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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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.
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)[reply]
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.
I also think this is really bad text. It is vague and full of value judgements. Like you say, it needs to name the critic, especially since it uses quotes, which implies it is a quote. And 'prominent' is a word that is so vague as to be impossible to verify. Better to state something about how made the quote. And WP policy says anything in the lede should be mentioned in the main article text. Furthermore, is there a single conservative think tank that hasn't been called "a propoganda mill" by someone? I really don't see what this sentence adds to the lede. We already say that it is supporting pseudoscience. Ashmoo (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
