Talk:Discover the Networks

message: I really question whether one can fairly call Discover the Networks a "research project." As this wiki entry notes further down, the site calls itself a "guide to the political left."  As its What Is This Site About page admits, the information on Discover the Networks comes largely from internet datamining.  The goal of DtN, by its own admission, is not to conduct research (even if one considers datamining to be research, an organization dedicated principally to research would not simply rely on such information). Instead, the principal purpose of Discover the Networks is to spread "readily available" (again, their words) information (more specifically, it's to smear those profiled using tried-and-true McCarthyite tactics...though to say so might depart from NPOV).  At any rate, Discover the Networks is, by its own admission, not a research project.  We need a new description of this site, and I fear that I'm the wrong person to come up with one that is sufficiently neutral.
BenA 17:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the articles that I've found there all have been reprints of other articles, chiefly from Frontpagemag.com. -Will Beback 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Discover the Networks a "research project"? 

message: This organization is a ring-wing funded watchdog organization of left-wing groups and supporters.  It is very partisan and has been controversal, a fact that is not disclosed appropriately in the current version of the article.  --MaBellRecreated 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Issues

message: DTN article was deleted as non-notable (I think - deleting administrator didn't say) 21 January 2007 after AfD. Deleted article and its discussion was restored to history of article and history of discussion of article (history of THIS page). Some content was transferred to [David Horowitz Freedom Center] and this page is now a redirect to that page. Do NOT restore this article directly from its current redirected state without Deletion Review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyvphil (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Un-redirected six years later, as the site has become an important clearinghouse over the interim. (Besides, if each of George Soros' scores of inter-connected groups are entitled to their own articles regardless of notability, then Horowitz' measly half-dozen can qualify under the same metric.)--Froglich (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not clear there's enough for an article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: The beginning of the overview section is a WP:MISSION statement using its own website (WP:ABOUTSELF) to describe its own controversial view.  Another source is a review of a book posted in the opinion section of Washington Times, that's not much better.  If available, an independent source should be used instead.  —PaleoNeonate – 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that it was there since the very first revision with citations added later.  I removed it and kept what seemed supported by The New Criterion source, —PaleoNeonate – 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources and ABOUTSELF