Talk:Heartland Institute/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Heartland Institute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

K-12 school climate science curricula documents

Sindinero: one sentence indicating that a 'forged' document detailing plans by Heartland to influence school curricula was revised. The sentence earlier read: "The Heartland Institute maintains that the documents, which were first published on Desmogblog, were fraudulently acquired, and that the particular document detailing the alleged plans to influence school curricula is a forgery.[38]"

The Guardian article noted as cite #38 did not support any document forgery related to the planned school curricula, instead specifically dismissing Heartland's contentions on climate science by stating "One plan involved spending $100,000 (£64,000) on spreading the message in schools that "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy", according to the documents. Such an assertion, however, has no basis in fact."

Further, The New York Times piece stated that the article Heartland alleges is a fake is titled (in its link) as "January 2012 | Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy". This document contains five sections, only one of which is related to K-12 school curricula. The New York Times article specifically referred to "documents" (plural): "The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet" (emphasis is mine).

The earlier sentence was thus revised to indicate only a single document was alleged to be a fake. If you can find reliable sources stating that the other Heartland documents related to Heartland's school curriculum plans were faked, then you can add those allegations. In the meantime any OR or synthesis you insert will be reverted. HarryZilber (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused, and I think we might be misunderstanding each other - I was referring to the deletion of the sentence quoted below, not to the sentence you quote. It was never my intention to suggest that more documents than the one were alleged to be fake (since I haven't seen that in any RS). But what's the reason for removing the detail about the curricular plans to undercut climate science on global warming? That sentence: "One document, alleged by the Institute to be a fraud, indicated that the organization would be advocating school curricula designed to undermine the teaching of global warming.[10]" is backed up by the NYT source given, don't you think? What in that sentence is either OR or synthesis? Sindinero (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I should specify (and see the talk above): I wrote that sentence with the qualifier "alleged by the Institute to be a fraud" to address the concerns of other editors that we should not include any material in this section from a document alleged to be false. I felt it important, in the presence of doubt, to present the specific curricular plans, albeit with a qualifier. Sindinero (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero: when a series of documents describe a scheme to undermine K-12 school curricula and one of them is alleged to be faked (at this point no one outside of Heartland can say how much of the memo is truthful and how much is not), then when one group writes in Wikipedia of only one of the documents, the one that is allegedly fake, WP:Undue is created in this article. The New York Times specifically referred to more than one document being involved. Since Heartland claims one document is a forgery, then the others obviously are not. That's the reason the second sentence alleging forgery of Heartland's bogus K-12 school curricula plans was excised. HarryZilber (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're still missing my question. In the sentence you removed—"One document, alleged by the Institute to be a fraud, indicated that the organization would be advocating school curricula designed to undermine the teaching of global warming.[10]"—do you object to the clause, "alleged ... to be a fraud," or do you object to the main part of the sentence, "One document indicated that the organization would be advocating school curricula designed to undermine the teaching of global warming"? Do you think it's a good idea to include that detail (that the leaked documents, whether genuine or fake, had plans to undercut the teaching of global warming in school curricula) or not? That's really all I've been trying to ask. I think we're fundamentally on the same page, but first you justified your deletion with OR/synth, and now with undue. The sentence in the NYT piece ("Heartland’s latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”") certainly backs up the sentence you deleted, minus the qualifying clause. Please read the older talk threads - other editors were worried about repeating claims from a potentially fake document, and somehow seemed certain that these specific curricular plans were included in that document. So the sentence was the result of a compromise. Could you state clearly whether you think we should include an explicit mention of the curricular plans in this section or not? And if not, what the reason is? (Incidentally, we cannot infer that the other documents are not forgeries based on the fact that they've only claimed the one is. That is, technically speaking, OR and synth. I have no love for manipulation of science, but we have to go by what the sources say.) Sindinero (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to cut to the chase to clear things up for you quickly. There were two sentences in close proximity which said essential the same thing, but which noted different sources:

1) First sentence: "The Heartland Institute maintains that the documents, which were first published on Desmogblog, were fraudulently acquired, and that the particular document detailing the alleged plans to influence school curricula is a forgery[38]". Cite 38 is the Guardian story which does not say that the document detailing the alleged plans to influence school curricula is a forgery; thus this sentence is either OR or Synth.

2) Second sentence: "One document, alleged by the Institute to be a fraud, indicated that the organization would be advocating school curricula designed to undermine the teaching of global warming.[10]". Cite 10 is The New York Times story. The sentence is equally unacceptable because of Undue, since, as we've all pointed out, the NYTimes pointed to multiple documents. The story headline of the printed edition version was quite concise: "In Documents, a Plan to Discredit Climate Teaching".

My deletion of the two sentences took place on two edits and didn't accurately note the wp violations for each sentence (mea culpa), but now we have them. Lets all avoid repeating ourselves endlessly. There was no reason to repeat the same statement twice with two different sources. HarryZilber (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I got all that, and I'm sorry if this seems repetitive to you, but my concern is that as the article currently stands there's no mention in the "Leak" section that the documents include material to undermine the teaching of global warming in schools. At most an attentive reader might infer that in the McCaffrey sentence, but that's far from certain. Don't you think that's a major point worth mentioning? I propose a partial restoration at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Among the documents were plans that indicated a strategy to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools." Sindinero (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, point taken. Elaboration on the school curricula program at the beginning of the section's second paragraph would be the best place, and the NYTimes appears to be the best source of material since its article was centered on that issue. HarryZilber (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sindinero (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NCSE

Are we now banning any statements from members of the NCSE? And how was this [1] undue weight? Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the affiliation of the person quoted - I mean he is surely a RS as to what he himself think about this, which is all the quote says! But that aside he's not an involved party, I agree, makes no sense to exclude just because McCaffrey is at NCSE.

Not sure it is undue weight as such, question to me is more what makes the quote a useful addition to the article alongside the sentence from the guardian on criticism from environmentalists and scientists broadly! Babakathy (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it, I think it's useful to have a scientist such as McCaffrey used. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

do you restored it? then we should add that Gleick was a member of the NCSE's board: "Dr. Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute, has joined NCSE's board of directors" [2] and that after the Heartland affair he withdrawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.171.162 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the NCSE. You still seem to be trying to tar the NCSE with this. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not have said anything if McCaffrey's quote had not been restored. It's not me who wants to put the NCSE in the article.

Peter Gleick was closely associated with NCSE, so closely associated that he was an incoming board member. He has now offered his resignation and it has been accepted. It is inappropriate to have this quote from this group inlcluded, especially when it is largely puffery about NCSE's good work, and all the more when it seems to be in response to what is claimed and (according to the Atlantic Monthly) likely to be a forged document. We should find another different RS quote critical of the climate curriculum. It shouldn't be difficult, if it is difficult then perhaps it shouldn't have been included in the first place.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We've got me who thinks it should be there, another editor who doesn't share your concerns but isn't sure, and you - and you've removed it again without letting this discussion continue. And it's clear that you are objecting to the NCSE itself, and no one agrees that's correct. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a problem with the quote. It was put up early in this current incident. It seems to be based on an early reaction to a forged document. My key question is if this is a credible criticism why can't we find one less problematic quote. If we are to use a quote by NCSE we should put in something about it's close association with Gleick, otherwise the context is lost. But I think that if we put in the context then we have to put in that Gleick resigned or disaffiliated from it Tuesday. Then we'd have a full paragraph on something that probably doesn't merit one. That's my thought, for what it's worth. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong. Peter Gleick joined the board on January 13 according to their website. So we have our only quote about the curriculum project from the staff member of an organization in which Gleick held authority. This criticizing the organization Gleick had just deceptively taken materials from. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? If so I apologize, perhaps I am being overly concerned.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a problem in quoting McCaffrey or anyone else at NCSE as to their opinions on the curriculum plan, no. The organisation does not instantly lose all credibility on a topic due to the actions of one of their Board members who anyway resigned his position as a Board member. I work for an organisation whose Board comprises members from nine different institutions in eight different countries. I honestly cannot see how if one of them (on their own) did something dubious it would undermine what I can or should say or do in my job. Gleick's actions undermined his credibility or at least people's views of his ethics and professionalism. But they do not change the facts of what the curriculum project are - nor should they affect anyone else's criticism or promotion of the curriculum project. Babakathy (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Capitalismojo, are you willing to self-revert and reinstate the material? Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope so -- it is clearly appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd really like a different quote to similar effect but yes, I agree to the reversion. As I am currently on an IPad boarding a plane would ask that one of the other editors help and do the reversion. I would really appreciate it. Thanks!Capitalismojo (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gleick

Added this:

On February 21, 2012, climate scientist Peter Gleick of The Pacific Institute admitted obtaining the Heartland Institute's documents by fraudulent means "in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics." (ref name="gleick"The Origin of the Heartland Documents, Peter Gleick, 2012-02-20, Huffington Post)

--TS 01:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which raises more questions than it answers.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it answers the question of who obtained the bulk of the materials. Gleick also offers a plausible account of the disputed document, but claims he doesn't know its provenance.

To be honest I don't see any new questions, except what on earth got into him. As James Annan just said on his blog, the first thought that comes to mind is "Peter Gleick, you are a complete and utter twat of the highest order." [3] --TS 03:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The cultural warmongering needs to be off-lined and taken to another venue. If you're not here to improve the article, you're in the wrong place. HarryZilber (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, and withdraw that. But be aware that Peter Gleick and James Annan fundamentally agree on the science would be tend to be considered allies in any dispute with Heartland (and for what it's worth I agree with them both). We're just dumbfounded at this turn of events. --TS 04:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gleick also offers a plausible account of the disputed document @Tony, I had to reread the article three times, but yes, I see it, but missed that the first time. It lends (some small)support to the forgery claim, but is far short of confirmation, and, disappointingly, Gleick is silent on the issue. One might infer(not solid enough to say in our article) that he felt the emailed docs corroborated the anonymous doc. I wonder if he still feels that way, given the obvious signs it was a fake, and I wonder if he will follow up.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem for Gleick is that he was identified as the prime suspect of this based on the writing style and certain technical details of the forgery. He was called out publicly and questioned on that basis. His suggestion that he is only guilty of fraud is therefore unlikely. How we put this in the article is problematic. Most of this occurred on blogs. Until the Atlantic Monthly or NY Times or similar RS does a follow-up I believe there is little more to be added. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuff from blogs and whatnot can and should be ignored, I agree. --TS 06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleared the blog entry, and removed names of specific scientists sourced only to the blog. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the reinsertion. If anyone restores the WP:BLP violations, I will block first, even if I am considered involved. For the benefit of that user, there is no argument here in favor of using the blog, and TS is against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gleick is referred to as a "environmentalist scientist" which does not really say anything. I will refer to him as the president of the Pacific Institute, because that's his current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.35.151 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Explaining an IP revert

An IP added a phrase:

" but also disputed the Heartland Institute's claims that one of the documents was forged, asserting that "I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."

I removed it, because it looks to me like a good faith misunderstanding. The Heartland Institute claims one of the documents released by Gleick was forged, because they knew it was not authored by anyone at Heartland Institute (or at least not authorized). When Gleick refers to the "documents they emailed to me", he is not referring to the alleged forged document, because that one was not emailed to him. Gleick claims it was mailed to him. While questions remain about the origin of that document, no one, including Gleick, has claimed that document was emailed by Heartland. Gleick claim that he made no alterations does not in any way challenge the claim by Heartland that one of the docs was forged.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Faked Document

Why is the document that is proving to be a fake being used for much of the section through the NY Times reference? Arzel (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think this entire article has been tainted due to sloppy referencing. Heartland forcibly disputes the memo's authenticity and we have no reliable sourcing substantiating it. All references to the memo, including inferences drawn from it, should be removed unless we can get it sourced. 108.115.20.89 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read thru the earlier comments, we're aware of the problems with the article, and working on fixing them. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a climate change advocate?

Does anyone else find this a bit odd? Surely a climate change advocate must be someone who advocates climate change, but who are they? I don't think you can change "mainstream climate change science" to "science proposed by climate change advocates."Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur.Babakathy (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"February 2012 document leak" section needs a rewrite.

This section is currently rather a mishmash, which isn't surprising as the incident is still unfolding. Here are some possible problems I noticed:

Most of the newsworthy revelations in the Gleick release were from the "2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" document, which

has been analyzed by Megan McArdle, a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. .Her conclusion: "I think we can say with a very high degree of confidence that it is a fake." [4], also see [5]. We need to add her RS opinion to the article, and revise or remove any assertions of fact based on this almost-certainly forged document. In particular, assertions in "Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science" and "Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program" appear to be based on the apparently-faked document.

Heartland's side of the affair seems under-represented. I particular, Heartland has stated that "Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered." [6] Peter Gleick denies altering the documents he released, but he also admits lying to Heartland to get them.[7] While there is circumstantial evidence that some of the docs are real, no third-party RS confirmations yet, SFAIK.

"recipients of the institute's largesse" -- appears to be a POV statement.

I'm not sure if "February 2012 document leak" is the best title?

I'll take a crack at this as time permits, and I've added a "current event" tag. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the last para of our Heartland "Global warming" section duplicates (and partially contradicts) this section. These two sections need to be merged. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you take a crack at it, can we discuss what belongs? For example, I agree that McArdle's article is a good article to explain why one doc is a likely fake. however, that article is linked above, so I have to wonder if you've read all of the discussion on this page about he incident? I agree that the article is on bad shape, as you can tell by reading some of the points above. some I've addressed, because I thought they were close to irrefutable, others I've proposed, because I think articles come together better when editors agree on how to proceed. I know about BRD, but I don't always think it is the best approach.

For example, The Atlantic piece is a good RS if we want to explain why a document is fake. However, that means more discussion of this incident, an incident which may already be violating Weight. IMO the incident is important, but some of the important aspects are the willingness of some people to lie to further an agenda, the gullibility of media which, with rare exceptions, doesn't question a document simply because it fits their narrative, and the irony of a prominent (now former) member of several ethics committees engaging in unethical behavior. However, that's not a story we can write. Someone else has to write it and we can summarize it. That story is a big story, but the involvement of Heartland is almost happenstance. The Heartland part of the story is minor – some confidential, documents were acquired, possibly illegally, revealing nothing of interest to the warming debate, but violating the privacy of some of the individuals. That part of the story is so boring, it barely rates a small mention in a newspaper, and arguably, doesn't even rise to the level of importance for inclusion in an article about heartland. The bigger deal is the creation of the fake (author not yet known), the media mismanagement, and the culpability of Gleick. That may deserve some mention here, but not a multi-paragraph narrative with claims and counterclaims.

Or I could be all wrong on this and it does deserve significant treatment. My only point is that we should discuss what aspects belong in the article, and what do not belong, and do it largely on the talk page, rather than throwing up something, to see if it will stick.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum - the Atlantic piece from the 21st is also worth reading. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that although McArdle disagrees with Heartland about global warming, she seems to more or less share their political philosophy if our article on her is correct. I agree with the concept that we should try to discuss first, edit afterwards. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother attempting to edit the section, the AGW Nazis are all over it ensure that only their version prevails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.222 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good G-d! The anonymous IP just fell into a Godwin vortex, which says: "given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis". Ip man 206.169.197.222 just proved the point. HarryZilber (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for going forward

I see some support for discussing how this article could be improved. If I may, I'll outline a few areas of discussion, anyone feel free to add more. An issue is where the main story belongs. I hinted above that the original main story appeared to be Heartland, but that seemed to be changing. I've now looked at the Peter Gleick article, and that occurs to me as a possible locus of the main story. I'm not arguing for zero coverage here; we have many examples of deliberate redundant coverage of issues, but as we debate the merits of inclusion of any issue,let's keep in mind that a particular point may deserve coverage in Wikipedia, but it may best belong in another article.

Funding

Some of the legitimate documents from Heartland contained information about funding. Given that there is an established section on funding, it seems natural that, to the extent that any of the funding information deserves inclusion, it belong in the funding section.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that -- but we do need to note that (sfaik) none of the leaked documents have yet been independently confirmed, and there is some (non-RS) evidence that some of the (non-forged) leaked docs may have been tampered with -- based on a technical analysis of the metadata in the pdf's of the leaked docs. I put a note up re this, cited to a Guardian article -- there might be a better, later, source to cite?? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Positions

Similarly, the documents contained information about recipients of the funds, which helps identify the position of the Institute. As we already have such a section, I see that material as belonging there, if significant enough to deserve mention.

On the details, I question whether the modest monthly stipends paid to some recipients rose to the level that deserved mention, but we can debate both the locations, and the wording to be included.SPhilbricksig added by Babakathy for clarity

One aspect that may need clarification is whether recipients of funds needs distinguishing from the (senior) research fellows: Two of the people mentioned in leaks as receiving funds are on HI's website as senior research fellows (Craig Idso and Fred Singer). Are these individuals staff or funding beneficiaries? And what does the leak tell us that was not on the website already? Babakathy (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)comment moved for clarity

Carter is not listed as a Heartland staff member, or fellow or advisor on their website, and his bio on their website does not specify . SciAm specified him as confirming his grant/pledge from Heartland.

Similarly Watts' connection to Heartland is not specified at his bio on their website. Again, SciAm specified him as confirming his grant/pledge from Heartland. Babakathy (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Watts: he's discussed this at his blog -- he applied for a grant to create some sort of interactive climate website. I think the forged(?) doc has the amount doubled. I don't think this is appropriate for Wikipedia notice yet. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you said "interactive"? I thought he was trying to present some NOAA data in a graphical form. From one of the docs "Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere."

The budget amount is 88K which someone rounded up to 90K. When you refer to doubling, I think you are referring to the fact that 44K has been committed, and they still need to raise the other 44K, but I wouldn't characterize that as an inappropriate doubling. The error is the rounding, but that's small beer.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right -- all of mine was from memory. IMO, the Watts thing itself is small beer, at least until/if he gets it up & running. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur.Babakathy (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The incident itself

I agree there should be a separate section to describe the incident. I agree with Tillman that the current wording is not ideal, but don't have a specific improvement to offer yet. This section should note that the original allegations were noteworthy, but given that the main supporting document was challenged almost immediately, and the story switched quickly form "look what heartland thinks" to "look what Gleick and possibly others did", the emphasis needs to reflect the real life emphasis of events.

I've noted before my issues with the first sentence, leaving the impression of a linkage between funding and positions that is in error. If there is agreement about moving funding points to the funding sections, and position points to the position section, this will be resolved.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above re no independent confirmation, and also the discussion at Fred Singer talk page, and the BLPN posting re this. We need to be scrupulous about WP:BLP . --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

McCaffrey

It is my opinion that the McCaffrey quote was in repose to the contents of what we now suspect is a fake document, therefore should get little or no weight. Unfortunately, this is hard to prove definitely, but, absent subsequent confirmation by McCaffrey that he is talking about documents other than the alleged fake one, we ought to consider very carefully whether to include a definitive statement that may be misplaced.SPhilbricksig added by Babakathy for clarity

On McCaffrey, my reading was he's talking about the global warming curriculum project, the existence and content of which do not come from the leaked documents at all - have been discussed openly e.g. here. Babakathy (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)comment moved for clarity

I see it differently than Babakathy ~~(see comment in next section)~~. While the purported subject of the McCaffey quote is the material for the school curriculum, the cite indicates that it does not yet exist "the group is developing ..."[emphasis added]. Consequently, McCaffrey is drawing a conclusion without seeing the material. On what basis? The purported strategy document had some commentary on the curriculum, which is accurate, deserves reproach, but that is not suspect. So if not that, what is the basis for a McCaffrey quote about material which does not yet exist? I think there are only three alternatives:

McCaffrey's outrage was motivated by the content of the fake strategy memo, in which case it shouldn't be used.
McCaffrey's outrage was motivated by a made up assumption about the material to be created, in which case someone needs to make a case for inclusion
McCaffrey's outrage was motivated by some other information not mentioned in any article so far, which might support the claim. However, we shouldn't presume the existence of this unknown material, so, absent a better explanation by McCaffrey, the quote should not be included.

Are there other possibilities?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What source are you getting the "is developing" quote from? The NYT source cited for the McCaffrey sentence is simply, "Mark S. McCaffrey, programs and policy director for the group, which is in Oakland, Calif., said the Heartland documents revealed that “they continue to promote confusion, doubt and debate where there really is none.”" Sindinero (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The source is the one provided by Babakathy ~~(I asked if I could move the post up here, but haven't yet received permission, hence the confusion.)~~ As for the NYT quote, what is the basis for the quote? I saw nothing in the legitimate documents about promoting confusion and doubt. It is easy to understand that quote arising from the alleged fake, but not from any of the others. If McCaffrey reiterates the statement, and claims it is supported by the rest of the documents, then we could report it. I don't think we should be including a quote which almost certainly is based upon false information. That isn't fair to McCaffrey.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have moved my comment and removed direction to it being below for clarity and as discussed on my talk page.If I messed anything else up doing this please say so or fix it. Babakathy (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the McAffrey quote should be dropped -- see my next comment below. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the quote. I've no objection here. It seems likely that the quote was predicated on false information. While we don't know this for sure, no one has identified any reiteration of the position after the disclosure that some material is questionable; that would seem to be a minimum requirement for reverting removal, not to mention weight issues, even if the quote is reiterated.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. Babakathy (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Locus of incident discussion

I believe the incident itself belongs in two places - a subsection discussing the incident itself, and whatever summarization deserves to be in the lead. At the moment, there is extended discussion in the Global warming section, and the leak section. Let's discuss whether this duplication is warranted. (I supported redundancy across articles above, but that rarely is appropriate, other than the lead, within an article). After we have settled some oft he other issues, we can craft a lead paragraph sentence, if we think one is warranted.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree in great part with your assessment. You are right that much of this should be over at Gleick. Also within the article we have enormous overlap and duplication between the global warming policy section and the incident section. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Babakathy (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC

The overlap problem needs fixing, as does the continued use of sources criticizing Heartland on the basis of the apparently-forged "strategy memo": such as "plans that indicated a strategy to undercut the teaching of global warming in schools" -- as noted in the "Faked Document" section that follows this one. I'm agnostic on the Gleick-Heartland article-split question. Sphilbrick, are you willing to take on the rewrite? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Timing isn't great at the moment. I may get an opportunity later, but I'm not in a position to promise.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm booked for awhile too. Thanks for the reply, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Grijalva on Goklany, Greenpeace letters

I added a brief paragraph on Rep. Raúl Grijalva's call for a NRC hearing on Goklany. To me that sounds like it could be a big thing, but I'm not an expert on the nuances of the House. Does a call like this, from a subcommittee ranking member, carry much weight? --TS 06:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a Greenpeace effort to make life difficult for scientists listed in Gleick's leaked budget documents. See "Other Documents" for copies of letters Grenpeace has sent to the employers of scientists listed there, along with Grijalva's & other letters. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I finally read the cite, to Agence France-Presse. It's an inaccurate report: "... Goklany received payments -- which is illegal for federal employees ..." Illegal only if directly related to the employees job. I've corrected it, and provided a more accurate cite -- altho I hesitate to provide Mother Jones as a RS. Still, it's been fairly widely-reported. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At least one professor who was the subject of a Greenpeace letter re his Heartland funding has been cleared: Professor details role as climate consultant:

Greenpeace, an environmental group, referenced that memo in a letter sent to UM System President Tim Wolfe questioning whether Lupo's consulting work poses a conflict.

It does not, UM spokesman Christian Basi said. Lupo has filed the proper paperwork with the university and did not consult while receiving federal grant money, Basi said. Several sources confirmed it is not unusual for professors to provide consulting services to not-for-profit organizations. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to leak

An IP edit removed a whole paragraph of text "removal of non-relevant material". Other aspects of the edit had BLP issues which MastCell and Udippuy have fixed, but there is no reason for removal of that paragraph, so I have restored it.Babakathy (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I've restored the recent removal of uncontroversial content from the lead section. Anyone is welcome to respond or discuss it here. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's uncontroversial, but almost as long as the corresponding section of the body. On the other hand the global warming section of the lead reflects 3 paragraphs in the body. If you can expand the "smoking" section of the body to 2 or 3 full paragraphs, it might be appropriate in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "undue" about it. Your removal isn't supported by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Arthur's action is fully supported by the provisions outlined in the guideline WP:LEAD. I have no idea what your upon what your position is based--certainly not any policies on Wikipedia. Why don't you read the guideline and get back to us... we'll wait for ya. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Arthur's typical reaction[8] (also known as tag-team reverting[9]) isn't supported by any guideline, so I have nothing to get back to you on. Further, your absurd edit summary ("smoking is no longer WP:DUE in the lede--replaced with Feb 2012 doc leak") would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. You clearly don't understand LEAD nor UNDUE. You and Arthur do not get to whitewash history and remove the fact that the Institute spent the 1990s "working with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms". You also don't get to remove the fact that the "Institute has focused on questioning the science of climate change, has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and is now promoting public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on climate change." I understand that you and Arthur do not like these historical facts, but you have no basis to remove them. They are significant, widely reported facts connected to the history of this organization, and they are cited to a historian of science. It simply does not get any more reliable than that. Yes, facts are funny things, but reality does not have a liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was correct, but not for the reasons I stated. The emphasis in the lead is supposed to reflect the ~~emphasis~~ prevalence in reliable sources, not necessarily the emphasis in the article, itself. However, there's little in reliable sources now about smoking and the Phillips connection. I don't think I removed "Institute has focused on questioning the science of climate change, has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and is now promoting public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on climate change." However, the last is based solely on a "leaked" memo of questionable provinence, so cannot be in the lead without a disclaimer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the claims about the tobacco company and questioning of climate change is not prevalent in reliable sources? I don't believe that is true. Would you like me to go through a set of sources? Is this the usual wild-goose chase you always send me on to waste my time? You've also argued that this information has somehow "expired" from current sources like a carton of milk, which is a very strange claim. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And a "tag-team" requires coordination. I know you won't believe me, but I neither sent a message to or received a message from Lionelt. I don't expect an apology, but Wikipedia policies do require you to provide one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean it that way, but I see that is how it is primarily used, so I'm wrong. You weren't tag teaming. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get an apology too? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

← The Institute's role in the secondhand-smoke "controversy" is clearly a relevant part of its history, is backed by appropriate sources, and deserves brief (i.e., one-sentence) mention in the lead on that basis, per WP:LEAD. (Actually, we should probably update our language: after all, the Institute has continued to claim that secondhand smoke poses "no danger" well into the 2000's, which is an impressive display of tenacity if nothing else).

There are plenty of additional sources. For example:

Irish Times 2012: "Evidence of this contamination emerged with the recent leaking of internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group that has long fought regulations on second-hand tobacco smoke on the false grounds that it is not harmful."
San Jose Mercury News 2012: "Naomi Oreskes, a geologist and history professor specializing in the history of science at the UC San Diego, noted that in the 1990s, the Heartland Institute took money from the tobacco industry and mounted a campaign to claim the dangers of secondhand smoke were overblown."
Rolling Stone 2012: Goes into great detail on the coordination between the tobacco industry and Heartland; in particular, quotes a letter from the Heartland CEO (Bast) to Philip Morris stating: "Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000.... We rely heavily on companies like yours...."

... And so on. Those are just from a quick Google News search, but they serve mainly to illustrate that this is a relevant aspect of the subject, as determined by reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, a sentence seems appropriate, even though some of the publicised dangers of second-hand smoke were "overblown" (and, in fact, false.) I think the false dangers are no longer publicised. Whether the Institute deserves credit for that is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that bait dangling, although it's quite tempting. :) Let's just leave it at the fact that Heartland apparently continues to assert that secondhand smoke poses "no danger" - a position completely at odds with any serious scientific understanding of the topic. Even the tobacco companies have, by and large, grudgingly admitted that secondhand smoke is harmful (of course, their hand was likely forced by the release of their internal documents, which indicated that they've been aware of the dangers for nearly 40 years and worked to obscure them). Anyhow, at least we agree on a sentence in the lead. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, what are these false dangers that were overblown? Please be specific. As someone who is in law school, are you aware that the reason that laws have been enacted around the world prohibiting smoking indoors is because of the documented dangers of second-hand smoke? Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A large number of arguments here have focused on the provenance and reliability of the documents that came through Gleick. But actually, many of the arguments are easily resolved via rock-solid RS like IRS Form 990s, the Tobacco Archives and Heartland's own documents. First, see Heartland 1Q2012 Quarterly Report. It describes Angry Badger and all the global warming projects, including Roosters of The Apocalypse, which the 2012 Budget document noted was decided not be done.

pp.2-3 describes 4 global warming projects: NIPCC, the 2012 K-12 project, "Roosters," and Watt's website. A few excerpts are:

"Four Projects on Global Warming Researchers at The Heartland Institute recognized, earlier than most, that scientific uncertainty about the true causes and consequences of climate change makes costly efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions unnecessary. In 2012 we are pursuing four projects on global warming.

The first is sponsoring and promoting the work of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), ... Each volume is a comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. ... The second project is creation of a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Many people lament the absence of educational material that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. Late last year, we found a curriculum expert who is also an expert on the global warming controversy. We think he can finally break the code on getting sound science and economics into classrooms. The third global warming project is publication of a great new book by Rael Isaac, titled Roosters of the Apocalypse. Rael, a sociologist who has studied the origins and motivation of apocalyptic movements, examines the global warming movement and finds it is rooted in irrational fears and beliefs that have no scientific justifications. The fourth global warming project will change how weathermen report new temperature records, and in the process help wean some of them from the alarmist point of view. We are working to create a Web site that will access newly available temperature data from a set of high-quality temperature stations created by the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Our new Web site will convert the data into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. The result: fewer weathermen bamboozled into reporting fake temperature records, and one fewer tool in the toolbox of global warming alarmists."JohnMashey (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then see Fakeducation and Fake science,... Of course, these are not RS themselves, but the 200-page report attached to them identifies hundreds of relevant RS. For instance, Heartland has been trying to inject its climate viewpoint into K-12 education for years. It certainly has been paying Singer. The tobacco archives show Heartland getting Philip Morris money, year-by-year. They show Joseph Bast defending "Joe Camel" and then begging PM for more money. Heartland documents show PM executive Roy Marden on its Board 1996-2008 (at least). About the only surprise in the 2012 documents was that Heartland is still getting money from Reynolds and PM, noticeably more than when the tobacco archives run out.JohnMashey (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm not sure what your point is in posting this material, as it is clearly WP:Original Research, and so we can't use it here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

One more time, these documents are not claimed to be RS, but they are filled with RS references that might actually answer questions and save time, especially for editors who haven't seen them. They include payment details from Heartland to SEPP, or those that show Heartland having Roy Marden as board member for 12+ years, or the names of the funders for various activities. They include specific references to a series of Heartland K-12 projects, such as sending 14,000 copies of Jo Nova's booklet to school board presidents or sending DVDs to Canadian schools. I would never expect my reports to be referenced because they are OR ... but people might just look at the citations, rather than wasting their time speculating.JohnMashey (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

John, if I understand correctly, you're attempting to validate the non-forged Hearland docs that Gleick stole and leaked. Even if you succeed, these are WP:Primary Source docs, and the sort of things you are trying to do seem clearly to be WP:Synthesis. This doesn't seem likely to help improve the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Going back to the some dangers above; the claim that second-hand smoke caused (hmmm, I mean, is correlated with) lung cancer was not proven at the time. Other lung diseases such as emphysema, related to decreased function, yes. Cancer, no. It's not quite as bad as the EPA finding that microparticles cause cancer, where the data was fudged; in this instance, just the analysis was ~~fudged~~ aggressive. I don't know if it's now established; I do know it wasn't established then. (Oh, and I agree with Tillman. Even the non-forged documents are primary sources; reliable secondary sources authenticating them should be required before they are presumed accurate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

reverted edit

Farwest1 attempted to add:

"most prominently regarding issues of climate change and the environment"

While that has been in the news lately, they are involved in a number of issues. I did not read all the cites word-for-word, but I didn't see that specific claim.

You also attempted to add:

"Since 1998, the Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from the ExxonMobil Foundation to fund this work. "

You cited ExxonSecrets Factsheet. (Is that an RS?) But that source notes the amount, while not indicating that it was fully for "challenging the scientific consensus". I'm not sure any of it was; IIRC, they have provided targeted funding for specific items.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The 840 byte edit war

840 bytes have been added and deleted by various IP and established editors. Frankly, this is a silly bit of byte and de-byting. (Remember the old slogan -- "bite me"? We should change it to "byte me".) Please, Wikipedians -- the topic of these edits is the Heartland billboard campaign from earlier this year. More importantly, that topic is properly covered in the article, supported by WP:RS. It makes little sense to add the other links to this page, and is not helpful. This page will be archived soon, so let's all give the 840 bites a rest. --S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why remove?

Regarding diff: [10]

99.109.125.124 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not what you suggested before. Probably not WP:NPOV, though.
Not Heartland.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Read entire http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/battle-over-climate-change?single-page-view=true article; excerpt ...

Face of Denial: The Heartland Institute launched an anti-climate-science ad campaign in Chicago in May. The ad was pulled within a day, but other versions would have shown Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden.

99.181.141.52 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the May 4th 2012 Skeptic.com article ...

This stunt REEKS of desperation for the Heartland Institute. As well it should, the tide has turned on public acceptance of global warming. Denialists’ shady tactics had initial success in influencing public opinion. But several independent lines of evidence, scientists standing their ground and some obvious-to-all tell-tale signs that the climate is indeed acting odd have swayed many people’s beliefs.

99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, both references should be considered as editorials or columns, and attributed if included in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What "circumstances" Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? 99.109.124.95 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That you lie about the provenance and content of sources.
They both read like editorials.

So, unless someone credible can definitely assert that (1) Skeptic has an editorial policy which resembles that of a news organization, and (2) These "articles" are subject to that editorial review, and (3) Your quotes make sense in context, then they should not be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) Provenance? Wikipedia:LIE. 99.181.143.128 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support removal. This is a very difficult thread to follow, as it seems that people are not presenting arguments clearly - and it is very unfortunate that an edit war has developed. Link #1 seems to be a clear case of WP:ELNO, while link #2 was broken when I clicked on it. St Anselm (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Support removal I agree. It also almost seems that the IP has little interest in making an argument for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Theft v. leak v. something else?

"Leak" has a POV -- as it is associated with Wikileaks and implies that an insider made the disclosure. Only Heartland has used the term theft, so there's a POV and SPS issue there. "Document dump" is used by one source, but that's a poor term for a section heading. Perhaps we should say "disclosure"? --S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you use that term, it might be appropriate to precede it with "unauthorized", which would cover both the inside leak or outside hack. Morphh ^(talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations an Original Research

I've put a citation needed on 'Tea Party Toolbox' as we really should provide a mention of things in an outside reliable source. This is part of WP:OR - we shouldn't just make our own selections of bits from the site which we think interesting but base articles on what others have thought worth talking about. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think 'The Champions News' counts as a reliable source according to WP:RS but I'll leave it. There seems to be so many other questionable sources in the article. It would be better if sources were widely known and respected rather than blatantly political web sites filled with blogs and no visible editorial control. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sources, like major newspapers, are broadly reliable. Others are reliable for a specific purpose. Champion News is reliable for avoiding WP:OR with regard to the Tea Party Toolbox. MilesMoney (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This article was removed from the Category for Tea Party Movement. Rather than argue about it, I simply added the fact (they sell books to help Tea Party groups) to the Publications section. Note: the reason for requiring third-party coverage relates to a group making unsubstantiated claims, relying on someone's "original research" aka "opinion" for acceptance or proof. In this case, the facts are clear and not in dispute: they themselves sell books aimed at helping a particular audience, There are conservative groups which are pro-Tea Party, and those which are anti, and that seems to be an important distinction for a lot of people. I think it's reasonable to clarify the position of each conservative group for the benefit of the readers. This group is up-front and forthcoming about it, so I didn't expect this to be controversial. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given their direct endorsement for the Tea Party movement, it's just common sense to include them in the category. I've restored it, but expect editors who refuse to participate in discussion to edit-war to whitewash it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Being true does not stop something being original research in Wikipedia terms. OR stops people putting in stuff people are not interested in, interest has to be shown by a third party source. It is the looking through a groups website that is OR. For instance there's loads of rubbish in the Conservapedia site but only a small amount is talked about in the article because they're the only bits outside reliable sources have written stories about. I'm for keeping major things like that but we do need to be careful to avoid cherry picking things and mainly just say what what reliable sources say. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't cherry-pick minor things, but perhaps Undue Weight is a better term for that than Original Research. The Tea Party connection is interesting as some groups have changed their position. The Heritage Foundation changed when DeMint took over. FreedomWorks changed when major financial support from Stephenson replaced that of the Koch brothers. I think we need to make both historical and current positions if the various groups clear to avoid misleading our readers. My only goal here is to clarify, and I'm open to any suggestions and methods of doing that. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that they sell books aimed at the Tea Party doesn't make them a Tea Party group. Dozens of sites including Amazon have pages promoting books aimed at the tea party, that doesn't make them tea party groups. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The diff comment "This issue has been discussed extensively on talk page." when removing the citation saying Heartland Institute denies climate science is not substantiated by a search of the talk page back to 2012 - I haven't gone back further. The citation is to a reliable source with two authors discussing climate change denial in a book about the relationship between Climate Change and Society and the book has an editor.

The diff comment " WP:V violation. Neither source substantiates claim. This paragraph still needs to be reworked to reflect source material.)" and putting in weasel wording is contradicted by the second citation which says " WP:V violation. Neither source substantiates claim. This paragraph still needs to be reworked to reflect source material.) is contradicted by the first citation with a quote from the Chinese Academy of Sciences "The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:". Dmcq (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Weight problem with Lewandowsky

I see the criticisms of Heartland's interp of the Chinese paper continue, and continue to rely heavily on the work of Stephan Lewandowsky. This is problematic because SL has no expertise in climate science and has been shown to be a careless (at best) user of statistical techniques. SL is also an active partisan in the climate debates.

I would be more comfortable id a 3rd=party, non-partisan story on this controversy could be used -- if such exists. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Pete Tillman Can you also weigh in on the use of "denier"? I was under the impression that use violated WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMonday (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Economist Quote

Arthur Rubin reverted my edit adding a quote from The Economist because he claims that it was not from an article and because it might be a violation of WP:undueweight. I'd like to bring this issue to the talk page to solicit consensus.

- It seems as though the piece is an article. It is from the International section and provides no general argument to characterize it as an editorial. (No Economist articles have bylines and editorials are generally placed in the "Leaders" section of this newspaper.") View the article here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555894

- As to the worry about undue weight: It prefaces a lengthy negative quote from the book Merchants of Doubt. So this quote helps bring balance to the page/section.

Thank you for your input on this matter.

RobertMonday (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that The Economist doesn't have bylines. However, the piece reads to me as an editorial. I've been wrong before, though.

However, even if it an article, it is undue weight, as adding additional negative material about the same characterization of the organization. It might be appropriate to trim the Merchants of Doubt quote, as the quote is clearly the opinion of the authors, and only reliable as such. It also may be an excessive quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It is confusing about the lack of bylines. Respectfully, I think the quote balances this section. Merchants of Doubt quote is quite negative and quite opinion-laden. The Economist quote, on the other hand, is a neutral and from an RS (in a page with few). I could do some research into whether The Economist places editorials outside the "Leaders" section of the paper if you'd like. As a longtime reader, I think that is rare. Also there is no argument per se in this piece that would make it an editorial.

You make a good point about the Merchants quote. Perhaps this discussion is moot if it were removed. Would you prefer to remove the Merchants quote for the reasons you mentioned or add The Economist quote in order to contextualize it?

Best, RobertMonday (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer the Merchants quote be removed. It adds nothing constructive to the first sentence of the paragraph, in either formulation ("question" vs. "deny"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

DMCQ Edits inserting "Denier"

DMCQ has twice tried to insert "Denier" language into the page despite consensus on this talk page against its use on WP:NPOV grounds. Please weigh in. RobertMonday (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me where there is a consensus on this talk page about that, and especially one to remove and ignore reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RobertMonday, can you quote the exact language you are objecting to, and maybe a diff to Dmcq's edit? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has just put the diff back in. Basically I changed questions to denies and referenced a book about climate change and society for that the institute does climate change denial. The word 'questions' is inappropriate, it is only questions as in pettifogging and harrying not as in wanting an answer. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on a smartphone at the moment, but that source seems would seem reliable for "deny", but it doesn't mention "Heartland" anywhere near that page . "Merchants of Doubt", on the other hand, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note 8 says 'Heartland Institute, a leading think-tank promoting climate change denial...'. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure a "note" has the same credibility as running text. In context, it would need to be in Herrick and Jamieson to be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article discusses the subject, a flat description like that is meant and not a mistake. I think a straight description is better but the rest of the article shows what it does. If you really think in-line is better how about about an in-line one in the Oxford Handbook on Climate change and Society? On page 149 of an article by the same authors it says the conservative think-tanks are a fundamental and highly effective component of the denial machine and includes the Heartland Institute as hosting anti-IPCC conferences. On page 151 it says the Cooler Heads Coalition is a front for climate change denial and includes Committee for a Constuctive Tomorrow, the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Dmcq (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those quotes is usable in this article for "denier"; the first could be used for "anti-IPCC", and the second could be used for "denier" in Cooler Heads Coalition, if the source is otherwise reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So you want it stated directly in black and white in the main text of an academic publication and by more than one person as I see Oreske's stuff is dismissed as a personal opinion. Okay I'll have a search of Google books as it is a general belief. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's another book by multiple authors Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming page 79 but I don't know if they are academic enough to satisfy the stringent requirements I see here if Merchants of Doubt doesn't. I found two other academic publications that had more than one author. How about Global Climate Change: A Primer page 48 or How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate Change page 220. Has any reliable source said otherwise about the Heartland Institute? Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read Merchants; it's generally good for facts, but "denial" is an opinion, and I question that being even a notable opinion. WP:BLP doesn't apply to characterization of organizations, but WP:SYNTH does. I'm on my smartphone again, so I cannot easily verify any citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Denial is pretty straightforward, and there's also a more specific article climate change denial. Lots of reliable sources state they are climate change deniers, is there some evidence otherwise? Perhaps you could be clearer on why you say it is just an opinion, why it doesn't matter and at the same time is important enough for it to matter to you? If it did come under WP:BLP which part exactly of that long policy would apply do you think? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to deny that "denial" is a controversial term? In order for us to call an organization "denialist", some reliable source must say that. We cannot assume that, because Heritage supports "Cooler Heads", and Cooler Heads is denialist, that Heritage is denialist. I support an organization that was in favor of the cultural embargo of Yugoslavia, when I was opposed to it to the point of attempting to fund scientists there to attend international meetings. The difference between skepticism and denial is often subjective. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are generalizing from the particular subject to the whole organisation. On the specific subject of climate change an organisation can be denialist without being on another subject. Supporting Cooler Heads on climate change is definitely support for denial on climate change. But there are others citations I gave which are even more specific. The real way of showing they are not is to get a reliable source saying they support actual science on climate change. If you really feel bad about denial how about some other word like 'oppose', but denial is strongly supported by reliable sources. What I'm objecting to is 'questioning'. If the police take someone in for questioning the implication is that they are going to listen to the person's answers and check them and release the person if the evidence now doesn't point to them. The Heartland Institute are not in the least interested in getting answers, they'd prefer not to get answers. Are you really saying they are questioning the science of climate change in good faith in that they want an answer to a problem they see - rather than doing it for political, economic or ideological reasons for show and aren't interested in an answer? That illustrates the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Have we got any evidence for them being skeptics in that sense? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think "oppose" is appropriate; their own position paper is almost adequate for that, in itself. "Deny" requires a specific, reliable source that the Heritage Foundation is a denialist organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for it to be listed as a 'denialist organisation', just that is denies climate science and some reasonable citation otherwise would be enough to counter the very good reliable sources saying it is one. Where do you get this requirement for 'organisation' and for removing the 'climate change' part? You never did say either which bit of BLP would apply if it did apply. I'll stick in oppose but I would like to know why you prefer to alter what the reliable sources say. Dmcq (talk)

I agree that "oppose" is the best formulation. I see no consensus for the alternate usage. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Merchants is the only source presented which reports that this organization is denialist. As "deny" vs. "skeptic" is often subjective, we would need a specific reliable source (possibly more than one, if there were any doubt) for the claim. If a source reports X, and we know that X indicates denial, we should not report that they are in ~~Egypt~~ denial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the only one, besides the note another of those I gave says quite "and the Heartland Institute (a leading climate change denier organization)". More to the point your idea of 'if there were any doubt' is not a real life workable concept, one always has a measure of doubt however slight. For Wikipedia we don't even need the measure of doubt that means all twelve of a jury would be convinced in a law court, something like ten or eleven in twelve is quite enough as the world is full of people who are strange. It isn't an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary verification. For individual members of the public it would often be unreasonable to distinguish denial from skepticism - there is so much obfustication a skeptic can easily be misled. However claiming that for the Heartland Institute is stretching credibility beyond the braking point. As to that if someone report denial we should not report that, you have gone over the edge into censorship. That is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's policy WP:CENSOR. Dmcq (talk)

I disagree. We can say that the organization opposes the scientific consensus on global warming, and the IPCC (which are not exactly the same), but I would say that "denial" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. I do not consider Merchants as a particularly reliable source for opinions (which "denial" often is), and I don't have sufficient experience to determine whether a "endnote" in an (otherwise) reliable publication is necessarily reliable. Notes in academic journal articles are not given the same scrutiny as the text, but I don't know book editors' policies. I don't think the evidence here is as good as, say David Irving as a holocaust denier. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me you are transferring some dislike about using the word denial because it is used in holocaust denial into saying the actual facts are an extraordinary claim. The claim is simply not extraordinary, it is used in multiple reliable sources. Denial is the straightforward description of what is happening. The article on climate change denial draws a clear line between skepticism and denial and the sources make it pretty clear on which side the Heartland Foundation stands. Anyway someone has now changed 'opposes' to 'disagrees', I expect the watering down to continue for a while but I'll leave it till it gets ridiculous again. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vast undiscussed changes.

These extremely bold edits should be discussed. I feel they have not improved the article on balance. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

not improved? were the edits harmful? ~~are you familiar with WP:ROWN?~~ Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you say in the previous discussion where you saw others saying the section was too long instead of just ignoring things. If you can do vast reams of edits to the article you can take a little time out to answer tiny queries like that.Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracking

This is OR sourced to SPS, a single page at the orgs' 10,000 page site dating to 2012. It is supported by a 3 4 sentence "letter to the editor" by a staff person from the organization dating back to 2013. At the very least this is wildly undue. It looks like we have Original Research here. The letter to the editor identifies the person as being at Heartland, we have no idea and no way to tell if Heartland itself supported that letter. There are also no refs suggesting that Heartlands core function involves writing letters to the editor.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Are Brookings and Heritage core functions writing letters to the editor? Risible. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with the content you deleted. The content is a claim that the subject of this article has a particular noteworthy stance on a particular noteworthy issue. The content succinctly and accurately summarizes the a position of the subject of this article on that issue. That's all. It does not make any of the arguments for or against that position drawn from those sources in wikipedia voice.

Next, the sources: 1. a posting on the website of the subject of this article, and 2. a letter to an editor published by the Chicago Tribune.

Smith, Taylor (June 7, 2012). "Research & Commentary: Hydraulic Fracturing Bans". Heartland Institute. Retrieved June 8, 2012.

Smith, Taylor (January 15, 2013). "Hydraulic fracturing in Illinois". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 9, 2015.

As you well know, self-published sources may be used to support claims about the subject. The letter to the editor is more than "3 sentences" and is attributed to "Taylor Smith, energy policy analyst, The Heartland Institute." Both sources are entirely appropriate in support of this content under WP policy and guideline. This is not original research. The sources are used ONLY for the opinion of the subject of this article.

The subject of this article is nominally a social welfare public charity, tax exempt in recognition of its mission of public education. By definiton, among its most significant activities are publishing position papers on its website and writing letters to editors. Is it your position that the subject's own position papers and letters to editors may not be used to support a summary of the positions of the subject of this article? If such sources are not allowed, what is, in your opinion? After reading the two sources, are you not clear on the subject of this article's position on this issue? Would you support removing all content from this article sourced to the subject's website?

Also, are you familiar with WP:ROWN? Hugh (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(insert) I have read many essays, yes thanks. I have re-read the letter to the editor and corrected above. It is a 4 sentence letter. My apologies. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As to this opinion: " By definiton, among its most significant activities are publishing position papers on its website and writing letters to editors." That is entirely that of a single editor. I certainly don't agree. They probably don't either. Position papers vs books or scientific research papers? Letters to the editor vs articles or op-eds or seminars or conferences. There is no basis to suggest that 4 sentence letters to the editor are among its "most significant activities", in fact I suggest entirely the opposite. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there are basis for this other than what the Heartland Institute itself says? That is a primary source. It can be used if we have a secondary source mentioning it. We need a secondary source to show it has any weight. Basically if no-one besides those connected with the Heartland Institute think it is worth talking about it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the fracking as not having weight as there are no secondary sources. The intro sentence needs some sot of citation too as some of the things said in it are not detailed below. If the organisation has a very obvious overall policy statement it might be okay but I can't see one and we can't use anything without secondary sources that is not very obvious from the front page. Perhaps someone else has a good description of what they do overall - that would be even better. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No there is not. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, weight. I will add some more noteworthy refs. Let me know what you think. Hugh (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments? Hugh (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The section lede sentence does not need sourcing beyond the sections that follow. That sentence is more than adequately sourced in succeeding subsections. Summarizing is not OR. We are allowed to summarize. Summarizing is what we do. Hugh (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had another check of the lead and the things in it are discussed below, I misread before, so yes I withdraw my request for citations for it. The Fox news interview and the article in Media Matters are secondary sources giving weight to the discussion about fracking. The main summary should be about what the secondary sources were about - one talks about the Heartland Institute policy and is favourable about them and the other talks about them being in denial about problems. Rather than all the newspaper names which aren't interesting the second secondary source should be mentioned the same as Fox news and the newspaper cites just given as backup to the Heartland Institute position. The whole paragraph should have a section like the other policies. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Long section headings

I believe it is fairly standard in Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias to just give what a section is about for organisations rather than give their position. The text then gives the position. For instance in Conservapedia one gets headings like Creation, Evolution and Environmentalism. They don't say things like Opposition to the theory of evolution. They have a position on that but it is up to the text and citations to point out what their position is. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Short for "Heartland Institute" is "Heartland"

Editor's note: we are asked to embrace most common usage in naming and to consider what an org calls itself other things equal. The Heartland Institute tends to call itself "The Heartland Institute" when it writes about itself. When it mixes in something shorter, which is relatively rare, they refer to themselves as "Heartland" rather than "the Institute." Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] Otto, Shawn Lawrence (February 23, 2012). "The Most Likely Author of the Secret Heartland Institute Climate Strategy Memo, According to JGAAP?". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 25, 2012.

[1]