Talk:Discovery Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discovery Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 October 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Discovery Institute. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
| The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Extensive edit waring
For the last few years there have been relatively large amounts of edit wars, with both pro science (2a00:1f:ec81:6101:2121:b99f:60f7:56dd) and pro DI (billb4420) people making obviously biased edits, either to remove refferences to their claims being pseudoscientific, or to label their tactics as propaganda While i fully agree its propaganda i feel like an edit protection should be added to avoid further edit warring extended by IP users. Mormissen (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Is it propaganda?
If DI is a propaganda mill (or ID is propaganda - same thing to my mind), then we ought to be able to point out which critics say so, and to describe their reasoning. For now, I changed the lede to say only:
- It has been denounced as a "propaganda mill" by various prominent critics.
This is mealy-mouthed, but I think it's better than letting people say, "According to Wikipedia . . ."
We should identify the ID critics who call it propaganda. Does the article do that? If so, please revert my recent change; if not, please help me to name these critics. Then I promise to work with you to summarize their arguments.
[Note: I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they don't seem to have any mention in the article.] --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I found a source: Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, an associate writer covering breaking news at The New Republic. Her work has also appeared in The Daily Beast.