Talk:Hoover Institution

message: It's generally our policy to use the most common name, not necessarily the full formal one, when titling articles. Also, this article is older than Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. RadicalSubversiv E 23:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged. GoCardinal 00:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: We've received a complaint that most of this article is copied from the Institute's PR department; a quick search shows that most of it is copied from here (PDF file). As such, I've reverted the article to the June 21 version, which is the latest version without copied text. Apologies for this reversion, but we can't have copied content on here (with a few exceptions, such as public domain or released text, of course). Unless this text fits under those exceptions (see Wikipedia:Copyright for more information), it shouldn't be re-added. Thanks a lot for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: The 2nd article I read said "more than 1,000" in its lead paragraph. But later on it said:
*200 to 400, followed by
*“A group of us sat down together last night at Columbae and we just started dealing with the details,” he said. “We organized a time, and Columbae funds helped pay for some of our supplies. There are approximately 1,000 people around and more than half of them are protesting. This is a great success.”
More than half of "approximately 1,000 people" would still seem to be less than (not "more than") 1,000. --Wing Nut 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw video of the event and at part of the road, a number of protesters were lying in the street.  The fire department eventually ran a fire truck along the road, and when the protesters still didn't move, they started to arrest them for blocking an emergency vehicle.  I'm not sure on what the final legal resolution to all this was.   Mgunn 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a number of senior fellows with fairly different viewpoints.  Milton Friedman, a nobel prize winning economist and recently deceased, was probably the foremost libertarian thinker of the 20th century.Mgunn 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest

message: The article states that the Hoover Institution is at Stanford University - what exactly does that mean? What is its affiliation with Stanford, what role does Stanford have in running the Institution? - 121.208.90.191 (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: At Stanford

message: The article reads, "The Hoover Institution receives much of its funding from private charitable foundations, including many attached to large corporations. Its recent donors include
    * Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
    * ARCO Foundation
    * Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
    * Chrysler Corporation Fund
    * Dean Witter Foundation [14]
    * Exxon Educational Foundation [15]
    * Ford Motor Company Fund
    * General Motors Foundation
    * J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
    * Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
    * Procter & Gamble Fund
    * Rockwell International Corporation Trust
    * Transamerica Foundation [14]
The use of the phrase "including" in the bold text implies that the source of funding is not entirely from corporate sources, but the list presented provides no example of a non-corporate source of funding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.186.92 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the only sources given (Greenpeace and MediaMatters) have obvious axes to grind and only highlight donations from eevuull oil moneyes.  I'll update the MM source (Note - multiple years given) and remove the Greenpeace one (useless), but a link to actual IRS forms would be preferable. -- User:Chelydramat This cursed Ograbme! 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the cited source suggests that any of the corporate donors are recent donors. The Wikipedia page makes it sound like corporate donors give a large portion of funding, when the annual reports suggest its non-endowment payout is almost completely from individual donors or corporate matching for charitable giving. I think the list of corporate donors has to go?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadWriteWriteRead (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: I just reverted a couple of assertions which claimed that Hoover is on the Stanford campus but is not affiliated with Stanford. I believe that assertion is not correct and there IS still an affiliation. For example, see the Hoover Institution website: At the top it says "Hoover Institution Stanford University". Every single page of the Hoover Institution website says at the bottom "Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University ". The Mission Statement it quotes  is "Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution".  Even the Hoover Institution Press catalog says "HOOVER INSTITUTION PRESS, Copyright © 2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University". You may not like it, and the two parties may not make a big point of it, but the evidence clearly indicates that everything Hoover does is ultimately under the jurisdiction of Stanford University. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is and it isn't.  To be exact it is under the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University and the director reports to the President of the University but it is independent of much of the academic governance of the university (it is not under the provost or the academic senate).  Some info at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/legal/legalfacts_su.html  --Erp (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's just the link I needed! --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoover part of Stanford? 

message: There is currently a section on the Wiki page that states:
In 1958, Former President Hoover decided that instead of donating his papers to the institute's library, he would have a Presidential Library much like those built for Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S Truman. When the edifice was opened in 1962, thousands of papers were transferred from Pasedena to Iowa.
I believe it should be removed, since there is no citation and it doesn't provide any real information. There is no link between the Hoover Institution and the Hoover Presidential Library.
It is also has two critical errors: It refers to the "institute" (It is the Hoover Institution, not institute) and Hoover is not located in Pasadena.
Will someone delete the section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1atHoover (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No relationship with the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum 

message: I see that you restored "Hoover Institute" to the first sentence after I removed it. This time you said "informally referred to as." I still disagree. IMO, no it isn't. I would like to see some Reliable Sources calling it this, or any evidence that this is an actual use instead of an occasional error by someone who doesn't know any better. I found that if I used Google to look for information about "Hoover Institute", unfortunately the first thing my search turned up was this Wikipedia article, and that was only because of your challenged addition to the lead! Otherwise, if I searched for information about Hoover Institute, the reply would invariably call it (correctly) Hoover Institution. 
Here's an example: Knoll, where the title calls it "Institute" and also ignorantly misspells "Stanford", but the text correctly says Institution. Here's another case where the title says Institute, but the text says Institution. Here's another example; it's from 1949! I request you to remove "Hoover Institute" while we discuss it here on the talk page. I'd really like to see your sources or justification for calling it this. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I added it was because I myself (and from personal experience I have seen some others on the Stanford campus) mistakenly called it the Hoover Institute. I think this is more of a common mistake than anything, and this is reinforced by the fact that I think if you type "Hoover Institute" in Wikipedia you get redirected to the Wikipage. Once again, I just thought it worth mentioning. If you decide to delete the section I'd be totally fine with that. GuardianH (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will delete it. It is a mistake, and I don't think we should perpetuate it on Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoover Institute????? 

message: Some other recent edits also look controversial, especially substituting "nonpartisan" for the longstanding "conservative" at the top, adding the primary-sourced National Humanities Medal to the top paragraph, and some deleting of RS information. Some of the additions look like improvements but may require better sourcing per WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored some previous content and emphases while keeping most of the new. We should stick to WP:INDY RS for most descriptions per WP:BESTSOURCES, and discuss on the talk page if overriding a previous talk page consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. Llll5032 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, few American think tanks are officially affiliated with a party, so a "nonpartisan" description isn't germane for the first sentence (MOS:FIRST) unless it is described that way by third-party RS in their own words. Llll5032 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, , have you read WP:MISSION? I think Hoover's mission statement can be included in the history section but should not be repeated at the top. Llll5032 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth noting in the main description. The Brookings Institution wikipage has its mission statement, and it offers insight into what the goals of the institution is and how it is distinguished from other think tanks. WP:MISSION is an opinion essay rather than a wikipedia guideline. For the purposes of this article, I think think tank mission statements are generally worth putting.  GuardianH (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ambivalent about the usage in the Brookings article. Perhaps we can compromise in this article to use the mission statement two sentences later, without duplication, adjacent to descriptions of Hoover's other actions. Llll5032 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I edited note (a) to match the cited sources in the article better. A reference is needed to a clearer official statement by Hoover that it is nonpartisan; Rice's statement in 2021 can be used to say what she says but not more. Llll5032 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: There are quite a few libertarians at the Hoover Institution, the most famous of them is professor Richard Epstein who runs an entire podcast called The Libertarian that is a part of the Hoover Institution web. See here. GuardianH (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need a third-party RS, or at least Hoover saying clearly in its own words that it is a center of libertarian thought, so it is not WP:OR ("Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."). Llll5032 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The original statement in the footnote was that it primarily consisted of conservative and libertarian intellectuals. A third party source isn't required as it is simply a statement on what the primary affiliations of the majority of its members are. Furthermore, even if we did need a third party source, a source of Hoover saying it in his own words that it was libertarian is inappropriate, as we have decided to label it "conservative" when it was never described as conservative by Hoover (who was, by contrast, a progressive).   GuardianH (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WP:OR (see footnote b at that link) makes exceptions for this sort of analysis. Llll5032 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: @Llll5032 I've updated the footnote. It was too lengthy to be read comfortably and I have shortened it to only the main points. I added an additional quote from Thomas Gilligan, the previous Hoover director, rejecting the assertion that HI is conservative. GuardianH (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE we have to be careful to represent sources accurately. Is there a policy about footnote length? Llll5032 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Llll5032 I'm not sure why details about where Rice said it matters, what only matters is the main point of her rejection that HI is to be seen as a primarily conservative institute. Adding too many unnecessary details in a footnote makes it difficult to read and, by doing so, you make it less likely someone will read it, thus only giving them the impression it is conservative. Ironically, this makes it more likely to abridge WP:NPOV and WP:DUE for these reasons. Not to mention the writing of the footnote can be significantly shortened. GuardianH (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But Rice didn't wholly reject that label in the source you cited, and neither did Stanford. According to Stanford's summary of Rice : "The existence of the values, she said, does not dominate or dictate the approach Hoover fellows take in their research and teaching, as some have suggested. “That’s not the Hoover Institution that I know,” she said. “Even if one wants to say that there are conservative values here – personal freedom, representative government, private enterprise – they are not far out there. And I would hope that it would be seen as part of a broad, diverse ideological field for the university as a whole.” Wikipedia cannot make an argument more than its sources do -- we can only summarize what they say, in proportion to WP:DUE weight. Llll5032 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, , "Don't call the Hoover Institution conservative, right-wing, or even Republican" was not a quotation from Gilligan but either a paraphrase or a flourish used by the writer of the article about him. I edited the footnote so the statement within quotation marks is now a quotation. Llll5032 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it could be changed to quotations from the article rather than through paraphrasing. It doesn't seem to be such a large matter, as were now dealing with textual minutiae. GuardianH (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: I restored most of some prior RS emphases to the top about the institution's politics. Per MOS:LEADREL and WP:BESTSOURCES, the top section should closely follow the emphases of the best independent published reliable sources as determined on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Claims by the subject should be short and attributed. Llll5032 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top edits