Talk:Bradley Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

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

jucifer 03:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] new edits

Fixed the NPOV, by first figuring out what Bradley spends its money on, then moved all the critisism to Critisism and placed a conclusion of what they do, based on their expenses. I also added parts of the Foundations statement from the Bradley website. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerdark (talk • contribs) .

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

Cool. I rewrote the copied part and removed it.

Hey, I wonder if those guys can't help financing Wikipedia.. Apparently they support public knowledge projects...

User:killerdark

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

[edit] The (not) Criticism Section

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

That sounds like a good plan. -Willmcw 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

From the american specator wiki:

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

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

Killerdark 11:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] JS Online

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

Joyce is quoted saying "I'm not sure September 11th did more than push the timetable up," Then the article goes on about press accounts. In the wiki it is stated that Joyce "brags".[2] Killerdark 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

On November 20-22, 2002, the conference investigated "what now appears to be a new form of political action with international consequences. Prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism was far from unknown, and political conflicts with religious elements were frequently encountered. The attacks of September 11, however, make us question whether we adequately understood the role of religion and its relation to political violence. Among the questions the conference sought to answer are: Does religion add a distinct and different character to political action? What does Islam say about inter-religious conflict? Does terrorism fundamentally alter the political structure of the time and place where it occurs? What are the policy implications of September 11 for the American military and U.S. foreign policy?"[3]

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

[edit] Marquette Law School Gift

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

[edit] Shadow Government that Controls Us All

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