a reliable source on Koch's climate impact, or the science behind climate change? Yeah, didn't think so. Self-published sources are problematic. They are biased and don't confer notability on a topic. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Associations
It seems to me that State Policy Network was created by Heritage. I seem to remember some discussion of this at the SPN article, possibly relating to an article in NationalReview about SPN. If that's correct, and I'm not sure that it is, it would suggest expanding the section. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a National Review article that states that "the Heritage Foundation helped organize the state policy groups into the new, national SPN in 1992." The article can be found at this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375677/congressional-candidate-year-quin-hillyer.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 22:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Attack by hackers
Have there been any notice of who exactly sought data from the Foundation and why? Or is it all just totally a mystery right now? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Charles Hill book


Rather than edit war, why not discuss? The book is a reliable source but I understand Orthodox2014 wants balance reflected in the article. Surely there's a compromise here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to purge this information from a reliable source. Per WP:Biased, it is okay to cite sources with a certain point of view so long as there is proper attribution to the source, so as not to use Wikipedia's voice to relay such information, which is the case here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's one book among thousands of books and reports this foundation publishes and doesn't lend itself to including comments of praise and criticism. One comment of criticism from an obscure, non-U.S. professor, however, definitely violates WP:Neutral_point_of_view. Appropriate thing is to remove commentary on the book by its advocates and detractors. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could someone help me get up to speed here. What is this book, who is the author, why is it or is it not due any weight, what is it's relationship with The Heritage Foundation, why are we comparing it to "thousands of books and reports this foundation publishes"? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That Charles W.L. Hill was British-born is not at all relevant to this discussion; he is currently, according to his wiki page, "the Hughes M. and Katherine G. Blake Endowed Professor in Business Administration and Professor of Management and Organization at the University of Washington's Foster School of Business in Seattle, where he has been teaching since 1988." and what exactly makes him "obscure"? It seems to me that are just seeking to purge information that you don't like by claiming it is undue weight, when in fact it constitutes due weight given there is proper attribution to the cited source and that the source qualifies as WP:RS. This per WP:RSUW: "The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate to include one person's view and exclude what I'm sure are many contrary, supportive points of view, which is why I said this book should be listing without it being reviewed here. If it were a separate article dedicated exclusively to the book, that might be appropriate. Another problem and reason for my removal of the quote is that it doesn't even appear in the reference information you provide. It should be a linkable, readable reference. This quote has no place here and should be removed. In the meantime, I am at least moving it to the section that references this book. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks the clarifications. The work seems due. I'm not seeing any policy-backed reason for complete removal. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding/documenting the short name "Heritage"?
I don’t see a short/nickname field in Template:Infobox organization. Would it be helpful for me to add a note and reference to the effect that the foundation is referred in brief to as "Heritage"? While the article uses this nickname, to me it is not an obvious conclusion. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of response, I went ahead and added the nickname under the "abbreviation" field and in the lead paragraph.—DocWatson42 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Board of Trustees
Jim DeMint is and Todd Herrick are no longer members of the Board of Trustees. Can they be removed? Edwin Meese, III also needs to be added to the Board of Trustees. As an employee of Heritage, there is a COI with me doing it directly, but I am happy to do it. Let me know if there are any questions. http://www.heritage.org/article/board-trustees

Thanks Thurmant (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ Confining list to WP:N names. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can Jim DeMint be taken out as he is no longer a member of the board? Also, Edwin Fuelner's title is President, not former president.

Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request for The Heritage Foundation
Hi! My name is Augusta Cassada and I work for The Heritage Foundation. Todd Thurman (who used to handle Wikipedia for us) no longer works here.

We have an edit request- could one of the editors update this for me?

Ed Feulner became president of Heritage in 1977, not 1973.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusta Cassada (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Thank you for discussing your proposed changes in the article's talk page. I will leave a message in your talk page with some information about our conflict of interest policies; I hope you will find it useful.
 * I see under "Notable Board of Trustees members" that Feulner is listed as "Trustee since 1973", which seems to be accurate; his presidency is mentioned separately. Are you looking to add the years he was president of Heritage as well? –FlyingAce✈hello 16:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I've requested the edit needed on Ed Feulner's page through the request edit function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusta Cassada (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

All the opening section is
"conservative""conservative" "conservative". Can someone edit that so it would be objective as Wikipedia supposed to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial
Why does the article not mention that this is one of the leading climate change denial think tanks? See, for example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The need for better sources probably.
 * The amount of related funding they've received is easily referenced and seems notably missing. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)