Talk:The Heritage Foundation

message: A recent edit of mine was reverted (not Line 82 and 80, those edits were not mine). The reasoning for the revert was "rv PROMO, SOAP." I do not believe the words of the current President of Heritage about what he says the mission of Heritage is PROMO or SOAP (especially when they come from an interview he did with The New York Times Magazine). If this was referring to the edit in the middle of the page that was unrelated to my addition, then this is understandable. Also, if the issue with the edit was including some content in the lead, then I would ask that the information in the body of the page be kept as is. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interview. Without independent coverage, it's just him promoting his organization, using the interview as a soapbox. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Revert 

message: This section starts out with these sentences: "In the first year of Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency, the Heritage Foundation did not embrace his candidacy. "Donald Trump's a clown," then Heritage Action leader Michael Needham said on a Fox News panel in July 2015. Once Trump won, however, the Heritage Foundation's position shifted." If they didn't shift their position until he won, then the prior sentence saying that they did not embrace his candidacy during its first year isn't quite right. To be consistent, it would have to say they (at least according to the next sentence) that they never supported his candidacy. Michael Needham is or was from Heritage Action, which is a legally distinct organization from Heritage so whatever he might have said has no bearing on Heritage's position on Trump during his candidacy or thereafter. And Heritage is a 501c3 non-profit which wouldn't have been legally allowed to take a position on his candidacy one way or the other -- they wouldn't have been able to embrace his candidacy. Novellasyes (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there have been other cases where Heritage Action and the foundation have been confused. I'm not sure we should treat them as independent, but we need to address all cases where we confuse the two. --Hipal (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   I removed from the Trump section that comment about Michael Needham per the above, and you added it back in, with a reference. I don't think anyone doubts that Michael Needham says that. My issue is that he doesn't or didn't at that time anyway, work for the Heritage Foundation. Please discuss. Here's the diff where you added it back in after I had taken it out. Novellasyes (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He was, according to the reference, not just employed there, but was director of its advocacy arm. BekkerNumbering (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   By "advocacy arm", do you mean the organization known as "Heritage Action"? I'm fine with a discussion here about whether statements/claims/positions taken by Heritage Action should be chalked up to the Heritage Foundation. But I think it bears some consideration because while Heritage and Heritage Action have a relationship with each other, they are not identical to each other. One of them is a 501c3 (Heritage Foundation) while Heritage Action is a legally separate 501c4. They have different boards and different staff. Nevertheless, they have some relationship. The Heritage Foundation launched Heritage Action, and on its website Heritage Action describes itself as a "sister organization" to the Heritage Foundation. Because there is some degree of distinction, I am not of the mind that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other organization. You are writing as if you think it is obvious that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other. It's not obvious to me, so I hope you'll provide more of your thinking on that. I'd also note that this magisterial 2018 article in the New York Times about the Heritage Foundation and the Trump campaign and administration does not suggest anything like the degree of enmity between the two that the Heritage Action employee's "clown" remark suggests. Novellasyes (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump administration 

message: Granted, it is difficult to concisely summarize information, especially when it comes from multiple sources, but many sections in this article only cite a couple of references. The result is that highly noteworthy events are being drowned out by minutiae, a POV problem. For example, the "2016 Trump candidacy" section. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of detail straying from that of an encyclopedia article?