Talk:Pew Research Center
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WTF
editThere are so many problems with this article. For one, it pretty much reads like the Pew Research Center's about page. Looking at the history, I see that's exactly what it used to be before it was alternately vandalized and repaired. It contains almost no information content. Does anybody know anything about the history or activities of this organization? And I mean something that doesn't come from their PR department. --WurdBendur (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge into The Pew Charitable Trusts?
editIf anyone's out there, let's vote. --RobbyPrather 00:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I actually don't think they should be joined. The Pew Research Center is a strictly nonadvocacy organization, while the Pew Charitable Trusts supports advocacy and nonadvocacy projects. The two organizations have separate missions and should thus continue as two separate pages. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.175.146 (talk • contribs)
- I think I agree with you, I just thought I would see what others think. Thanks for your input. Do you have any content you'd like to add to either of the articles? They could use some work. --RobbyPrather 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Link doesn't work
editThere is no source for the quotation "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs." ......so I removed this line
"To get some idea of its theoretical basis here is a quote from its founder: Joseph Pew, "Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."
217.83.163.172 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Democratic or conservtive?
editQuote from this page
The Pew Research Center is a strictly Democrat Party supporting organization
However, on The_Pew_Charitable_Trusts it says that the founder of the subjects funder are conservative. Are both statements really correct? If so, I think a clarification/explanation of this slightly odd combination is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.95.22 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect Logo
editWe should upload the Pew Research Center's logo. The page current has the logo of one of the Center's projects in the spot where the Pew logo should go.
I believe the correct logo is the one found on its Twitter account. http://twitter.com/#!/pewresearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editbailey (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Add?
editCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions 99.181.135.129 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is not part of the Pew Research Center. The center consists of the projects listed on http://pewresearch.org/about/projects/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.141.37 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
So what's a "fact tank"? This undefined phrase shouldn't be in 1st sentence
editClearly supposed to be some kind of factual think tank. But it's written in quote marks and not adequately defined; nor does Wikipedia have any article explaining what a "fact tank" might be. Propaganda? Can it be made more neutral and more clear to casual readers? Equinox ◑ 10:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Good question. This has been resolved now I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgauntlett (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the _”non-partisanship”_
editPew Research might label themselves as non-partisan and isn't officially affiliated with any political party, but there agenda is defiantly left-leaning and somewhat liberal in their approach. There's no such thing as being politically neutral. The board have ties to the democratic establishment. It should be mentioned in the article as it's highly important as with any other organisation. Laroucan (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Proof of your claim? They are by definition and practice clearly non-partisan. While you may FEEL they lean one way or the other, that is not factual proof thereof. But if you have verifiable evidence of a clear, repeated bent toward one direction, please share. Thank you. Feddx (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
World cultures
editWhat could be the significabce of study on the topic the impacts of technology on culture DAISY ANNAbella (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
transubstantiation-what do Catholics believe
editRegarding this study....I don't like to see statistics gleaned from a cohort of 13000 people applied to the Catholic population as a whole. Given any survey I might lean towards its probability factor being true, however the subject of this surveys' central belief for Catholics being of such value and importance, applying such a factor is making me cringe. It does not seem fair to extrapolate for the entire body from such a minute number of participants. 71.126.48.166 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Information and detail of subject
editThe Pew Research Center are an important organisation in polling and research amongst think tanks and yet the page is less than a full 1080p computer screen long. It would be useful to have sections added to the page concerning other important research they may have conducted as well as reactions to their research and the organisation as a whole. Giorgio elgar (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)