Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 20

Paring down 'Differences from Wikipedia'

Quite a lot of the section Conservapedia#Differences from Wikipedia seems to be based on a reading and knowledge of Wikipedia and Conservapedia rather than from secondary sources, in other words it is WP:Original research. Since a major reason for the founding of Conservapedia was to counter Wikipedia's perceived liberal etc etc bias and it spends so much time trying to bash Wikipedia the section obviously should exist. I think the references to the Wikipedia and Conservapedia policies can be kept as they are fairly fundamental but nothing should be mentioned that isn't in secondary sources. For instance have we a citation mentioning that Conservpedia doesn't allow registrations except when it is daytime in America? That is in the second sentence and I think that for starters can go. How many statements there have any support in secondary sources?

The points of the second sentence are also repeated further down in the "Vandalism" section - again with no RS. I don't readily recall any RS mentioning the night-time lockdown, though there might be one that mentions the requirement to register.

I'd agree that references to official site policy can stay in (and it's quite possible that the things we poke are also mentioned in RS), but (relatively) minor issues that aren't anchored in the fundamental policies (such as nightly lockdowns) should be carefully reconsidered - especially since we could otherwise fill an entire article with things like "Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission." or talk about Writing Plans. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the Conservapedia page Examples of Bias in Wikipedia is used in three citations. Have we got any third part referring to that page in Conservapedia? I don't think we can actually use the page as a citation for anything else, only just refer to it if it is cited by a secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Found the cite in the article. Okay I think what I should do is move the link to that section of conservapedia to where it is referred to and remove the bits dependiung on it. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sid, I think you have a point with about the first five sentences of that section, but I can't really see a problem with the part beginning, 'In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated...' onwards. I also think you're possibly being a bit too strict on your requirements for sources. If you examine the section on the policy page referring using primary sources, you can actually see that a third-party source is not actually required if all the article is doing is noting the content of whatever is being cited (the example given there is using passages from a novel as sources for the plot of that novel). It is only if the article is making, 'analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims' about that material that a secondary source is needed. As such, citing a senior Conservapedia sysop saying, on Conservapedia, that editing is turned off during those hours is fine, as long as the objective facts are stuck to. However, as you pointed out, care has to be taken that noting these things actually serves a purpose in the article, otherwise it could quickly fill up with largely irrelevant guff. 92.9.143.134 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left some stuff only given by the Conservapedia Commandments as I view them as part of the top level self description of the site. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: May 2010

I am disputing the subsection of Editorial viewpoints and policies titled Conflicts with science because it seems to be unfairly anti-creationist; it seems to imply that the fact that Conservapedia supports the Christian faith and creationism makes it anti-science, or that the Bible conflicts with science as a whole. Indeed, there are statements made and views supported on Conservapedia (and even Wikipedia for that matter) that members of the scientific community may disagree with, and it is probably acceptable to note any notable articles there conflicting with science (i.e. if anyone finds something there that says Earth is flat that's not vandalism...), but implying that Christians or creationists in general completely conflict with science is far from neutral, and I feel as if Jimbo Wales, among other neutral parties, would agree. May I add that no part of the definitions of science at Wiktionary or Merriam Webster indicate that faith must conflict with science. Just my two cents, take it or leave it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it thanks. Nothing here merits changing the article. --John (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So your issue is just with the title of the section? The rest of the section goes on to do what you state is acceptable, noting notable articles. As for "implying" anything about Christians or Creationist, that is outside the scope of the section, and just something you are reading into it. Beach drifter (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also why must you mention Jimbo Wales every chance you get, it never helps your arguments. Beach drifter (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue deals fundamentally with one person's overall impression instead of a concrete example of bias. Using the word "seems" multiple times weakens the argument. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That might explain why I have no idea which part exactly he contests and why. I just see a general-principle sweep here. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My arguement is that throwing statements like Many Conservapedia articles support the young earth creationist point of view into a section about conflicts with science is not neutral, and it's especially bad for that to be the first section of the sentence. Any creationist reading that first sentence will see that as anti-creationist, and will not read anything else in the section. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Young earth creation is at odds with science, there is no debate there. Beach drifter (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Have you read the definition of science? What part of young earth creationism conflicts with science? Frankly, I don't understand why an NPOV template can never last on this article less than 10 minutes, and any time someone questions anything here, they are hushed by a mob and drama boils over, like what I say is true and what you say is bull shit. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where science accepts the notion that God exists and actively intervened in things. I'm sorry, but "God did it" is not science, and YEC boils down to just that, no matter how much baraminology you pile onto it. Some people would like to redefine science to include it, but right now it's not. And while you're around, why don't you make a constructive suggestion what should be changed in your eyes? --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That just means it is not a product of scientific method, not that it conflicts with science. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This shows that it hasn't been taken seriously for two hundred years. Note that wikipedia lists six types of creationism, this being the most radical. Beach drifter (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just plain vague and factually inaccurate; there are still people that take the theory that earth is flat seriously. I assume you mean the scientific community doesn't take it seriously, and I'd like to see a citation other than a Wikipedia article. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into an endless debate, the fact remains that YEC just isn't considered authentic science among the community (and by community I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean the scientific community). Therefore, it is at odds. Besides, your observations hinge on implicit meanings, and nothing that is stated verbatim. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, that just means that it isn't a product of scientific method. You are yet to explain to me how it conflicts with science. Does it somehow destroy experiments, interfere with observations (other than simply disagreeing with them), or otherwise cause havoc for science? Politics and economics are as much anti-science as creationism. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it means flat out that no one in the science community believes even one iota of what is proposed by the young earth theory. Beach drifter (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dumping my thoughts here: Religion as a whole conflicts with science. Science is composed of gaining knowledge based on observation and experimentation, while religion is based on faith and revelation. Religion cannot be tested or proven using the scientific method as everything else can. Knowledge based on scientific study simply defies young earth creationism. Scientific knowledge says that the Earth is billions of years old, while YEC says it's only a few thousand. YEC says that there is Heaven and Hell, while scientific knowledge basically establishes that that's not possible. List goes on and on.

But anyway, I'm leaning towards keeping the subheader the way it is. I see PCHS's point, and if the section focused just on the viewpoint that Conservapedia uses, I would agree that the header should be changed to something such as "Viewpoints". However, considering how the section focuses on how scrutiny has arisen based on conflicts between Conservapedia and science, I feel that it fits fine, as the section is mostly about the conflicts between the two, afterall. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you see my point. I somewhat half-way see your point as well, except I fail to see how science can officially say heaven and hell do not exist, especially considering the size of our universe. I am not personally anti-science, I just disagree that religion is completely incompatible with science. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There's surely room for it; but it's the idea of us dying, going through judgment, then ending up in a new place of happiness (or not, if one has been naughty) is, as science currently explains things, impossible. Of course, you're right about religion not being completely un-scientific; but it still is in many areas. But I like the edit that Hypocrite made, it's a nice "in between" statement that I support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone proposes a concrete change to the article in this section immediately, I will close it as unrelated to this article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just get rid of the first sentence, or move it so that it is no longer the first sentence of the section. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is well sourced and a great lead to the section. Beach drifter (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied now for the most part, nice work Hipocrite. I would have changed it a little myself, but I know how controversial this article gets. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Creationism is all untrue. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and none to support creationism. Antibiotic resistant bactiria (or does god just hate us?), the fossil record (the "missing links" are small and irrelevant. You might look just like your grandma, but nothing like youre mother. Does that mean that it is actually impossible for anyone to reproduce and you just fell out of the sky one day?), Darwin's experiments (or did he just lie?), Lenski's experiment (or did he just lie?), the declining tusk weight of elephants due to poaching (or did every African that has ever seen an elephant lie?), Austrlopithecus, the "missing link" you always asked for (or is it all just plaster?), selective breeding programs (or does god like farmers, but not us?) I can go on like this for hours. ps. PWND!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.215.90 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing Wikipedia with Pravda, RationalWiki, Conservapedia or some other such organ. The touchstone here is WP:Verifiability not WP:TRUTH. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a long-standing controversy over whether any part of Creationism is consistent with physical science. I believe this hinges on whether the supernatural ought, may, or ought not be a proper topic of examination by scientists.

The controversy is at its sharpest when considering the views of young earth creationists (e.g., Creation Science).

• By the way, for those who don't know or just tend to forget it easily, only about half of US creationists are young-earthers; slightly more than half are old earthers. The proportions are: 15% believe humans evolved naturally (i.e., specifically without God), 45% that we came into being over a long period of time (but with God's help) and 40% that God just created us (poof!) around 10,000 years ago.

But none of this is relevant to improving this article.

If there are complaints from verifiable sources about Conservapedia, then YES the article should mention these complaints, as well as any published rebuttals.

But let's not try to debate amongst ourselves. I'm really not interested in what the true believers at CP have to say, or what the critics at RW think. Let's stick to reliable sources only, please. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mh? I'm kinda curious about "as well as any published rebuttals". If we're talking about the same thing here, then those rebuttals are published by CP editors, at CP. You know, like TerryH's answer to WND's article about the Conservative Bible Project. Maybe you could clarify if you meant this or something else? --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is admissable as a reliable source for an official rebuttal by the organization concerned of the statements made by other sources. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my previous rant. I was angry at conservapedia because they insulted my (lack of) religion by basically saying that all atheists were murderous sociopaths. To add to the insult, noone can edit it or use talk pages anymore exept the administrators and noone can become one(which means it is no longer a wiki) and I could not correct their lies or simply delete te webpage. When I saw at this section that someone seemed to be supporting creationism and conservapedia I got angry. But still, you have to admit that I totally pwned any creationists reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.215.90 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF

Discussed ad nauseum and has been shown to be unproductive and circular Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I finally must weigh in. Even as one familiar with this topic, this entire discussion makes little sense. Many of the comments come off as word salad, and the inside-baseball nature of it is obscure even to me. There seems little point to any of this. I'd not so respectfully request that folks would actually clearly state in one sentence what they hope to achieve here, and if that's not possible, leave it alone. Seriously. PalMD (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Well, I've been watching this from the sidelines, and I can say what I want to achieve here with one word: clarity. I am assuming, from the fact your user name is the same as the user name used by Peter Lipson on Conservapedia and Rationalwiki, that you are him? If so, it might be advantageous for you to clarify the exact relationship you have with Rationalwiki, even though this would constitute original research, and so cannot really go into the article. From what I understand from the discussion that has already occurred, along with some of my own original research, I gather you used to edit Conservapedia, and became disgusted with the hostility that there was (and still is) to facts that the admins basically don't agree with, specifically their insistence that any information about contraception was 'sex talk' and/or hostility and censorship of facts disputing or outright disproving their claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and left. You were, at some point, invited into 'Rationalwiki 1.0', which was an already existing private discussion group for dissatisfied Conservapedia editors to blow off steam, more or less. Conservapedia admins gained knowledge of the existence of this discussion group, managed to gain access to it, then, in an event decribed on Rationalwiki as 'The Night of the Blunt Knives', systematically banned everyone who was a member of this discussion group. The decision was then made to erase and reform this discussion group as a public wiki, which was officially named 'Rationalwiki', which became 'Rationalwiki 2.0' in its official history, and it was yourself, along with about 30 or so other people, that were the first editors, and therefore essentially founded this wiki. Is that about right? If I have grasped things correctly, then I will merely join my voice to the chorus that says the LA Times broadly got it correct, and the 'errors' that Nobs is seeing are of a completely inconsequential nature. If I have not grasped things correctly, then feel free to correct what is incorrect, though if anyone thinks about changing the article based on any response from PalMD, I do have to reiterate that this is blatent WP:OR, and really meeds a verifiable secondary source before it can go into the article. 92.9.41.77 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC) That is certainly my recollection, FWIW. The other little details seem pretty idiotic. It's not like this is some sort of ground-breaking, cultural event.PalMD (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Then I suggest that any and all further discussion regarding the evolution of Rationalwiki and the L.A Times article just be avoided altogether. Nobs has said his peace, but there is no consensus to act. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Question from Nobs01: PalMD, were you engaged in sockpuppetry and vandalism as evidenced here [1] prior to the time reported by Stephanie Simon of the LA Times, and could that have had anything to do with you being blocked? Thank you. nobs (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter one way or another. We can't use his testimony. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) It is of course unclear why you continue this absurd masturbatory exercise.PalMD (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC) We got three WP:RSs that say you're the founder of Rationalwiki. [2][3][4] What else did they say that's not reliable? nobs (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) They missed the George Soros connection. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Comic relief FTW! Huw Powell (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) A statement by PalMD in his user page on RationalWiki would I believe be a reasonable cite for a personal rebuttal under WP:BLP rules if he believes something said about him was wrong in the article here or something cited here. I really can't see any point to something like that though, I don't think it would stop the endless silly carping. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) It would at least be mildly entertaining if it wasn't always the same stuff that had been explained/clarified/refuted several times already. As an aside, happy seven-week anniversary! --Sid 3050 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Jesus Christ. Can we shut this fucking troll up once and for all. This is ridiculous. Nobs, what is your goddamn point? Are you arguing that Conservapedia doesn't block people for ideological reasons? If so, I think we can safely dismiss everything you say and have ever said. -R. fiend (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Isn't it time for an ANI case? Seven weeks' worth of near-continuous disruption on this talk page is simply taking the piss. --rpeh •T•C•E• 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC) It was there less than a month ago. Haven't been following any of this enough to know whether it's the same thing. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm so terribly bored of this...

In response to the comments above, ANI is really only a forum for asking an individual administrator to act against short-term, obvious disruption like vandalism or edit warring. You already have a couple of admins watching this page for obvious issues, but rather than seeing clear problems our admin tools can assist with, we're just being hit by a barrage of petty bickering from both sides. Put simply, you don't need any more attention from administrators!

Here's my advice:

• Conservapedia people: If you have a problem with something in the article, fix it yourself! It is not constructive if you repeatedly raise vague "concerns" about the article content. If anyone has a problem with your edits, they can revert them and instigate a discussion.
• Rationalwiki people: If you have a problem with another editor, go to dispute resolution! I am sick of reading comments on this page accusing other editors of POV-pushing, trolling and the like. Administrators are not here to make personal judgements about cases like this. After seven weeks of whining, it's time to go to WP:DR! Papa November (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but please... no more appeals to admins, no more vague "concerns", no more whining about other editors. Just edit the damned article, go to dispute resolution or shut up! Papa November (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt in return, PN, but I asked for advice from one of the admins watching this page in a previous comment and received nothing. You suggest DR, but there's no dispute to be resolved. There is one editor making the same point again and again and refusing to accept consensus. Believe me if you're bored, I - and every other editor involved in this bar one - am bored too. This has passed beyond what you describe as "petty bickering": even what you call "Conservapedia people" have said they are satisfied with the current parts of the article in question. If you as one of the admins supposedly watching this topic don't realise this, please can you suggest a venue where the trolling - and there's no other word for it - of one editor can be discussed with fresh admins prepared to take the action required? --rpeh •T•C•E• 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, you haven't actually said what "action" you want an admin to take but I assume that you want me to block Nobs01 from editing Wikipedia. Is that correct? Admins at Wikipedia are not the same as admins at CP; we are only supposed to deal unilaterally with extremely clear-cut disruption to the encyclopaedia, in cases to which no one would reasonably object. I do not think this falls into that category, so I am declining the request. Another admin might disagree at WP:AN, but the proper way to deal with this is to ask the community for input, rather than just shopping for an individual admin's opinion. Make a request for comment about user conduct, clearly explaining the problems you are having. Papa November (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See #Where is the line? above for this sort of thing before and my comments before. I blame texting and twittering for this terrible urge people have to answer things immediately and not just calm down and take their time :) Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic Redirect

The article on RationalWiki has been replaced by a redirect to the Conservapedia page. Is this intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.165.81 (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus seems to be that it isn't yet notable in itself. Its only notable interest is in relation to Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First Section

"The project has generally received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as multiple prominent political and religious leaders from both ends of the political spectrum.[7][8][9] It has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies."

Why doesn't the entry for Wikipedia have the same introduction?

I'm sure if I were to edit the Wikipedia entry with sources citing the exact things you claim about Conservapedia, it would be immediately censored and removed.

There are plenty of examples of Wikipedia receiving negative reaction and how inaccurate it is, yet it isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia entry hardly at all.

Can someone tell me why?

Give it a shot. If you're wondering where I might find any sources simply type "bias in Wikipedia" into Google and there are many, many examples of negative reactions the main stream media, prominent political and religious leaders from both ends of the political spectrum.

Here, I'll take the work out of it for you:

http://www.google.com/search?q=bias+in+wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.68.39 (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The entry on Wikipedia does have similar context in its introduction, and quite predominantly at that. As taken from the introduction of the article itself:

Although the policies of the Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[10] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[12] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[13] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[14][15] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[16]

That doesn't include the various sections in the article that take those issues more in depth, nor does it include the seperate articles that cover it even further (e.g. Reliability of Wikipedia). If you would like to discuss this matter further, please take it to Talk:Wikipedia, as that is the relevant talk page. This page is for discussion on the article on Conservapedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

True but not very relevant. Even if the Wikipedia article was strongly biased it would not be a reason to change another article. The relevant question is whether the leader is a fair summary given the reliable sources on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both SuperHamster (in that the comparison doesn't stand up), and Dmcq (in that the comparison isn't a convincing argument anyway. If you think the article on Wikipedia needs changing, discuss it at Talk:Wikipedia). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's also worth pointing out that not only do we have an article called Reliability of Wikipedia, but we also have an entire article dedicated to Criticism of Wikipedia, an article which is more than 112 kB long, with 172 different references used. As I said, I agree with SuperHamster that the claims of ignoring criticism of Wikipedia aren't founded in fact. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - Conservapedia blocks opinions based on username.

No longer related to article content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it should be added that Conservapedia will block you for 5 years for reasons extending to your username. I registered under a username, and was blocked within seconds for having the username of Arguecat for 5 years. I did not even make an edit, and did not commit anything. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC) This is basically covered in "Other editorial policies" and is already lacking reliable sources (current refs point to CP itself), so I don't think this will/needs to/should be expanded. Also, you should be able to re-register with a new name in name-related cases. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I was just about to add that to my initial post. They also blocked my IP (A Public IP for my school) for 5 years to make accounts. I was not allowed to contact anyone about this without resorting to sockpuppetry.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Your mail isn't blocked from what I see, so you should be able to log on, set up your mail in the Preferences and contact whoever if you really want to be unblocked. My suggestion would be asking Andy or so directly to unblock and rename your account. That should solve the problem of the name. And to contact Andy, you won't even need to set up your mail (though it would help) since his mail address (or at least one of them) is listed on their DMCA contact page. Hope that helps. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, the official "What should I do when I get blocked?" guide can be found in their Editor's Contributor's Guide - it's (only?) linked from their "Welcome" template... which you never received since you got blocked within minutes. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) These comments are irrelevant to improving this article. One poster above in this section proposes original research, another poster suggests employing sockpuppetry on Conservapedia. This talk page has been used in the past to organize vandal attacks against Conservapedia. Can a neutral Admin intervene in this section, please? nobs (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) While I am not an administrator, what exactly do think he or she could do with regards to this thread? No administrator action is warranted - just a simple polite reminder to the editors that this isn't germane to improving the Conservapedia article. Now we move on. Please do not incite drama when it is unnecessary. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC) This thread could be rolled up, as others have in the past five Archives. This has been an ongoing problem for years, and I'm asking neutral Admins to watch this page that it not be used as a platform again to organize vandal attacks against Conservapedia. nobs (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Shut up, nobs, no one is organizing vandal attacks against your precious blog. -R. fiend (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Please do not engage in WP:Personal attacks, especially against someone complaining politely about an improper use of this page. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I would like Nobs to clarify who is suggesting OR and who is suggesting sockpuppetry. Given that I'm one of the two people he's accusing, I'd like to know exactly what he's accusing me of and on what basis. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The OP was suggesting their experience be included without a reliable source. You suggested they just reregister under another name. Neither statement was earthshattering and the same happens on Wikipedia and is perfectly reasonable but someone who has a thing about vandalism might be worried. It has little to do with improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I pointed out the sourcing issue to the OP myself, and my suggestion is based on Conservapedia's own guidelines: "Obscene or offensive usernames will be blocked on sight by any Administrator and the person will need to create a new account with their first name and last initial." I explicitly assumed that the block was indeed related to the user name (the block reason seems to back this as it pokes fun at the name) and simply suggested the proper course of action. That's not encouraging people of sockpuppetry, and I would like that to be acknowledged. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Telling someone to shut up is absolutely not a personal attack. Get real. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) This all has nothing to do with improving the article. Please stop. Dmcq (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Telling someone to stop posting is the equivalent of telling them to shut up. No personal attacks please. -R. fiend (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) WP:PA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. "Shut up, (username), no one is organizing vandal attacks against your precious blog." sounds like disparagement to me. I would like this discussion to end now please. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Oh no! Some site doesn't follow the same procedures as Wikipedia! Say it isn't so! Someone complaining about being blocked from any site with the silly name of "ArgueCat" is like someone complaining they didn't get hired to work at a child day-care facility because their name is Child Molester. One simply cannot complain or invalidate how another website selects trustworthy editors based on Wikipedia's idea of what is fair. It is not wrong to use the check user tools developed specifically for wiki's. As for contact, some administrators do post their contact information on their user pages, so it is also wrong to state a person cannot contact without sock puppets. Wikipedia isn't the logical standard by which anyone should judge wiki policies elsewhere. --TK-CP (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Take it elsewhere. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I assume you are talking about KentuckyFriedGunman Wisdom, as my comment was on point with the Gunman's original thought in this thread. --TK-CP (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) TK, I take your comment as confirmation that this was a name-related block. Could you also confirm that the part of the CP Guidelines I quoted above (-> create new account) applies here? --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) You can certainly take it anyway you wish, Sid 3050, but that won't make it correct. Do you have a link for this user? I searched account creation for KentuckyFriedGunman, and find nothing. I can confirm you quoted the guidelines and will add that the block message one receives essentially says the same thing. I don't know who did the blocking of this user, but I can say I would direct such a person, choosing that name, to re-create the account with their real first name and last initial. --TK-CP (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I left a link to the block log in one of my posts above... *looks* there we go. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Return item improperly deleted by TK (and Sid): "Just for the record, how is arguecat any sillier than TK? Unless of course TK stands for Terry Kokesomethingorother..... 71.218.51.35 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)" This isn't CP, you don't control this world, ya schmuck 71.218.51.35 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Since Wikipedia is not only the largest but also the original wiki site, it's wrong to suggest that wiki policies shouldn't be judged against it. Any wiki site is free to use different criteria for who can edit, what content they want to offer, etc., but to suggest that no site should ever be judged against Wikipedia's policies when indicating how a wiki site differs is inventing some strange new reality. The Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia, which uses MediaWiki software, can indicate how it differs from Wikipedia in its guidelines, editorial control, etc., compared to Wikipedia. I also wonder why you automatically assume certain account names aren't trustworthy. How do you know the "trustworthiness" of someone if the site's admins ban them before they do anything to show one way or the other how they would operate? Didn't you, TK, ban PJR, who had contributed significantly to Conservapedia? Some food for thought before you complain again how CP is correctly presented on Wikipedia. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also no longer related to article content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nice to see censorship by those who don't like the results they get is alive and well here. You let others have their say, unmolested, and when they are contested by facts and opinions you do not like, you collapse the thread. Nice. --TK-CP (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Which would make a small amount of sense, if the person who collapsed this discussion had any part in it. User:Hipocrite did not. The last time they posted on this talk page was 4th May. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

I have recreated the Andrew Schlafly, and hope to begin discussion of the article on its talk page. I hope you will join me in developing the article. SmokingNewton (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

External link to RationalWiki

Hi - I do not believe that an external link to RationalWiki is appropriate to add to the external links section (or anywhere for that matter) of the article, per WP:EL. Primarily, it has the following issues:

• RationalWiki does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ELYES. It definitely doesn't meet the first two criterion (as it is not an official website of the subject), and as for the third one, RationalWiki does not contain neutral material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.
• The site violates multiple criterion of WP:ELNO:
  • Number 12 (Links to open wikis)
  • Number 13 (Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject)
• RationalWiki simply being mentioned in the article is not enough reason for an external link - if that were the case, all external link sections would be monstrously large.

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• A section of the article is about RationalWiki. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page is a link to the official website of the subject of that section.
• The site is directly related to the article's subject (its reason for being is to criticize Conservapedia).
• The site admits to bias, but so does Conservapedia.
• RationalWiki is not simply mentioned, there is a whole section about it.
• If none of my above arguments are accepted, then including a link to Conservapedia (which link would also be unacceptable), but not to RationalWiki, seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

  — Jeff G. ツ 17:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the solution we've had before someone (briefly) resurrected the RW article: A simple ref in the RationalWiki section that points at the main page. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Jeff: Our main difference in opinion that would ultimately determine whether or not the link stays in the article seems to be whether or not RationalWiki qualifies as an official website. I say no, for the following reasons:

• WP:ELOFFICIAL states that the linked content needs to be controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. When they say the subject of the article, I take that as meaning Conservapedia. RationalWiki would be considered the subject for the RationalWiki section of the article, but not the article as a whole.
• WP:ELOFFICIAL also states that the linked content needs to primarily cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable. RationalWiki, as far as I can tell, does not do that; it serves as a site that, as your said, criticizes and refutes Conservapedia, among other things.

In my view, RationalWiki is not directly related to the article's subject. It is a separate website that functions as more than just a site that criticizes Conservapedia; it was originally founded to do such, I believe, but has since grown to, as stated in their purpose, "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement." This, as a result, is "a general site that has information about a variety of subjects [that] should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject."

Finally, as you stated, a link to Conservapedia would normally violate WP:ELNO for the same reasons RationalWiki does. However, since Conservapedia falls under as an official link, it is exempt from violating WP:ELNO.

Anyway, I like what Sid did. It's not as prominent as an external link, but it can still direct readers who are interested in seeing the site. I think it's a good compromise. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also like what Sid did.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

+1. It passes the basic sanity test, of which all the WP:WTF abbreviation guidelines are just special cases: it provides useful and relevant information to the reader. Having a section about RationalWiki with no link to it would be weird - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He has a point there. Since an entire section is devoted to it, it only makes sense to add it as an external link because it's that relevant.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, all right. General consensus is, amongst us at least, against me - if you believe that having a link to RationalWiki in the external links section is better than having a footnote, I won't mind it happening. My view in terms of links being relevant is that if someone visits an article and goes directly to the external links section of it, they should be able to quickly tell how an external link is related to the subject, and how it presents the information - which, in the case of RationalWiki, would be non-neutral. That's the reason why I don't think having a flat-out link to RationalWiki is the best option, as unless the link-clicker has read the section regarding RationalWiki, they wouldn't know what the site is, how it is related, and how reliable it is from an educational standpoint. In my opinion, if we are to link to RationalWiki in the external links section of the article, the best thing to do would be to label the link with a description of the site, so that the link-clicker knows how it is related to Conservapedia and how it is coming at them. For example, something along the lines of this:

RationalWiki, a wiki that refutes and criticizes Conservapedia

As a matter of fact, if it is done this way, I would support the external link being added to the external links section of the article - I'm not going to make the edit, though, since there's already a footnote with the external link, and I don't find it to be that big a difference to make an edit. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When this came up several years ago, there was a long, round-and-round argument before the compromise was reached where the link was moved to the footnote, rather than in the E.L. section. I'm not saying that just because it was done once makes it the best solution, but I suspect that such a compromise is likely to be reached again, and it might prevent another long, round-and-round argument if everyone simply agreed to it now. Fishal (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of articles?

Is there any information on the number of articles on Conservapedia anywhere? 188.192.232.76 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

33,754. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Location of Claim of Trustworthiness

Does anyone know where would be a good place to put the claim made by Conservapedia's banner that it's a "Trustworthy encyclopedia"? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? I've placed the slogan into the infobox. In my opinion, that is all the coverage Conservapedia's slogan needs in the article. Unless the slogan is tied to something more contextual (e.g. for coming under scrutiny as being misleading), placing the sentence "Conservapedia refers to itself as 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'" in the body without tying it to anything doesn't really provide much context or encyclopedic value; it is simply what the website identifies itself as. Imagine if we covered what all websites describe themselves as. It would be quite a mess. There is the fact that an article such as Apple Inc. contain sections reserved for briefly describing their slogans, and we even have a list of all of Apple's slogans as a separate article. For another example, the article on the Nintendo DS covers its slogans in its marketing section article. However, Conservapedia isn't a marketed or heavily advertised subject, so mentioning its slogan doesn't provide much for the reader. In a sense, Apple's slogan "think different", among others, is notable in its own sense, simply due to its mass coverage and use in both the media and advertising, which is why, as one could argue, it receives so much coverage on Wikipedia. Comparing Conservapedia and other websites to this is almost irrelevant to me. In the Wikipedia article, which is a much better article to compare Conservapedia to, the only mention of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is in the infobox, which is why I did the same here. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki

In the section, RationalWiki, Peter Lipson was blocked by Conservapedia while attempting edit a breast cancer article including several editors who were blocked from Conservapedia, and created a wiki website, RationalWiki. Is it possible to create a RationalWiki article? Jj98 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The page for RationalWiki has gone back and forth from being an article to being redirected to its section in Conservapedia (see its page history). Some argue that RationalWiki is not notable enough for its own article, due to its notability mainly being tied into Conservapedia, while others argue that it is notable enough. The articles for deletion discussion for the page resulted in a keep (though on a personal basis, while looking at the page again, consensus seems a bit iffy to me - it's hard to tell what the result was IMO). The majority of the !votes were to redirect, with reasons given, which is basically why the page is redirected right now. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki vandals?

I for one find it very difficult to believe that RationalWiki is primarily responsible for vandalism of Conservapedia, as implicated in the Vandalism section of this very article. Not once is RationalWiki, let alone vandalism mentioned in the LA Times article cited. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The source given has multiple pages; you'll have to look at the fourth one. The source does mention RationalWiki, and it does say that members of the site "have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire". The article (at least to me) does not implicate that RationalWiki is primarilly responsible for vandalism of Conservapedia; it simply says some vandals, including some from RationalWiki, inserted such innapropriate content. Nowhere does it imply that they are primarily responsible, nor do I think undue weight is given. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the problem of RationalWiki being the only named source. People tend to assume that "NameX and others" implies weight or special status. Same as saying that "SuperHamster and others wrote the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia", basically. It's unfortunate, but there isn't really much we can do about that in this case (since it's the wording of the source), really. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

True true, I can see how that can be weighted, and I get the point. Here's an idea: we could remove RationalWiki from the Vandalism section of the article (leaving just the term of vandals), and then add the part about "errors, pornographic photos and satire" into the RationalWiki section of the article, where vandalism coming from RationalWiki members is already mentioned. The exact same content will be in the article, just in a different section. IMO, this option if good for two reasons:

• It will be in a section in which it is both relevant and makes sense. The average reader reading from top-to-bottom would have no clue what RationalWiki is prior to reading the Vandalism section of the article, as it is the first mention of RationalWiki. Thus, after reading that section, the only knowledge of RationalWiki they would have is that RationalWiki members have vandalized Conservapedia with errors, porno, and satire, which IMO, is non-neutral. In the RationalWiki section of the article, however, what RationalWiki is and how it was started is mentioned prior to the part about members of RationalWiki vandalizing Conservapedia, so it all flows together and gives the reader more context to relate.
• It gives better due weight, per Sid above, since, as mentioned in my last point, fits in a section in which the subject of RationalWiki is already established. It doesn't imply that RationalWiki is a major or special source of vandalism for Conservapedia, which AFAIK, there's no source that says this, but rather, that members of the site have vandalized Conservapedia, without implying anything other than what is flat-out mentioned.

It is true that the LA Times article words it the way it currently is in the Vandalism section of the Wikipedia article, but it is also true that RationalWiki has been already been mentioned and established before talking about vandalism in the LA Times article, unlike the current state of the Wikipedia article. Basically, what I'm saying that we could just merge the RationalWiki part from the Vandalism section of the article into the RationalWiki section for the sake of making sense and being more neutral. I'd make the change myself, since I don't think it is that big of a deal to be honest, but I am hesitant to do so since I myself am RationalWiki member; input from some other editors would be great. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, as it'll make it more neutral. Mr. Anon515 23:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from a Christian and American social conservative viewpoint."

Regarding the first sentence of the article, quoted above; I suggest removing "Christian and", making the sentence "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from a American social conservative viewpoint. Stating that Conservapedia is from a christian viewpoint is extremely marginal, to the point that it is factually erroneous.

Stating that it is from an American social conservative viewpoint has some substance, but still qualifies as an opinion, perhaps the first section should be rewritten, so opinions concerning conservapedia can be presented with improved clarity in the body of the article. As it is, I would say that this article's introduction is misleading, as well as inaccurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawbrrymlk (talk • contribs)

Christian conservative encyclopaedia is supported by reliable sources in the article, look for 'Christian' and 'Conservative' in the references section and you'll find a number. Other than that why are you denying the bleedingly obvious? Is Conservapedia now actually saying it wants to go in a liberal direction or embrace atheists or something? Do they actually want to deny they are Christian or conservative or how would they want to describe themselves now? Is the Conservative Bible Project not now something they really feel happy supporting for instance? Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what Strawbrrymlk meant, either, but maybe this is the "Conservapedia calls itself Christian even though they're just pushing a radicalized version of it that few Christians would identify with" issue? I think it's been brought up a few times over the years. But I'm really just guessing here myself, maybe the poster meant something else after all. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right Sid 3050. Would "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an American, conservative Christian viewpoint" be any better? Using an unqualified "Christian" in the descriptor seems a bad idea. --PLUMBAGO 07:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that wording sounds more accurate to me. I think it would be okaty to drop the 'social' and still point the link to the social conservatives Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I stuck in that wording from Plumbago so lets see how it flies Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To summarize my point, just because someone self-identifies themselves as something, doesn't make that the most accurate description. Similarly, this article here should describe the combined editorial and wiki-based aspects of conservapedia.(<- belongs in another section of talk page?)

Wikipedia tries to be accurate, but ultimately it has to be based on reliable sources and the main reliable sources do describe conservapedia as conservative and christian. We can't go around writing our own opinions of them after reading the site, the article would really stink of POV then! Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an American Conservative and Christian viewpoint" would be acceptable, I think. --TK-CP (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that some of us are making is that it's a very particular kind of Christian viewpoint. I don't think that any Christians I know would recognise it, for instance. Of course, the main thing for us to do here is to find support for a wording in reliable sources. And I know I didn't do this when I proposed the rewording above. Anyway, what can we dig up from, say, the media? Being a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I've just tried the Grauniad, but nothing especially useful there, and nothing immediately jumps out from Ars Technica either (though see here). And, taking the ecclesiastical route, the CofE, The Tablet and the Catholic Herald seem silent on the subject as well. Can anyone turn up anything? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is an often-used custom to take a sites own description, perhaps I am wrong about that? Degrees of Christianity isn't something Christians debate about much....only atheists and liberals, it seems. Most Christians find it suffices that Jesus Christ is accepted as Lord and Savior. I do know most organizations and sites take me as an accepted interpreter of what policy and precepts are. --TK-CP (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Note: "Citation needed" tag placed by Psygremlin with the following edit summary: "citations please, no unfounded claims of expertise here." ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is often used, because it is often an effective way to describe the nature of a site. However, it will not always work. For example, I develop a website containing pictures of cats eating burgers, and have a description on the front page saying that the site is a database of theories concerning the duality of the wave and particle mechanics of light. This example is no where near the same as conservapedia, but it demonstrates that self-identification is not foolproof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawbrrymlk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd have to say 'it calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"' rather than saying 'Conservapedia is the trustworthy encyclopedia'. :) Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, once again we have an impasse generated by editors here, who just by happenstance are editors at a site dedicated to CP opposition, with absolutely no willingness for compromise or cooperation, and unwilling to change the article itself without petty arguments, from what they have decided it should say. Nice. --TK-CP (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK, your strong affiliation with Conservapedia is obviously revealed through your edits. Talk here and don't comment on editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom, except for the prominent fact that my user name reflects that affiliation, while others here are ashamed of whose interests they are protecting, and never divulge, by name or notation on their user pages here that conflict. Admins have previously stated here to be "Be Bold" and to edit, so your thoughts are superseded months ago. Thanks. --TK-CP (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There: I updated the statement to actually reflect the sources, along with adding an additional source and citing two more already-in-the-article sources. All of them state (or reflect, in the case of the blog) that conservatives have criticized Conservapedia. I'm not a huge fan of including the heavily opinionated blog piece, but since TK insists on proof, I would think this is the best that can be given: a criticizing blog entry written by a conservative editorial writer. I don't know what other proof can be given when it's already backed up with multiple reliable sources, in addition to a blog coming straight from a conservative's mouth head. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Buzzz! Wrong again, Super. You added a critique of one small part of Conservapedia, not the entire project. You cannot equate the criticism of ONE purportedly conservative blogger, with the phrase prominent people, lol. Maybe you could see your way clear, along with your compatriots, to try compromising for once, and accept the rather generous and fair changes I made? --TK-CP (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? You misunderstand me, and the edit I've made. I think you're either confusing edits together, or didn't look at it very closely. I am talking about this edit that I made. I did not add the reference to the blog (it was there prior to my editing), nor do I support the inclusion of the phrase "prominent people". I removed the phrase "prominent people", for the fact that I agree with you that the people mentioned are not "prominent political and religious leaders". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My apology, SH. Thanks. However, I will then be removing the linkage to that blogger complaining about the Bible Project, if it is still there, because he is not criticizing CP as a whole, but just one small part of it, so it is unfair to present it as reinforcement for saying CP (as a whole) has been criticized by this "conservative" blogger, when in fact he is not liking that one small project. --TK-CP (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. As for removing the link to the blog, go right ahead; in addition to what you said, it's better to not link to a biased blog entry when there are other sources available. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am out of my element with the rules of Wikipedia, however to my eye many of the "citations" that are claimed to voice criticism, are merely news articles where they are quoting someone else's criticism, and it is the reporters or bloggers opinion that the critic is a conservative. A few of the citations I looked at were spurious at best. I will need to ask for help from some unbiased old-hands here at Wikipedia about what a valid source is, and how far the stretching that the cites I looked at are allowed to go. --TK-CP (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK, this is not Conservapedia. We do something known to the world beyond that of your little website as "fact checking". If it's from a reliable source, it's greenlighted. That's all that needs to be said.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the sources you speak of are the best sources. I highly recommend you take a look at WP:IRS. Sources that are "merely news articles where they are quoting someone else's criticism" are exactly what we're looking for. What Wikipedia wants are reliable, third-party sources that back up claims in articles. No one ever said that these sources that we are talking about voice criticism; they don't, and they don't need to. All we have to do is verify the statement that people from both sides of the political spectrum criticize CP by linking to a reliable source elsewhere that says it. If a reliable magazine article states that Conservapedia has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike, then that's all we need to say just that. We don't have to give "examples". We ourselves do not prove the statement. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia's policy is "verifibility, not truth". If a reliable source backs up a claim, it's good to go; if an editor disagrees with what the statement is, that's too bad, because it's been verified in a reliable publication. On another note, there are additional reasons why citing third-party sources that state that Conservapedia has been criticized by both parties is better than linking to people voicing actual criticism. Examples of criticism, in this case, are not the best option when we've got reliable sources that have already analyzed this. Examples are biased, and don't really provide what we might call educational content for readers; they may also require synthesis by the editors, which also isn't good. See WP:Synthesis. In reference to people being labelled as conservatives by the author of the article's judgement, I disagree with you. I remember that some of the sources cited more well-known persons that are more widely considered to be conservative; it's not just based on the view of a single reporter. I know you're looking for some more outside input, but that's mine. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Comment updated and edited for better understanding, wording, etc.; see my comment prior to editing here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of reliable sources, blogs should not be included except in quite special circumstances. Some by well known people who are an acknowledged expert on a subject or something like that sometimes qualify. I guess there aren't any Conservapediaoligists about. Something called a blog but really a newspaper article by a journalist with editorial control is also allowed. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Going along with what I said, let's make an example and take the article on the Ford F-150. You wouldn't say that it's a four-wheeled pickup truck, then link to an image of an F-150 to "prove" it. If you want to say how fast the car goes or say how much it can tow, you wouldn't link to a YouTube video that shows how fast the car goes or how much it can carry. Instead, you'd link to a page that, for example, lists the car's specifications. Similar scenario here. Another advantage of using more well-known, reliable sources is that they establish notability (though notability is really not a concern for Conservapedia at this point). Oh, and for an example of people who have criticized Conservapedia who are more widely known to be conservative, take a look at Andrew Sullivan; he does, however, self-describe himself as a libertarian conservative, and indeed has took to siding with the democrats occasionally. Jon Swift, another criticizer, does seem to hold more strict right views however. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been pointed to this article, and this line in particular still doesn't sit well with me. The terms American, Conservative and Christian are terms that a wide variety of people identify with and who are not all, a cursory glance at the site in question informs me, represented by this site. If we need to have this opening line in at all, would it not be worthwhile to change it to something like "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from the viewpoint of a right-wing American with <denomination> Christian values" or something similar? This is me speaking as an Irish Catholic living in the UK so I'll gladly sit quiet and nod along to anyone with more learned opinions but most of the above discussion seems to have been a bit derailed by talking about one user or another. Nilzy (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should change christian to creationist? Greggydude (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to follow the sources as far as is reasonable. Calling them Christian is not unreasonable and is a common description. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the flip side of the coin is the fact that claiming the opinions of Conservapedia are indicative are "Christians" without further qualifiers are offensive to a lot of Christians. I know they are to me. 81.149.145.36 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Veracity

Would it not make sense to begin a section documenting the verifiable factual errors and omissions of Conservapedia? They are numerous and it should not be difficult to properly source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbennett2007 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can see an example of a factual error appearing on Conservapedia appearing on this article is if it is notable and has caused some sort of incident that is worth noting. For an example, take a look at Wikipedia's own article on the reliability of itself, Reliability of Wikipedia. Imagine if we documented all the factual errors to have appeared on Wikipedia. It'd double the size of the site. Instead, all you'll find in that article are examples of some well-known and notable incidents. One of them even has its own article. The same standard should be applied here: unless a factual error in Conservapedia is notable due to its wide coverage and controversies, there really shouldn't be any, especially if we're talking about creating a section documenting the errors. This is an encyclopedia, not a place that analyses and records how other websites are doing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with SuperHampster. It would be WP:Original research. We should only be writing stuff that has already be noted in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, the "kangaroo" page is, for whatever reason, the first example of un-science on CP almost every time the topic comes up. It's appropriate to discuss that article. Beyond that, it's not WP's place to maintain a list of every single error on the page, especially since, as a wiki, CP's content is highly fluid (in theory, anyway). If such a list were to be written, CPians could easily go and correct every single error on it. There is already an entire wiki essentially devoted to refuting Conservapedia. Wikipedia's purpose is to document what makes it notable, not to refute it per se. Fishal (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this site a parody?

My Friend sent me a link to this site, and at first I thought it was parody, until my friend told me that it is for real. I decided to create an account and was blocked after five minutes. The next time someone complains about Wikipedia, send them a link to this website.

However, the worse part that I cam across was this:

"Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a democratic system and ends up functioning as a mobocracy, Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a merit system.

"Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images."

How does someone gain merit when they get blocked faster than the speed of light? Alec scheat (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion page about improving the article rather than the actual site. I would suggest if you hadn't actually written anything yet that a look at a wikipedia user page with an 'atheist' user box might have put them off. Rationalwiki spend their time worrying about them but I don't think it is a worthwhile investment of a persons time. Dmcq (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Atheism" is off putting is the reason why so many people hate us. It is websites such as Conservapedia that help cause hatred not only towards atheist, but Gays, Muslim, etc. People have to start learning to accept that people have different opinions, and that they have to censor it any way possible. The only reason why website like these is created is because people are brought up at birth in things such as this. It all comes down the fine line of freedom of speach, and knowning what is not appropriate to say. Some of the remark made by Conservapedia fall under the line of being racist. But hey, thats only my opinion.

Also, would should we mention some of the groups that are trying to get rid of this site? Alec scheat (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to make a free reliable encyclopaedia. It isn't a blog for people's personal opinions. RationalWiki is the only site which is notable in trying to combat them as far as I'm aware. Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ED, /b/, FSTDT, huge swaths of the blogsphere, etc. RW is hardly the only place people who don't approve of Conservapedia talk about it. Nuttish (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If there ere others with citations I'm sure someone would have brought it up. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact, RW is not notable except for what a couple of members of the MSM have stated as its reason for being. That of course, is disputed by RW. --TK-CP (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question - since this section has no bearing on improving the article, it obviously doesn't need to stay here on the live talk page. Does wikipedia policy favor simple deletion, or is moving to the most recent archive preferable? Huw Powell (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past, it was the common practice to simply delete off-topic discussion, but as you can imagine, this led to conflicts. Nowadays, it is advised that off-topic discussions be moved to the archives. See WP:TPO. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Template:notaforum & archive? TheresaWilson (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterexamples to relativity

Just a heads-up to keep an eye open, this CP page is going the rounds of the blogs, even making it to New Scientist. There may end up being reliable material to work with produced. Just an FYI. Huw Powell (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth do they find quantum mechanics more acceptable than relativity? It certainly is a strange page. If they had titled it problems with modern physics it wouldn't have been quite so bad. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the very first edition and it was set up by Aschlafly and one of he problems he put in was that it contradicted action at a distance where Jesus cured a nobleman's son without going out of his way to their house. It seems tenuous but perhaps he sees quantum mechanics as explaining miracles and relativity as being against them? Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the conservative interpretation of of "relativity" as somehow equivalent to "moral relativism." Totnesmartin (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A sort of gut reaction rather like the way some SUV owners would press down on the accelerator if they hear the words 'climate change'? I'd guess that sort of mentality would react negatively to the idea of a maximum speed dictated by nature as well. Disgust at moral relativism affecting acceptable physics, that's an interesting concept. That's a bit like Lysenkoism in Russia though less direct. I'll be most interested in seeing how all this pans out and what can be put in the article eventually. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Scientist was tipped off by (and gave credit to) the Talking Points Memo website, which ran this article about Conservapedia and relativity. It would be appropriate for our article to cite both New Scientist and TPM as having criticized Conservapedia over this issue.

I'd make the edit myself but I'm unhappy with the current structure of the discussion in the article. There's a section on "Conflict with scientific views", which mentions relativity, and then a later section on "Conservapedia and the Theory of General Relativity", which rehashes the New Scientist article in great detail. My suggestion is that the latter section should be condensed and incorporated into the former. The criticisms lodged by New Scientist and TPM should be mentioned in much less detail, with the ext links provided for readers who want to go to the sources. JamesMLane t c 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with all that. I think it should take about half the current space and be with the other scientific weirdisms. There's too much quoted currently rather than it being a summary of the main points. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys have your own wiki to refute CP on? Are Wikipedia articles now little better than a current events magazine? And odd that such a collection of "intellects" could only find negative reactions, being the good and fair NPOV Wikipedia editors you all are! --TK-CP (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that show positive reactions to Conservapedia's publications on general relativity, TK-CP, you are free to bring them up and add them to the article.

Anyway, upon seeing TK-CP's comment, I looked at the article myself, and I agree with JamesMLane and Dmcq - the section "Conservapedia and the Theory of General Relativity" is very long, and should be condensed and fitted into "Conflict with scientific views" where it also fits. Not only is it long, but the section was giving, in my opinion, massive weight to something that doesn't deserve a massive section of its own. In addition to that, much of it was original research Edit: Upon looking at it again, I realize that the material that I thought to be original research was actually covered by the source in addition to the rest of the content. As a result, I've condensed the section to a prose that mentions only points brought up in sources, and have merged that content in the section "Conflict with scientific views". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If a user had the time, and exhaustively read the page's history, it will show that every single complimentary mention of Conservapedia has been removed eventually, so I no longer bother. I think aware users of Wikipedia do notice that, as the article virtually screams the POV of the editors who have controlled the article since its creation. Such ideological control gives Wikipedia a bad reputation, but this article is hardly the only one held captive.

That said, SuperHamster is to be commended for doing a good job of condensing the bloat that was recently added about a single topic on CP. Although it is still overly-long for something that is such a minute part of Conservapedia, Hamster has significantly improved it from what was there. We'll see how long it takes for the removed parts make it back. :P --TK-CP (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall uncited positive material being removed. There was a lot in December 2006, when the article was edited by one Andysch, but after that it was rewritten from scratch. In fact the talk page archives sometimes bemoan the lack of material praising CP that we could add to the article; there was simply none to be found. I certainly see no "ideological control". If you have diffs suggesting otherwise, please provide them rather than making unfounded claims of bias. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pornography?

Just to clarify - I am a Rationalwiki admin. Now - Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire. this sentence bothers me because I don't know of any RationalWiki members, or anyone else for that matter, uploading pornographic photos. As far as I know, the closest Conservapedia has come to hosting pornography was when current conservapedia admin accidently named a picture he had uploaded a pornographic name after confusing two seperate photos he had. Can someone give a good reason to include the sentence? Ace McWicked (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the citation and it doesn't seem to back up the assertion that RationalWiki members have inserted pornography. I think the text should be altered to correspond more closely to the source, it says A and B have inserted C and D but that is not the same as saying A has inserted C and D and B has inserted C and D. Dmcq (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been an RW member since March 2008 and have follwed CP since mid 2007 and can honestly say I have never seen any pornography from anyone. Ace McWicked (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the source too, and I agree with Dmcq's analysis. The source states that Conservapedia has been vandalized by both RationalWikians and vandals from elsewhere, then goes on to state that the vandals have inserted pornographic photos, among other things, without specifically citing RationalWiki as a source of that. I've gone ahead and removed the last sentence from the "RationalWiki" section that specifies this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only that but to upload pornography one must be a sysop and have the right privileges. I have seen many parodists gain upload rights but have never seen anyone upload pornography. Ace McWicked (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What we need right now is neither Ace's or TK-CP's word on what is the truth (both are worthless in terms of the article), but a reliable source that states and verifies the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia - otherwise, it should be removed. Whether or not the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia is true, that does not matter in the least bit. Wikipedia's policy is "verifiability, not truth". It does not matter what Wikipedia editors do or do not know - we go by what the sources say, and as it stands, the source given does not verify the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia; as such, it should not be in the article that RationalWikians have inserted porn into Conservapedia. I quote from the source:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire [...]

No where does it explicitly state that the vandals that have inserted pornographic errors were members of RationalWiki. Now, because TK-CP restored the content that I have removed, it is to TK-CP's burden to attribute it to a source.

As for the email, that would fall under a self-published source. Self-published sources are typically not allowed; one of the only instances where it is allowed is when it is "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I would say that the reporter could very well fall under that, so if TK-CP does indeed have an email from the reporter of the source that states that RationalWiki members have inserted pornography, that may constitute as a reliable source, as shaky as it may be to use it. Now it comes to the fact that it needs to be published - how one goes about that, I honestly do not know at this point, and until it is, the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into articles should not be there.

Would you approve of the statement being removed at this point, TK-CP? If there is still disagreement, we can take this to the reliable sources noticeboard, especially regarding the email. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

R. fiend, is there some reason for your reversion (other than to lay a 3-revert rule trap) of my putting back in place the original text "SuperHamster" removed? If you have some pertinent information that caused you to do so, please post it here, otherwise I will have to ask an admin to add it back, I guess. And the continued "rat-packing" by admins from RW is material to this particular article, because of the special circumstances between the two wikis. If one reads the Los Angeles Times article, one can clearly see the author meant what she said. Is it common practice anywhere in the world to so parse news stories on one particular topic, other than earth shaking events? --TK-CP (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer Superhamster, I respectfully submit it is his responsibility to source and prove the Los Angeles Times reporter didn't mean Rational Wiki administrators, not me, because to the untold number who read, and have recently read, it is quite clear what she meant. It appears it is a subject of confusion only to RW administrators and "wiki lawyers". And please do take the argument wherever you wish, Super. --TK-CP (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor that adds material, not removes it - otherwise, I'd have to prove to whoever made this edit that Mr. Wolin was indeed not a clown. It's not a big deal, anyway: I've brought up the issue here. We'll see what other editors think about this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question says "by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire...". I think it is fairly clear that this creates a group (people from RationalWiki and elsewhere) and then goes on to say that this group - which by definition includes at least some individual editors of RationalWiki - engages in cyber-vandalism. So I must side with TK on this one, just on the parsing of the language itself. That being said, if the content is re-instated, it is important to differentiate between individual RationalWiki members and "RationalWiki" as a group, which clearly states that it does not support or condone vandalism. --Hojimachong^talk 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the current wording is fine, if we do keep it in the article? It goes, "Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire." IMO, it's fine that way, as it doesn't make RationalWiki a group; if needed, though, we could state that "RationalWiki members, by their own admission". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can't attribute pornography to RW then the sentence should be changed. Ace McWicked (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to read exactly how the article in question states it. N.B., I can personally verify that individual RW members have uploaded pornography to CP. Not that my statements are verifiable or citable, just throwing it into the discussion. --Hojimachong^talk 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but at the condoning of RW? When I mean is, a vandal could vandalize Conservapedia with porn who is also a Wikipedia member. That doesn't mean Wikipedia condones it...see what I mean..? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to get at, because given that situation, saying "Wikipedia members and other vandals uploaded porn to Conservapedia" would still technically be correct. It's all about what the source says, and the LA Times article clearly says that RW members are part of the group uploading the images. And it's different than saying Wikipedia editors have done it, simply because RW is so intrinsically tied to Conservapedia. I think the way suggested above, "Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire" best presents the idea that the article is trying to state. I don't like that it says that, and would argue the veracity of the claim, but it's a verifiable, reliable source and we have to go by what it says, unless an opposing source of similar reliability can be found. --Hojimachong^talk 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then it should be noted the RW states it does not support nor condone vandalism? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a wp:BLP issue since it is talking about RW members, so the standard of verification is several notches higher. Since the wording is vague and difficult to parse per BLP it should just be left out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups, I change my mind and agree with Tmtoulouse. --Hojimachong^talk 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ace, one cannot parse something post-facto. In the past Rationalwiki did not eschew vandalism to the degree it does now, and only recently has sought to broaden its appeal. Back during the time in question RW did not have the public scruples it has more recently adopted. We all live and learn, so did RW. Trent, perhaps you would care to end the clever wiki-lawyering and let it be? I really don't have the stomach for dragging this through the various boards and tribunals here, but if need be I will, along with the L.A. Times reporter to state what she was told. --TK-CP (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the article can updated to relfect past policy to current policy, no? Ace McWicked (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have stated my opinion and the reasons, per WP policy for why I think my opinion is correct in regards to this issue. Consensus seems to be against you, under such circumstances your best approach is to either seek out additional people to offer an opinion, or wait to see if more people show up that might support your..view. As an aside, the reporter in question has no interest in this piece, CP or RW. Nor does she have any of her notes that would clarify anything that is not in the LA Times article. I wouldn't bother her. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No bother at all, Trent....we have kept in touch all these years. --TK-CP (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, after bringing up the issue at WP:RS/N, where more un-involved editors participate in, everyone basically agreed that the content is indeed all right to have in the article, either as a direct quote to avoid confusion, or in a certain form of wording (see the discussion). As such, I've re-added the content regarding RationalWiki and porn, among other things, into the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think the wording in the sources doesn't support the current statement. I think a direct quote or removal all together are the only real options. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, comparing our article to the source, I think they convey the same meaning. While the previous wording in the Wikipedia article explicitly called out that RationalWiki members have added pornography to Conservapedia, the current wording says that a group of vandals, which includes RationalWiki members, have introduced pornography, which is basically what the article exactly states. However, a quote would work just as well, and if anything, it's better, since it's directly from the article, and one cannot be confused about the interpretation at that point. I don't see the point of switching the writing for the quotation at this point, since they sound the same to me, but you can go ahead and add the quote if you want, leaving out the "In recent months,". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)