Talk:Heartland Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Just as an FYI to any members of the Heartland Institute who try to whitewash this article. Don't even bother. It will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs)
- Has this been a problem? I'm more concerned with your unsourced POV edits. --D. Monack | talk 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Really, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to get information from the source up onto this page. As for the conference that they are currently having in March, no information has even been released about what was really discussed. This page needs some proper information, not side comments from the oil industry haters. Infonation101 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If by "proper information" you mean material published in reliable, independent secondary sources, I've added a couple to the article today. I'm sure there are more out there. MastCell Talk 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to get information from the source up onto this page. As for the conference that they are currently having in March, no information has even been released about what was really discussed. This page needs some proper information, not side comments from the oil industry haters. Infonation101 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Institute Information
Like other WP sites that have the side column of company information (ie World Wildlife Fund), figured to start it off by getting the revenue for 06. The 990 shows a revenue of $2,491,809. Also the president and chairman information can be found here, date founded and headquarters here. The last two come from the Heartland Institute website, but are verified on the 990 as well. Cool if I throw these on the site? Infonation101 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- sounds good to me.JQ (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's up, but I'm new at putting the information up in this way. So if there are any corrections that need to be made, please do. Infonation101 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exxon Funding?
Is there a more reliable source then (5)? (5) is from a known critic of Exxon and as such is open to bias. Is there are official financial documentation pertaining to this claimed funding? 203.208.72.195 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If we can't find a more reliable source then I suggest we remove the accusation. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact... it seems most of the funding claims are extremely bad sources. They're either news items or from sites ridiculously biased against Heartland Institute's Opinions. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a change to the citations. I traced the original citation back, and it was coming from a bias source. Let's see an official fiscal report, not a news release. Infonation101 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That would be great if we could get some decent citations. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a list of the donations that ExxonMobil made in 2006. Wonder why so many people hate them when they contribute 100's of millions every year to education and other programs? Infonation101 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly a veteran at Wikipedia, so I don't know the rules. But a quick glance over that report shows that it doesn't cite any sources. That wouldn't be so bad if it was hosted at an Exxon or Heartland institute website, or perhaps some other place which deals with financial (I donno, maybe the IRS or something? I don't know how America works). It's just that it's hosted on Greenpeace's website which is a known critic of Exxon AND of Heartland Institute's opinions on Global Warming and stuff. If this report is legit, then I'm sure it, or a similar version, should be hosted somewhere which is NOT biased against Exxon/Heartland 203.208.72.195 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct about where the source is being hosted. I checked the published 990 information and it doesn't have a list of contributers. I'll keep digging and try to find the information. All 501(c)(3)'s have to make all financial information public, so I'll keep looking. Infonation101 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest doing a search for the comments of the Royal Society of the UK on this issue.There was plenty of discussion at the time. JQ (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I'm still looking. Infonation101 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest doing a search for the comments of the Royal Society of the UK on this issue.There was plenty of discussion at the time. JQ (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a list of the donations that ExxonMobil made in 2006. Wonder why so many people hate them when they contribute 100's of millions every year to education and other programs? Infonation101 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the official report (2006), hosted by ExxonMobil. That should be usable information. Infonation101 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- But in the official report from PMUSA, Heartland received no funding in 06. For this, the statements on the article will be removed. Infonation101 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reliable sources for the fact that Heartland has received money from PM. The fact that it received none in 2006 doesn't change this. The deleted link points to primary documents, but for our purposes it's better to cite newspapers, which are WP:RS reliable sources. Can I request that you reinsert this info, pleaseJQ (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the consequences from such a correlation between Exxon and Heartland AND the fact that if it is true there MUST be official financial reports on it somewhere, I say that we don't bother with news sources (especially since it seems official reports must be possible to obtain). This is an exceptional claim (due to controversy) and thus requires exceptional sources - and they should be attainable. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The idea that the Heartland Institute, whose agenda is similar to that of ExxonMobil, receives funding from ExxonMobil is hardly an "exceptional" claim. Standard reliable secondary sourcing is more than adequate here. MastCell Talk 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that I've added to the confusion a bit. Below are reports for Philip Morris (NOT ExxonMobil) donations to Heartland. I'm still digging for the official reports from ExxonMobil. When I find those, they'll be posted. Infonation101 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not exceptional because it's not "believable" it's exceptional because it's controversial, the consequences of Heartland being funded by them biases their work. The fact thtat such donations MUST have official records means we might as well use those. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The idea that the Heartland Institute, whose agenda is similar to that of ExxonMobil, receives funding from ExxonMobil is hardly an "exceptional" claim. Standard reliable secondary sourcing is more than adequate here. MastCell Talk 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the consequences from such a correlation between Exxon and Heartland AND the fact that if it is true there MUST be official financial reports on it somewhere, I say that we don't bother with news sources (especially since it seems official reports must be possible to obtain). This is an exceptional claim (due to controversy) and thus requires exceptional sources - and they should be attainable. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reliable sources for the fact that Heartland has received money from PM. The fact that it received none in 2006 doesn't change this. The deleted link points to primary documents, but for our purposes it's better to cite newspapers, which are WP:RS reliable sources. Can I request that you reinsert this info, pleaseJQ (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be great if we could get some decent citations. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, regardless, Heartland was funded by PM and ExxonMobil. I've posted some of the sources that I have found. The rest I'll get up later. Whether the funding creates bias research I'm not convinced about. Would I consider it, yes, but I'm not convinced. I've been working with non-profit organizations for 11 years now, and from the majority of what I've seen the research is made, and the funding comes from those who like what it says. If the Heartland Institute had produced results confirming global warming funding would have come from a different place. Regardless, give me a couple of days to be able to update the article, if no one else gets to it before me. Infonation101 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I said it wrong. It doesn't create bias, but it sows the seed of doubt. 203.208.72.195 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, regardless, Heartland was funded by PM and ExxonMobil. I've posted some of the sources that I have found. The rest I'll get up later. Whether the funding creates bias research I'm not convinced about. Would I consider it, yes, but I'm not convinced. I've been working with non-profit organizations for 11 years now, and from the majority of what I've seen the research is made, and the funding comes from those who like what it says. If the Heartland Institute had produced results confirming global warming funding would have come from a different place. Regardless, give me a couple of days to be able to update the article, if no one else gets to it before me. Infonation101 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- JQ, I'm looking for the PM financial reports from recent years. Any money given to a 501(c)(3) is required to be available to the public, by law. Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet. Infonation101 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have found some information correlating PM and Heartland. They have ties that go back a long ways. Here is an executive report back from '95 (p.9). This shows that in '97 PM gave $50,000 to Heartland (p.1). Though I don't agree with how the article is written, sourcewatch has other good information linked to Heartland. I haven't been able to find PM giving anything to Heartland since 2000. Anyone have any ideas? Infonation101 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hey everyone, I feel that I'm controlling the article, and sorry about that. I've found some more about ExxonMobil and Heartland. In 2005 ExxonMobil gave $119,000 to Heartland (p.12, I don't like the article, but they source the info). Heartland was given a substantial amount in 2003 (p.42). The following source I'm not sure of, but it says that from 1998-2005 the amount of total donations given is $560,000 (p.4). Infonation101 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing good sources
Did I miss something, or did an editor just remove 2 citations to reliable sources and replace them with a {{fact}} tag? The New York Times is a reliable source; please don't remove cites to the Times and replace them with a claim of "citation needed". MastCell Talk 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that would have been me. I accidentally removed the wrong thing. Thanks for catching that. Infonation101 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - sorry if I jumped on you about it. MastCell Talk 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's cool. Editing an article that is so controversial I should have been more careful to double check what I was removing. Infonation101 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - sorry if I jumped on you about it. MastCell Talk 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
