Talk:Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Untitled
For merge discussions, please see Talk:A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning. j o hnwalton (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias, npov
This article was clearly written by a member or employee of ISI. While I put a little work into it, this article needs revision and expansion to conform with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.234.231 (talk • contribs)
 * While I'm a fan of ISI and I don't see any bias expressed, it is possible that there is and if so, it should be removed. Can you please point out specific instances of bias that you see? Lawyer2b 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:71.224.234.231's edit was spot on the money. I didn't catch that.  Good call! Lawyer2b 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in light of the above comments, I have flagged the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Malcom X
If the Malcom X autobiography is among the "worst books", then why is it on the "best books" list? I would fix it if I knew for sure where it belonged.--Seventy-one 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's in both places in the surce. I'm not sure why we're including that whole list. I'd say it's enough to mention the top few and provde a link to the source. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 03:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The editors of this list acknowledge that there is some overlap in their list. As such, the mention of the dual placement of the Malcolm X autobiography is superfluous and misleading. This being the case, I will remove this snippet of text (Abroberts (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)).

Neutrality tag
Anyone mind if I take it down now? - Schrandit (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems sufficiently neutral to me. Go ahead and take it down. Nocksmemoirs (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If neutral means the absence of any and all criticism, and a lack of any detailed discussion of the relationship between political parties, the funding of this group, and the attack on academic freedom, then yes, it is "neutral".  Of course, you will have to redefine the very concept of neutral to do so. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is quite explicit about the ideological orientation of ISI. The allegations above don't make sense to me. If any one can identify shortcomings, please specify or, even better, improve the article. --Jonund (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're a 501(c)(3) so I don't know what that bit regarding political parties was about. Unless there is objection I'm going to take that tag down. - Schrandit (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag was removed a year ago, on July 25. Can I borrow your time machine?  I've got a few changes I need to make... Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, must have glanced at it in one of the revisions. - Schrandit (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The tone is off - especially in the first section, where a clear statement of the organization's mission should include its politics. I would suggest looking for comments from individuals and institutions separate from and unrelated to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Right now, the first section reads like literature from the Institute itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.226.185 (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first section links to several pages that are tagged as un-sourced (e.g. "traditional values"). This heightens the sense that the article is ideologically slanted. Terms like "limited government", "traditional values," etc. are catch phrases of the conservative movement. Need a different way of introducing the organization's purposes and orientation and/or to develop those other pages more fully. Toby Higbie (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is to add reliable sources to those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Major edits
This page is out of date, I'm going to undertake a section-by-section revamp over the next few weeks/months, so be patient if you don't mind! Soonersfan168 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reagan quote
Is the Reagan block quote reliably sourced? It comes from the Lee Edwards book, which was published by the ISI itself. If this is considered an WP:ABOUTSELF source, then in my view it's too self-serving to be reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Interesting question. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Found another source. Actually has quite a bit on ISI that is independent of ISI.  Capitalismojo (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011081519/http://www.mediatransparency.org:80/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=177 to http://mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=177

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)