Talk:Heritage Action

Adding info about Istook Live! radio show

I have prepared a short addition to this article that I would like reviewed by other editors. In July of this year Heritage Action for America launched the radio show Istook Live! hosted by Ernest Istook. I think it would be appropriate to add this information to the end of this article.

However, I have a potential conflict of interest here. I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation, a sister organization to Heritage Action for America. Below is the addition I suggest. Can another editor review this suggestion and make the change if it looks ok? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In July 2012, Heritage Action for America announced the launch of a new project Istook Live!. The radio show, hosted by former Oklahoma congressman Ernest Istook, broadcasts live from The Heritage Foundation.<ref name="Entertainment Close-Up">{{cite news |title=Heritage Action for America Launches 'Istook Live!' Radio Show |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=563H-BTR1-JCRR-0094&csi=345185&oc=00240&perma=true |newspaper=Entertainment Close-Up |date=July 13, 2012 |accessdate=October 15, 2012}}</ref>

this is promotional wording. 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. And do they sponsor other shows? If they do, they should all be mentioned equally. But if this is the only one you know about, and you have a RS that they cosponsor it, I suggest:

The group co-sponsors the ratio show Istook Live, hosted by former congressman Ernest Istook (ref) DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thanks for taking a look at my request. The source I provided above notes that the radio show was launched by Heritage Action for America. In case you don't have access to Nexis, the article is also available via HighBeam. This press release from HAA explains that that show is a project of the organization's media division. I've also found these two radio news website articles about the show's launch:

• "Istook Enters Syndication Arena". Talkers.com. July 10, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012.

• "WYD Media Management Launches Ernest Istook Show". All Access. July 10, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012.

To say that HAA "cosponsors" the show isn't exactly right, I think "produces" the show is more accurate but otherwise your wording looks ok to me. If the references I've given above work for you, can you add the sentence into the article? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the information about the Istook Live! radio show to the article. It has been several months since I originally posted this request and, although I have contacted several editors, there hasn't been any final response. To avoid promotional wording I have used DGG's suggestion, however I have changed "cosponsors" to "produces" which is more accurate. Thurmant (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information in this article

Hi, I've noticed that there's a new addition to this article about the NDAA, that is incorrect and unsourced. I'd like to ask that this be removed as it's misleading to readers of this article. Here are the sentences in question:

Heritage Action supports the provision in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens who are deemed terrorists without a fair trial. The organization has gone on record of ranking politicians negatively who oppose the provision.

Neither of these statements are true. The organization has not voiced support for this provision and only scored a few minor provisions of the law, not including the provision regarding indefinite detention. I'd remove this myself, but I work for The Heritage Foundation. Can someone please remove this incorrect information? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Since the current is unsourced and I could not find any sources to support it, I removed the content. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and making the edit, CorporateM. Thurmant (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  -- 'NDAA' is not found in the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Source Bias Conflict

The very first source to define what sort of organization Heritage Action is, should NOT be the Daily Caller. The very title of that article has incorrect information in it. Heritage Action is actually the opposite of "grassroots organizing". It is what is referred to as "astroturf" (which is activism from the top down instead of the ground up). Furthermore, the Daily Caller is a highly partisan source that reprints the Heritage Foundation's talking points without questioning them. Lastly, there is no information in this wiki to indicate exactly what type of organization Heritage Action is when it comes to taxation. Is it a 501-(c)4? Is it a PAC? Is it a Super-PAC? Wikipedia readers deserve to know this information first since it matters a great deal as to their credibility in politics. 69.245.239.174 (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it looks very much to me like someone frmo the Heritage Foundation/Heritage Action involved with PR has subtly edited this page to suit their own ends. What needs to happen is that non-ideological sources need to be found detailing exactly what this organisation does and whether it really is a grassroots organisation. I would be happy to help with this and start working on this article. (KingHiggins (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

I support any effort to improve sourcing, and I agree the lead could be cleaned up from an WP:NPV standpoint. Note, however, that though the Daily Caller certainly has its flaws it's still a sufficiently reliable source for citation per WP:BIASED. In fact in this context it might even be more reliable than non-ideological sources as it's probably intimately familiar with right-wing groups like Heritage. I'll also note that it's way premature to accuse anyone of a conflict of interest. It's a weak accusation that may violate WP:NPA (see WP:COI#Importance of civility) and definitely violates WP:AGF. Please step it down a notch and focus on the edit rather than the editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael A. Needham.

Saw him on cspan and went looking here for his bio. Woefully inadequate for this Bold Ideas hawker.--Wikipietime (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

By all means, be bold and start an article on him! He's certainly sufficiently notable. I suspect he doesn't have his own article because he's only 31, until recently he was just another Heritage Foundation staffer, and I believe he's only become prominent in the last year or so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision for this article

Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a proposed revision I have prepared for this article. My revision aims to correct several main issues I see with the current article:

• There is no infobox or image in this article
• The article currently consists of just one large Activities section and is difficult to navigate
• The information in the article should be expanded and updated as the page has not been significantly worked on in the past half year

The draft I've prepared is in my user space here:

• User:Morzabeth/Heritage_Action

I have prepared this draft on behalf of Heritage Action and would like to acknowledge my conflict of interest with this topic. 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 would also like to invite editors to make any changes necessary directly to my draft if they would like. Additionally, I hope that someone will be willing to move the draft out of my user space and replace the live article when it is ready to go. Due to my COI, I'd like to avoid any direct edits to the article.

Below I've provided a little more information about the changes between the current article and my draft. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything not covered here.

I have:

• Created a Background and an Organization and leadership section to provide more details about the history and structure of the organization
• Expanded the funding section to include information on quantities raised and provide more detail as to the origins of those funds
• Reorganized the Activities section to describe the ways in which Heritage Action pursues its goals and have moved information regarding legislation to the new Positions on legislation section
• Expanded the Positions on legislation section to group the information by subject matter to show what areas of legislation Heritage Action is actively involved with rather than listing this information as things they did or did not support
• Removed information on Istook Live! as this show no longer exists
• Removed the paragraph linking congressional retirements to comments made by Heritage Action as The New York Times editorial piece used to support this only mentions Heritage Action in passing and I do not feel it should be used in this way
• Removed the section regarding Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act as the current sources are both primary

One final note, I have not yet uploaded an image for use in this article as the organization's logo will fall under fair use restrictions. I would like to add an image to the infobox once the update to the article has been completed.

Looking forward to discussing this draft with editors. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging this message again in case any editors have this page watchlisted and missed my original message. I am still looking for editors who are available to review my proposed draft. Thanks! Morzabeth (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Commenting as a completely uninvolved Wikipedian. I read your draft before reading the original, and thought it was ok, but now seeing the original, I'm a bit confused by some of your changes:

• The lead in the original includes some good quotes that aren't in your draft, and useful context like "conservative think tank" for the sister organisation. I don't see any reason to remove them?
• "Officials at The Heritage Foundation felt pressure" is not the right way to express this for a Wikipedia. What they "felt" isn't an objective fact. The published version is more objective ("...created as a response...the Foundation is not allowed...he stated..."), although the copywriting is clumsy.
• Regarding the NY Times quote, I think you're falling into the trap of prioritising (your) "truth" over "verifiability". Here's the NYT quote:

Last year, the group Heritage Action for America urged the House to stop legislating and focus only on attacking the Obama administration. House leaders have largely followed that advice, driving away many of the best lawmakers and diminishing Congress’s role in the life of the nation.

That's the quote. According to the NYT, HAA is directly, partially responsible for causing good congressman to quit. That's a powerful statement, from a highly respected newspaper. It should stand. By all means, add alternative viewpoints supported by other sources, but it's inappropriate to simply remove it because you disagree with it or think (based on some non-public information) that it is "inaccurate".

• Not really a COI issue, but I'd leave the paragraph about Istook, but obviously change the tense. It's relevant, but historical now.
• I think the "legislation opposed/legislation supported" structure reads more clearly than your version.
• You seem to have removed the sentence about HAA "not being transparent".
• I don't understand your rationale for removing the section about the Domestic Prosperity etc act. It's fine to cite the horse's mouth as supporting evidence on the organisation's position. (http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/key-vote-yes-domestic-prosperity-global-freedom-act-h-r-6/)

I haven't scrutinised super closely, but I'm a bit concerned about the couple of examples of clear bias (removing "negative" information) that you haven't mentioned in your list of changes. I really appreciate your taking the trouble to go through the COI process properly, though, and sorry you haven't had more of a response. Stevage 00:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Stevage. Let me preface my response by saying that my draft is meant to be a working draft. I've worked hard to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and improve this article. It is certainly not my intention to obscure or remove negative information. I'm happy to make changes to address your concerns or, if you would prefer, you can make the changes to my draft yourself.

Now, let me try to address your comments bullet by bullet:

• I didn't use the phrase "conservative think tank" because my introduction describes Heritage Action as a "conservative lobbying and advocacy group". Adding "conservative think tank" to describe The Heritage Foundation seemed redundant to me, but I am not opposed to inserting this phrase if you really think it's needed. I'm not sure what other good quotes you feel are missing, but if you're referring to the direct quotes in the second to last sentence I removed these because they stuck me as promotional and boastful, and I was trying to write the article from a neutral POV.

• I understand your concern with the phrase "felt pressure". What would you think about editing this sentence to the simpler:

Officials at The Heritage Foundation began engaging in political advocacy following the March 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

• I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on whether or not the New York Times source has any place in the article, for a couple of reasons.

First, the piece is an op-ed. According to WP:RELIABLE:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (emphasis mine)

If we do include this, it should only be used to say what the opinion of the New York Times Editorial Board is, and not anything about the actual facts of the situation.

Second, I believe that the language currently in the article misinterprets what the piece actually says. In the last paragraph of an editorial about legislators being unhappy with Congress and resigning, the editorial board of the NYT says, "None of this [the resignations] is surprising, given the contemptuous attitude of many leading Republicans and conservative groups to old-fashioned legislative accomplishment. Last year, the group Heritage Action for America urged the House to stop legislating and focus only on attacking the Obama administration." It's clear, based on its placement at the end of the article and the wording of the sentence that comes before it, that the editorial board is in no way laying blame for these resignations at the feet of Heritage Action, but is instead providing their statement as yet another example of a divisive legislative environment.

• I'm not opposed to retaining the information about Istook Live. My concern though is that I have been unable to locate a source showing that the show has been canceled. For that reason I didn't feel comfortable editing the existing text to make it past tense.

• As for the Positions on legislation section, I rewrote this section to be structured around the issues, rather than whether or not Heritage Action supported or opposed the issue, for three reasons. First, it seemed a bit biased to me to frame discussion of legislation that had nothing to do with Heritage Action in terms of Heritage Action's opinion about it. Second, it seemed better to me to keep related issues (for example, immigration and international policy) in the same section, regardless of whether Heritage Action supported or opposed them, rather than splitting them up into "support" and "oppose" sections. Finally, if we think about a reader coming to the article and put them first, it seems more useful to me to have the legislation placed into subsections based on what it was about, rather than Heritage Action's opinions about it. That way, a reader who wanted to know what Heritage Action's stance on, say, agriculture legislation would be able to easily find it, without having to already know whether Heritage Action supported or opposed it. I'm certainly not opposed to working on the wording in this section, or presenting the information in a different way, but I do feel that the organization in my new draft is superior to the current article, for the reasons outlined.

• I had removed the sentence about Heritage Action "not being transparent" because it is based on one comment from one interview without context. Given that Heritage Action is not required to disclose their donors it seems unremarkable that the organizations CEO had stated that the organization is "not being transparent". That being said, if you would prefer to see that sentence reinserted I am agreeable to that.
• The reason I removed the information about the Domestic Prosperity Act is because it wasn't covered in independent sources. My thinking is that if the only significant coverage of this was from Heritage Action itself then Heritage Action's involvement here is not that notable. If we were to rely on self-published sources here this section could grow each time Heritage Action updated their scorecard.

I hope these more detailed responses help. Please let me know if you have other thoughts when you read my draft more closely. Again, I am more than happy to make adjustments to my draft. My goal here is to revise this draft to see the article improved, not to force my draft on anyone. Morzabeth (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That draft looks like an in-house position statement, and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia. In any case, wholesale article replacement is generally frowned upon. More WP:RS reliable sources not based on press releases would be appropriate. The Wall Street Journal has some recent coverage.[1] Here's a critical view on Needham and Heritage Action from The New Republic, which gives more background.[2]. Here's John Boehner criticising HA. [3] Here's HA criticizing Boehner.[4] There are lots of good sources from multiple points of view that aren't in-house PR. John Nagle (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I'm sorry you feel that my draft lacks neutrality. Can you point to some specific examples of issues you see so that we can discuss and address them?

As for your comment that more reliable sources are needed, I have to disagree with you. I am familiar with the guidelines at WP:RS and have cited many reliable sources from major reliable publications in my draft. For example, I have included: 5 articles from The Washington Post, 4 articles from The Hill, 3 articles from Politico, 2 articles from The Boston Globe, 2 articles from National Journal, 2 articles from The Wall Street Journal and 1 article from The New York Times as well as many other reliable sources. Which sources do you feel are based on press releases?

About the specific sources you pointed to: The first source was published only a few weeks ago so it was not available to me when I prepared this draft, but I am not opposed to the inclusion of any of these sources. It is not my intent to exclude any specific sources, but it is not possible, nor necessary, to use every available source that discusses Heritage Action.

I'll have some time this evening and am planning on making some updates based on Stevage's feedback above. I'll also look over these sources you've shared and see what additions I can make, but please let me know if there are specific changes you would like made based on these sources.

Again, anyone may make changes directly to my working draft, or provide me with specific feedback I can use to improve my draft. I understand that reviewing and updating an entire article at one time is a large undertaking, but I don't know of any Wikipedia guidelines that discourage it. As the current article needs larger structural changes I believe addressing the whole article at once is necessary, rather than going piece by piece. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the clear amount of effort that User:Morzabeth has put in and the clear desire that the editor has to work within guidelines. And it is perfectly appropriate for HA to want to see inaccuracies, imbalances, and insufficiencies in the article about them addressed. However, HA (or any political action group) is by its nature a contentious organization - this ain't Li'l Jimmy's Taco Truck (please correct me if I'm wrong and they are a taco truck.) We should be inherently wary about how any such group wants to present itself. To try to replace the whole article is basically asking us to stuff the whole thing into our mouths and spit out the bad parts, when we should by default view the whole thing with suspicion and take the carefully-checked good. I'm an editor previously uninvolved with this page (unless I'm forgetting something), but I'm going to recommend that Morzabeth suggest the changes in more discrete chunks, and that each is evaluated before inclusion. This may well accelerate a lot of things - I doubt that there will be much conflict over the infobox, for example - and better isolate disagreements and sticking points. When faced with a small amount of new data rather than a wall of it, editors will be better able to check that there hasn't been a careful selection of sources (i.e., that they don't go just to the one article that says "Li'l Jimmy uses only the finest grade beef" and skips the seven that says "Jimmy uses whatever grade beef he can find") and that a deletion of useful information doesn't occur just because something else is being put up in its place. In other words, we should take the conservative move of assuming that we keep the status quo unless there is sufficient reason given for a change, rather than making wholesale changes and only scaling back where there is a problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made some updates to my draft based on the feedback I received from several editors.

This edit was made in response to User:Stevage's comment. I have updated the introduction to describe The Heritage Foundation as a conservative think tank, updated the sentence about the creation of Heritage Action to remove the phrase "felt pressure" and reinserted the sentence with the quote from CEO Michael Needham about Heritage Action not being transparent. In this sentence I did replace the worde "conceded" with "stated" for neutrality.

This edit was made in response to User:Silverseren's comment on my request at PEH to explain the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

This edit introduces one of the sources provided by User:John Nagle. I have used this source to add in criticism of Heritage Action from John Boehner and as an additional source to verify that Heritage Action supports the abolishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I would like to take a little more time to review the other three sources John Nagle pointed to to see how they can be incorporated into the draft.

I hope these edits help alleviate some of the concerns raised above. Additionally, I'm curious to hear if other editors would also like to review this draft section by section. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Morzabeth. I see that, since August 14th, no comments have been added to this discussion and no changes have been made to your draft. More than 2 months have passed since then. It appears you did not (yet) use the three sources mentioned by User:Nagle. This is not necessarily a problem. What is a problem is your goal to have your draft replace the existing article. I don't think continuing this long discussion about a large new draft is the best way forward. I believe it is much more likely that edit requests on your part will be implemented if the suggested changes are relatively small and regarding the existing article. As User:NatGertler wrote, "When faced with a small amount of new data rather than a wall of it, editors will be better able to check [things]." Do you agree that closing this COI edit request, and then allowing you to open one or more smaller COI edit requests regarding the existing article, is a good solution? Almost all Wikipedians are volunteers, and the longer this current edit request becomes, the less likely it is that editors will be willing to read through all the text (and the draft) to figure out what exactly is being discussed here. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the things the COI editor wanted have been done. There's an info box, now. So we can probably close this as "partially accepted", and await further small requests. John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cut significant chunks that lacked in-depth secondary sourcing to warrant detailed inclusion, especially of policy positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:607F:F808:B962:71C5:73EA:3FD3 (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Update Information in this Article

Request:

Hi, This article requires a few updates that I would like to bring to the attention of an editor. Michael A. Needham is no longer working at Heritage Action (Roll Call article available here ). In addition, Tim Chapman is now the executive director of Heritage Action for America (as stated in the organization’s press release available here ) and Dan Holler remains in the position of Vice President. Both positions are noted on the organization’s website here as well . I suggest that these two positions be highlighted in the infobox: 1. Replace “Chief Executive Officer” with “Executive Director” and “Michael A. Needham” with “Tim Chapman” and 2. Replace “Chief Operating Officer” with “Vice President” and “Tim Chapman” with “Dan Holler.”

I also request that these changes be noted throughout the article in three other distinct places: 1. In the first paragraph, replace “It is led by chief executive Michael A. Needham.” with “It is led by executive director Tim Chapman.” 2. Under “Background and history” please replace “Heritage Action began with a staff of ten, including chief executive officer Michael A. Needham and chief operating officer Timothy J. Chapman.” with either “Heritage Action began with a staff of ten, including former chief executive officer Michael A. Needham, who left the organization in 2018 to become Marco Rubio’s chief of staff, and current executive director Timothy J. Chapman.” or simply “Heritage action began with a staff of ten, including current executive director Timothy J. Chapman.” 3. Under “Criticism of Trump” replace “ Heritage Action CEO” with “former Heritage Action CEO” if this information is still deemed relevant to the page.

My second request is regarding the second sentence in the first paragraph of the article. It reads “The organization has state operations in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.” While this information is correct, Heritage Action now has state operations throughout the United States (noted in this National Review article here and on their website here ). For this reason, I would to propose changing “The organization has state operations in North Carolina and Pennsylvania” to “The organization has grassroots movements throughout the United States.” If that change is not deemed appropriate for any reason, I would instead request that the first clause of the sentence be taken out completely.

I would make these edits and updates myself, but I am currently working at the organization. Could someone please update this information? Thank you. MaggieDe (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@MaggieDe: thank you for following our conflict of interest disclosure and edit request guidelines--seems to be done all too rarely around here, but is always much appreciated. Your edit suggestions looked sound to me and I implemented most of them. I also tagged the section on Needham's relationship with Trump as I'm not sure how relevant that content is since Needham has left the organization. I'll let other editors have a look and see what they think. Marquardtika (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Thank you for your quick response and edits! I have two more updates to be noted on the page if you do not mind. 1. Dan Holler is the current vice president, rather than Tim Holler. 2. Under the activities section, I would like to propose that Mike Needham also be noted as former chief executive officer. The sentence currently reads: "The strategy of Heritage Action in tying the ACA to the shutdown, according to Needham, was to make President Obama "feel pain" because of the shutdown." I would propose a change to "according to former chief executive officer, Michael Needham," if possible. Thank you so much for your help in updating this page. I also have another general addition request to add Heritage Action's logo to the information box in order to provide clarity. Would it be a COI for me to input the logo? Thank you so much again. MaggieDe (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@MaggieDe: No problem. I fixed Holler's name and noted Needham is the former CEO. I think that organizational logos fall under fair use when they are used on Wikipedia to identify an organization. It's common for organizations to have a logo in their Wikipedia infobox. If you upload a logo (see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard) I can see about adding it to the infobox. Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the "former CEO" language with "then CEO", to make it clear that he was CEO when these events were taking place, which gives relevant context to the content. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The goal of this article is not to just provide a current snapshot of the organization, but also its relevant history. Some of the edits that are being called for by the conflicted editor look like an attempt to remove that history. The things that happened under Needham do not suddenly become irrelevant or not representative of the group. In fact, at this point Needham is still the more important figure for this article than Chapman, as Chapman has been at the controls for a far smaller amount of time without anything of significance happening that we are covering. I ask that the "relevance" tag be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue for me is whether Needham's relationship with/comments about Trump occurred in a personal capacity or in his capacity as head of this organization. If it's the former, then I would question the relevance for this page, but if it's the latter, the content would be relevant. I don't have a strong opinion but thought it was worth discussing. Marquardtika (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: We had another organizational shift recently. Jessica Anderson is now the Vice President of Heritage Action. Our press release is available here and a roll call article announcing Dan Holler's departure is available here. I just request that this change be noted in the information box, as it is the only mention of Mr. Holler in the article. Thank you in advance.

````As above, Jessica Anderson is now VP of Heritage Action. She replaced Dan Holler earlier this year. Heritage Action now uses a new logo, which Wikipedia will not allow me to upload, but I have provided a link to here: https://heritageaction.com/ (the logo is in the top left corner). Due to a conflict of interest, I have not made these changes or added the below section myself.

I have also typed up a new section on Jessica Anderson and Tim Chapman to follow the section "Relationship with Donald Trump" titled "Needham's Departure and New Leadership".

Please add: In early 2018, Michael Needham left Heritage Action and became Marco Rubio’s chief of staff in April. Following Needham’s departure, Tim Chapman was named Executive Director of Heritage Action on May 22, 2018. Chapman previously served as Heritage Action’s chief operating officer and as chief of staff to Heritage Foundation President Ed J. Feulner, Ph.D.

In June 2018 Jessica Anderson was named as Vice President to replace outgoing Vice President Dan Holler. Anderson returned to Heritage Action after working for the Trump Administration in the Office of Management and Budget.

Under this new leadership, Heritage Action continues to fight for conservative policy victories in Washington D.C. through a combination of direct lobbying and grassroots activism.

In 2018, Heritage Action spent $2.5 million and backed 12 Republican House candidates in the midterm elections. Using a combination of direct-mail, digital, and TV advertising to educate voters on the positive effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Heritage Action aimed to remind stalwart conservatives of the benefits of last year’s tax cuts while also taking their message to swing voters.

Well, we certainly aren't going to keep the POV language that their goal is to educate and that the tax act was beneficial, nor complimenting their audience as "stalwart". Really, it's enough to say that they promoted candidates. The entire "under this new leadership" sentence is just reiterating what HA is, and is unneeded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

~~@Nat Gertler Thank you for taking a look at my suggested edits. As you saw, the bulk of the edits are informational and I believe general readership would be benefited by knowing who the current leadership of the organization is.

Regarding the language around elections - this is a new development for Heritage Action and is noteworthy, with many news outlets writing about it (Wall Street Journal, McClatchy, The Hill, Vox). It is also factual and relevant that while the organization was backing specific candidates, the messaging was about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

From the Wall Street Journal, "To change that, Heritage Action plans to spend $2.5 million, starting in early September, to help Republicans win in 14 congressional districts. The group plans to use its money on direct mail and digital ads promoting its view of how the tax law passed by Republicans last December is benefiting voters there."

From Vox, "There are still groups betting on taxes. Conservative lobbying group Heritage Action for America is messaging exclusively around the tax bill for the 2018 midterms and is spending $2.5 million in 12 congressional districts on direct mail, digital advertisements, and television spots that are both positive and negative."

Regarding use of the adjective "stalwart" - it was used in connection with "swing voter" and was meant to convey that the advertising was directed at a broad audience. I understand that another word choice may be more suited towards conveying that idea.

Regarding the sentence, "Under this new leadership, Heritage Action continues to fight for conservative policy victories in Washington D.C. through a combination of direct lobbying and grassroots activism," perhaps an alternative may be better suited. "Under this new leadership, Heritage Action's mission remains unchanged." The purpose of the sentence is to inform readers that the mission of the organization continues to be the same with the leadership change.

Lastly, I have uploaded our new logo to wikipedia so that it can be updated. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heritage_Action_for_America_Logo.jpg

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneformerlyofsavoy (talk • contribs) 14:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be worth noting if the new leadership intended to change direction, but not particularly if it's just staying the course. Momentum is assumed. We don't say "under the new CEO, McDonalds will still be a restaurant." --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The basics of the information have now been added to the article, although not with the wording you sought. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Heritage in American English

The world 'heritage' used in a political context by these 'NGOs' triggers the word 'Nazi' to come up in the minds of people surveyed who are not part of the right wing in America. Multiple surveys were done on word association for research in 2017 by Dr.Panida Srimuang doing doctorate work in the US. Her paper, America:Identity,Language and Cultural Bias, found that 57% of adult Democratic and Independent voters had a high tendency to associate the word 'Heritage' to the words, Fascism, Nazi, Right, and Brainwashing. In fact, of the 57% every single participant actually produced at least one word from that previous list.

References