Talk:Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 March 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled[edit]

For merge discussions, please see Talk:A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning. johnwalton ^(talk) 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, npov[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Malcom X[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)).[reply]

Neutrality tag[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The tag was removed a year ago, on July 25.[1] Can I borrow your time machine? I've got a few changes I need to make... Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, must have glanced at it in one of the revisions. - Schrandit (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The solution is to add reliable sources to those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits[edit]

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)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Honan, William H. (September 6, 1998). "A Right-Wing Slant on Choosing the Right College". The New York Times.
Colapinto, John (May 25, 2003). "ARMIES OF THE RIGHT; The Young Hipublicans". The New York Times.
Laster, Jill (February 5, 2010). "College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics". The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Reagan quote[edit]

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)[reply]

I am not sure. Interesting question. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source. Actually has quite a bit on ISI that is independent of ISI. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]