Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Conservapedia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Balance

I see several people on talk are concerned about finding positive references to balance all of the negative. While concern with balance is good and important, it would be improper to seek to manufacture balance where none exists. My understanding is that Conservapedia itself would be entirely non-noteworthy but for the sudden rash of criticism against it. As far as I am aware appropriate "positive" sources to include simply do not exist for us to cite. We should not feel guilty about that, and it would be an error trying to bend the Wikipedia article out of misplaced guilt over that fact. If positive sources do exist, or if positive source do appear, then by all means add them. If Conservapedia truly is noteworthy and truly has positive aspects worthy of discussion, here then others make those judgments and we will cite them.

My Original Research is that Conservapedia is (at least for the time being) a non-notable vanity site that became a tourist attraction of the train wreck variety. If they can grow and mature into a site of importance, then good for them. Alsee 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of use are saying that we have to create a "balance" per se. The only point I have been trying to make is that we have pretty much covered whats out there, and what we do not want is to just make this a clearning house for every complaint that pops up about the cite. There is plenty here till we get something different or more substantial.Tmtoulouse 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Balance" really means that all subjects are subjected to the same scrutiny, /not/ that all views/organizations/people/etc. get equal amounts of positive and negative attention; that would completely defeat the purpose of analysis and documentation. It is arguable that the Conservapedia is, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, maliciously so. jgates 16L49, 5 March 2007

Few thoughts

Just noting a few thoughts here since I'm not sure how to incorporate them in the best way (or if they belong into the article at all).

The sentence "Schlafly has stated [...] explain natural phenomena." is WAY too long in my eyes. A list may be better (either inline or with linebreaks) to guide a reader better, but I'm not sure what the MoS or Wiki Consensus says about lists in the middle of an article.

I rewrote that section, and added some more of their objections. Kronix1986 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs in the article, but what about the current state of the project in terms of openness (or lack thereof)? Quite a few articles are protected for little reason, people are given admin status just so they can write in one protected article, sign-ups are disabled (and IPs can't edit), etc. These are things I didn't spot in the sources (which seemed to focus on choice quotes from entries), but I think they're as much a problem as the "vandalized" entries. --Sid 3050

Oh certainly they are, but until we have reliable sources that discuss them we can't say anyting about them. As to the first sentence, feel free to rework it. JoshuaZ 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought, too. I inserted a link to the List of Biases on Conservapedia, not 100% sure if it's okay with the "don't cite a Wiki" rule, but it struck me as appropriate. Un-link if it's over the line, though. --Sid 3050 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lecture series

Whats the deal with the "lectures" that are posted? And the various talk pages full of what looks like homework assignments? Is conservapedia moonlighting as a place for Andrew to post info to his students? Tmtoulouse 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes. Again, no reliable sources have discussed this so we can't cite it. JoshuaZ 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the site itself talks about it could we use that as a source? Tmtoulouse 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only in a very limited fashion - WP:RS discusses this. And given the Wiki nature of the project I'd think that makes citing it as even more questionable. JoshuaZ 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay what about http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/ its a primary source but seems like its evidence that conservapedia is being used to store course material. Tmtoulouse 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the original research element. JoshuaZ 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian article [1] says that Conservapedia started as a homework project... I assume that's where the homework assignment element comes in. mattbuck 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What are these talk pages? You mean the debate pages? Nil Einne 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, check out the talk page, for example, of Economics[2] its turned into a discussion forum for homework assignments. Tmtoulouse 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "unreliable blogs"

Kelly Ramsey in the last edit removed what the editor termed "unreliable blogs" However, the blogs in question were being used as primary sources of notable individuals commenting. In particular, Andrew Sullivan's blog [3], Carl Zimmer(one of the head science writers for the NYT)[4]. While some of the other blog entries such as | this one may be questionable(I think you can make a pretty good policy based argument otherwise but since the source is not that important for our purposes I'm not going to deal with it now), it is hard for me to see how the Zimmer and Sullivan blog entries don't meet WP:RS about what these individuals have said, and given who they are, there opinions by nature are notable. Input from other editors would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the blogs being included at all, particularly Zimmer, but my question is that the number of sources critical of conservapedia is growing but no one is picking up the cause and writing WP:V sources that are even remotely positive. The goal of this article shouldn't just be a growing depository of criticisms with each new secondary source that comes up with another argument against the site. At some point don't we have to say "enough critical sources" or "enough criticism" and wait for additional sources that focus on elements other then whats wrong with it? Tmtoulouse 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, however, both Zimmer and Sullivan are two very notable critics (and having a notable conservative critic is pretty hard not to note). I'd agree about being worried about including too much criticism, but it is hard for me to see in this limited case how we can't include them. (Incidentally, there is another reason to not have too much criticism- we don't want it too look like some sort of Wikipedia hatchet job on a critic). JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something about the Andrew Sullivan quote? The linked blog entry consists entirely of the cryptic sentence "Hey, it's a post-modern world, and truth isn't always truthiness." with a link to someone else's blog, which doesn't seem a very coherent or quotable criticism. --McGeddon 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wired says that that is meant to be criticism so...JoshuaZ 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wired just says that he is "bemused", and that he failed to respond to their request for comment. --McGeddon 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the Jon Swift blog as well, the wired article refers to him as a conservative blogger, but it was removed by with a commenting calling his blog a parody. Anyone know for sure? Tmtoulouse 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Musings

(I am a pretty active Conservapedia editor. Please do not ask me why as I'm still trying to figure it out myself).

These really are musings. They're not rhetorical questions to which I have an answer in mind.

"The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly..." Do we know this? Is there a statement anywhere of who founded it? Would he accept this as a valid characterization? The Guardian piece does call him "the" founder in one place, but mostly it refers to "founders," plural. Who are the others?

User:Conservative, a highly highly unreliable source made a reference to a "board." Does it have a board? Who's on it? Do we know? What exactly are the roles of some other higher-profile editors. Is TimSvendsen, a sometime-WIkipedia-defender one of the Christian homeschoolers? Is PhilipB? Who's an adult? Who's a kid? Who's the webmaster, incidentally? Schlafly himself? Who took care of the obvious recent upgrades in capacity and bandwidth?

The article makes the same mistake that its sources do, of solemnly treating Conservapedia as if it were a tidy monolithic command-and-control encyclopedia with nice clear institutional points of view. On the Web, a little business can look a lot like a big business, and a toy Wiki can look like it's a serious competitor to Wikipedia. The article should make the point that this is a tiny site. The Latin Wikipedia is about four times as big. The Interlingua Wikipedia is about the same size.

Much of the mockery of Conservapedia is due to the striking contrast between its impressive false front and the ramshackle building behind it.

Today, Conservapedia is a virtual church basement with half a dozen people who talk a lot, a few harried-looking adult volunteers trying to conduct RE classes, fifty-eight kids, and people wandering through who can't tell the difference between the pastor's newsletter and the ninth-grade bulletin board. That bulletin board has on it a few posters trying to explain the Bible and a bunch of student project written in magic marker for a class exercise on "Places in the Holy Land." What are all the camera crews are doing outside?

It's so tiny that there may well be newcomers who notice that JoshuaZ and dpbsmith are fairly frequent contributors and may well assume that we're both Christian fundamentalists who are homeschooling our kids somewhere in New Jersey. (For the record, I'm not. I won't speak for JoshuaZ).

90% of what's written about Conservapedia, including this article, is actually about a) Conservapedia's home page, and b) Conservapedia's attack on Wikipedia. I'm not saying these are unfair targets. But are they "Conservapedia?" Are the textbook definitions posted as teaching exercises for students to expand ("Empress Lu: The Empress of China from 195 to 180 BC. She forcefully installed her two infant sons as emperors.")? The sometimes-clumsy student contributions? The prank entries ("Massachusetts Liberal A Liberal from Massachusetts. Generally, they want to throw out all rules of God, and live like animals. Often they are also evolutionists.")? The Andrew Schafly op-eds? The well-meant attempts to write actual articles (which are somewhat comparable to those in nostalgia.wikipedia.org? What is the "real" Conservapedia?

The article draft suffers from "recentism." To those who've been Googling on Conservapedia and reading the blogs that mention it, or reading Conservapedia frequently, the arboreal tree frog article is a hot news flash. The wave of parodic vandalism that washed over Conservapedia now seems to be in check. (What is Conservapedia doing about new users? There have been some new ones so account creation can't always disabled. Maybe he lets a few in, watches them, blocks them, lets a few more in?)

Well, OK. One more thought. Which is a more notable topic, "Conservapedia" or "Andrew Schlafly?" They both fall somewhere in the hazy twilight zone of borderline notability...

I guess I do have a sort of tentative conclusion, which is, first, Conservapedia isn't really all that notable, at least not yet. I voted against Eon8 a while back and I don't think Conservapedia is anywhere near as notable as Eon8 was. Second, I'm not sure how much we really know about Conservapedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These are all serious problems, and I agree that you've brought up good points, but we can't discuss Conservapedia's non monolythic nature unless we have sources about that. (Also, I disagree about the Eon8 comparison, Conservapedia has far more reliable sources discussing it, and a google search alone shows that Conservapedia gets many more hits than Eon8). JoshuaZ 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the coverage seems to be from its detractors. I suspect some people would like to hype the "threat" of this wiki, either because they aren't fond of this form of conservatism, or because it sells papers (or advertising eyeballs). Andjam 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"arboreal tree frog"? Aren't all tree frogs arboreal by definition? I think you mean arboreal octopus. --Hugh7 07:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

It seems to me we have about tapped the amount of info from WP:V sources and are blending into original research. There is a lot of points to be made about Conservapedia as Dpbsmith stated above, and that I have brought up a few times. But the problem is we have no sources that address it. I think some of the recent additions to the article, while probably valid, also fall under WP:OR. I have removed on sentence that I feel is a clear example of this. I think at this point any major expansion of the article will need to await new secondary sources.Tmtoulouse 18:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to cite some conservapedia articles directly, rather than citing an article that criticises article X. I think the latter is preferable. Andjam 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is absolutely 50% or more original research. Unless we hear other reasons or outside sources that have done the analysis, most of what's in Conservapedia#Criticism_and_vandalism should be deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Which parts are original research? Considering that the article has source tags to notable sources all over it, the "50% or more original research" bit strikes me as odd. The section in question was constructed on the basis of non-Conservapedia sources, and most sentences or paragraphs come with more than one source tag each. The only things (from what I can see) that were not directly sourced with tags are still based on existing sources from the reference list:

Kangaroos: Wired
Einstein: IWR
Evolution: Guardian, CommentIsFree

I think the only bits of actually "original research" in that section are the comments that some of these things have been corrected after the sources came out. --Sid 3050 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About the potential "Why aren't the proper source tags in place for those three?" question: Listing the above direct sources to the paragraph in question would lead to six footnotes, which would be a slight overkill in my eyes. Removing the links to the Conservapedia articles is also not a good option because most articles change(d) after the sources came out, and the readers should not have to look through pages of article histories just to find the versions in question.</opinion> --Sid 3050 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We are having people erase the above examples as WP:OR maybe we should figure out how to get sources next to them. Tmtoulouse 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the claim that you can not register new user IDs original research? Is there a WP:RS we can use?Tmtoulouse 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Conservapedia login page as a reference. It's lacking of a "create account" button should be reliable enough. --Hojimachong^talk 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, so I will err on the side of including it for now and now revert back. But would like to see what others think. Tmtoulouse 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article on vandalism?

If conservapedia ends up getting an article, then we may want to have an article on vandalism of wikis, as it would now be a phenomenon no longer confined to just wikipedia. Andjam 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone has written about it as a general phenomenon, it is going to be original research. JoshuaZ 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That proviso on original research really is a bitch mattbuck 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In this sort of case yes, when dealing with cranks with their own versions of relativity or ideas about where the pyramids came from, no. JoshuaZ 09:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note it doesn't really matter IMHO whether it's about vandalism on wikipedia or now. Provided a good reliable source has written about it, we could mention it somewhat. What we can't do is OR Nil Einne 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about OR

The example entries seems to have OR. In particular, the 2nd law of thermodynamics set is all OR. JoshuaZ 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the 2nd law example, but the arboreal tree octopus is discussed in the wired article. There are several other examples that are discussed in the wired article too we could pull out if we wanted more examples.Tmtoulouse 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyoen else think we should have more examples from the Wired article? I'm undecided on it, since we have a lot of negative content already and almost every entry discussed in the wired article was described negatively. JoshuaZ 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Material Removed from Eagle Forum

I have removed the following material from the Eagle Forum entry as longer applicable for I will paste it here to see if anyone wants to work it in:

As of February, 2007, Conservapedia's Alexa traffic rank has surged to nearly 1,000,000 for a few days, far above its three month average of about 580,000. ^[1] By comparison, Wikipedia has an Alexa ranking of 12. ^[2]

Conservapedia no longer allows new users to create or edit entries. ^[3] Tmtoulouse 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Um.... unless I completely misunderstand the sentence, it should be: "In February 2007, Conservapedia's Alexa Traffic Rank reached a peak of nearly 10,000 for a few days, as compared to its three month average of about 580,000. The "1,000,000" may have been the previous three month average rank (not sure), but with Alexa, a lower rank is better, so surging up to that number would be incredibly bad ;)

I don't know if or where to insert those pieces of info, though. The sign-up issue has been mentioned above (along with other... issues... the wiki has) and is an issue of original research vs. sourced material, if I understand it correctly. --Sid 3050 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Free???

From the article: "Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project.[13] "Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants."

Question [1]: does Conservapedia actually use Wikipedia content to build variants? (I don't think so: if so, does it meet GFDL requirements? (I don't think so)) Question [2]: to what extent can Conservapedia be said to be "free culture"? It doesn't seem to specify its licence, so I assume they simply claim copyright. No copyleft, no public domain, no GFDL, no "Free" as far as I can see. Probably I've missed where they specify, but it would be good for us to be clear if we can find the answer. Is the "free culture" alluded to here simply their use of free software? Again, it would be good to specify. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the comment just means "If they want to use our software to play on their isolated island with weird rules, they have the freedom to do so." So I it's possibly just a remark about the MediaWiki software since Conservapedia doesn't re-use Wikipedia content (from what I can see). The issue of Conservapedia content copyright is somewhat interesting, though. --Sid 3050 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew doesn't apparently want to put the content under the GFDL. I sent Jimbo a note a while back pointing out that Conservapedia was not in fact under the GFDL in regard to that comment. JoshuaZ 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Non-American

Excerpt from "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" (Conservapedia): "Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'.[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public." ....So what??? ...or do they expect Wikipedia to be an exclusive domain for Americans?? Did they ever stop to think that perhaps non Americans use and edit Wikipedia and that they may be proportionally more 'liberal'? SPatrickB 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably already get that current ratio if you only look at those americans who can read, write, have access to a computer and can handle it, understand what is wikipedia and find a way to change its contents instead of taking them all... --192.35.17.10 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They're nothing more than proud (and stupid, when we look at the articles based on the bible, when literature can never be a credible source, especially not the bible which is globally biased (it would amaze them, but 6.5 milliard people don't all have the same religion)) and short-sighted Christian nationalists, you just don't have to take their flimsy site seriously. Wikipedia can be trusted because it doesn't revolve around a country whose continent wasn't officially founded until 1492, and holds no religious bias, because you can be a member of Christianity, Islam, atheism, polytheism, pantheism or others, you'll find articles that are roughly equally worded for all of us, and are most often based on scientific proofs rather than "I believe it, therefore it is so" kinds of babbling around. 213.222.158.152 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Status of new users

I tried to create an account on Conservapedia, but couldn't. Was I merely botching the signup process, or has Conservapedia restricted access in some way? JamesMLane t c 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia no longer allows users to create accounts, meaning it is edited by the sole 58 high school students who created it. I guess the truth was too much for them to handle... A user was blocked for adding "liberal references" to their "Theory of Evolution" article. --Hojimachong^talk 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that one can send an email to the eagle forum to get an account. JoshuaZ 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll go try that out. --Hojimachong^talk 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Accounts registered earlier are mostly still active; mine, for instance. There are more editors than just the original students. Tsumetai 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What does Conservapedia mean by "user-controlled", if users cannot register? Are some users more equal than others? Tabletop 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As a physicist, I wanted to edit the "Gravity" article - do we know of any way that this can be done by users not already registered? jgates 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too, as a physicist, wanted to explain how objects are ever capable of moving away from each other without our "theory" of gravity breaking down, including clarifying a highly miscontextualized NASA measurement.--Loodog 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you email the Eagle Forum, they will give you access. JoshuaZ 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lock topic?

This topic seems to be stirring up a fair amount of emotion in the unregistered posters, I've seen two reverts in the past hour. Anyone else think topic should be semi-protected? mattbuck 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Two in an hour isn't enough for semiprotection, IMHO. Just put it on your watchlist, and revert anything stupid. It seems our friends from Conservapedia have been editing [5]. --Hojimachong^talk 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source

[6] but nothing in it seems to be that terribly different than what other sources are saying. JoshuaZ 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a Reliable Source

If information is not covered by independent third party sources, as far as Wikipedia is concerned the event didn't happen. The only exception being a narrow one in self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Grabbing articles from that site that make obviously outrageous claims and then editorializing in this article that they contradict reality is original research. We cannot cherrypick content from the site and use it in this article unless it is covered by reliable sources.--RWR8189 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The unquestionable, techincal elements of the site (such as the login page) are not unreliable sources from the subject itself. Besides, it's not an "outrageous claim" to say that account creation is disabled. It's a fact, with no really good reliable sources to back it up. --Hojimachong^talk 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, looking more closely, the login page would probably fall under WP:SELFPUB, if it is really notable at all.

This is original research as it has gained no third party coverage: Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark, that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb", and that gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven.[5] [6][7]--RWR8189 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page above:

Which parts are original research? Considering that the article has source tags to notable sources all over it, the "50% or more original research" bit strikes me as odd. The section in question was constructed on the basis of non-Conservapedia sources, and most sentences or paragraphs come with more than one source tag each. The only things (from what I can see) that were not directly sourced with tags are still based on existing sources from the reference list:

       * Kangaroos: Wired
       * Einstein: IWR
       * Evolution: Guardian, CommentIsFree

I think the only bits of actually "original research" in that section are the comments that some of these things have been corrected after the sources came out. --Sid 3050 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) About the potential "Why aren't the proper source tags in place for those three?" question: Listing the above direct sources to the paragraph in question would lead to six footnotes, which would be a slight overkill in my eyes. Removing the links to the Conservapedia articles is also not a good option because most articles change(d) after the sources came out, and the readers should not have to look through pages of article histories just to find the versions in question.</opinion> --Sid 3050 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, I was under the impression that these were arbitrary examples. The information should sourced to the reliable sources above, and not the Conservapedia articles.--RWR8189 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Creation of new IDs on conservapedia

The issues is NOT that we deny that this has been disabled, but whether it is WP:OR. There are no WP:RS other than the primary source to the site itself, this MIGHT fall under WP:SELFPUB but you are not reference a page on conservapedia that says that only their login page. That is WP:OR Tmtoulouse 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need a newspaper to say new users cannot register before we can say it here! It is a fact... new users can't register. By this logic, isn't the whole Wikipedia article WP:OR?Dave 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ATT and WP:NOTTRUTH, I really was interested in getting the information about Eagle Forum University on to this article, I just found it really interesting, but had to wait till a secondary source wrote about it. We are all watching for sources and the moment we get a secondary source that mentions the registration issues it will be included. Tmtoulouse 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Wikipedia relies on sources other than Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The site has clearly been disabled for new logins. Are we to take it that wikipedia content is now being censored for fear of some sort of legal action?

People don't take this seriously, do they?

My first thought on Conservopedia was, "This is a parody site", my second, third and fourth thoughts were along the same lines. After reading through it, i can only come to the conclusion that this site is supposed to be a parody site along the lines of uncyclopedia. Is this true or is this a legitimate site? If it's a parody, shouldn't it be in the appropriate catagory?- Count23 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clearly not a parody. Nil Einne 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a parody, sone of it is quite serious. However, as noted in the article, some people have been attempting to turn it into a parody by adding parodic(is that the word?) elements. JoshuaZ 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrections of corrections

Somebody went through and corrected the article's spelling and grammar, but ended up botching sentences. Looking at the flurry of edits, I'm guessing the changing of British spellings to American ones was Conservapedian vandalism which wasn't reverted. Just so it doesn't turn into a tug of war, I'll explain my corrections. You have an aversion to something, not of something. Doctrine equals the collective teachings of an ideology. "The facts" as opposed to "fact" is redundant. It's not "the Conservapedia". By the way, can this be locked? It looks like people are removing perfectly valid sections and making questionable edits. Kronix1986 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to guess about the changing of British spellings to American ones. If you trouble to look at the history, you'll find this edit, in which I changed the spellings and included my reasoning in the ES: "(1) use AE not BE spellings in article on U.S.-based site". That reasoning is still valid, so I'll restore my corrections. I didn't make any of the grammar changes you dispute. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this really deserve an article? Looks like a circle-jerk.

Conservapedia seems to be closed to new registrants, because of legitimate edits which corrected nonsensical statements made by the in-house contributers. When it first appeared on the radar, many thought it would be a serious attempt to reinterpret history and science to support their stated ideals. It turns out that it's a wiki encyclopaedia written by 58 homeschooled children who are all introverted creationists, and lack a basic understanding of topics and concepts most of us covered in school.

With registrations closed, it's nothing more than a private circle-jerk between some ignorant and/or dumb kids. Does it deserve an article? Does its notoriety alone justify an article? If an article is justifiable, it should be made clear that:

1) It's closed to new entrants in order to avoid undesirable edits. 2) It's maintained by children.

Kronix1986 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to rehash the DRV here. Consensus of the community is that it deserves an article. Everything in the article needs to be from a WP:RS and we do not yet have one that clearly states that its closed to new users. Until we get this we cant make a big deal out of it. I thought the use of referring to it as a "private" wiki was a good compromise till we get a source. Also we do say in the article that it was created by a group of homeschoolers as part of a class project. It is not maintained solely by these students though as several wikipedia editors can attest.Tmtoulouse 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the record as saying at various times: a) it's not notable. b) Well, maybe now it might be borderline notable. c) Well, no, the liberal blogs' interest in it seems to be dying down. So, just to be thoroughly ~~inconsistent~~ adaptable, let me note that as of today, Conservapedia's Alexa rank is showing as 106,476. (It was in the 500,000's yesterday, 1,900,000 a week ago, and at the time the original AFD took place Alexa didn't even know Conservapedia existed.) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P. S. In the past few days there has been an obvious improvement in speed. There has also been an influx of editing activity by usernames I haven't seen before, whose usernames do not fit the pattern that seems to have been used by most of the students. I have no idea what's going on; I suspect, guess, surmise that perhaps new users are being allowed in by invitation only. (I could always ask, but I haven't). Also, AFAIK Conservapedia has never billed itself as being a site that "anyone can edit." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed someone being welcomed who started editing today. You may also wish to check out Schlafly's user talk page discussing the subject. Andjam 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can Email the Eagle Forum to request a username and account. I'm going to test the waters of Conservapedia... wish me luck in closed-mindedville. --Hojimachong^talk 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality or content of it, look at the reaction it's generated. Since it's well-known enough to generate demand for a page and a nonstub talk page, it's well-known enough to get an article.--Loodog 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a notability criterion. Many things get created and generate talk page discussions repeatedly that are then deleted. The real issue is that it satisfies WP:WEB- or roughly speaking , we have enough verifiable information to write a non-trivial article on the topic. JoshuaZ 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is verification that registration is closed - the site itself. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup Yeah, I know, primary source, but better than nothing. I also used WebCite in order to avoid link rot. http://www.webcitation.org/5NCEymAIt --Phirazo 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Democrat

Someone may need to adjust the Democrat reference as the article has been changed. G e o. Talk to me 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I am currently a fairly active editor of Conservapedia, I do not intend to edit Wikipedia's article on it myself.

But I'd add that I see a problem with it the sentence anyway. It says "The article on the United States Democratic Party had been criticised for including the seemingly pejorative sentence," but:

The cited source does not support that assertion. The cited Guardian article [7] does include that "seemingly pejorative" sentence. But the article does not criticize Conservapedia for including it, nor does it say that anybody else has criticized Conservapedia. The Guardian quotes it without comment, simply as an illustration of the difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia.
In the phrase "seemingly pejorative," "seemingly" is an obvious weasel term and "pejorative" is patent editorializing.

(Not that it isn't pejorative, mind you, and not that Conservapedia doesn't deserve criticism for it, mind you!) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the reference doesn't back up the statement in the article, and that its a questionable criticism to begin with. Its not like we don't have plenty of criticisms. I would not be opposed to just removing the text. Tmtoulouse 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, I don't think we can back it up. Tmtoulouse 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon Swift

The source article from Wired has him down as a "conservative blogger" a user has suggested that he is satirical and not a conservative, does anyone care about this? Should we use "conservative" "satirical" or no adjective at all? Tmtoulouse 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian which mentioned him described him as conservative. JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need to class him at all? Isn't it better to be silent than be knowingly wrong just because somebody else was? I've tried to find an outside source to state that Jon Swift is satirical, but he doesn't appear to break character and it's proving difficult. All I've found is his nomination as best humor blog in the Weblog Awards. AlmostReadytoFly 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:ATT mean we go with sources on these issues, so we defiantly wouldn't call him satirical or liberal, but I don't see it as a requirement that we HAVE to class him. The point that was originally being made was that even conservatives were being critical. I think we should get more input on this, and in the mean time keep the original authors sourced wording till consensus breaks the other way. Tmtoulouse 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. This is difficult. I would however, point out that with the Sullivan comment we already have evidence of conservatives being unhappy without it being necessary to mention Swift at all. However, clearly the reference we have thinks he isn't a satirist and mentions him because of his negative opinions about the subject coupled with his self-identifying conservatism. Given that, if we do mention him at all we should mention that he is conservative since that's part of what makes his criticism notable. JoshuaZ 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

German sources

We have two german sources now[8] [9]. I think with sources in languages other than English any notability doubts should be gone. Also, if someoen who knows German can maybe skim these and see if there is anything worth including that would be helpful. JoshuaZ 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My very limited German makes me think that the last paragraph of the Heise article is concerning lack of registration access. Someone with more knowledge should take a look. If so, we have a reference for the lack of ability to register new accounts. JoshuaZ 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Babelfish is better than nothing. I think you can tell from Babelfish that these sources have nothing new.

But the clumsy machine translations are always entertaining, and some irony even comes through:

"Completely essentially and objectively also the democrats are explained: "democratic choice success reveals a trueful program of the Zur?weichens before the terrorism, the verr?rischen anti-Americaism and the verachtung f?die Gr?ungsprinzipien America."

"In the USA fundamental-Christian groups united, in order to make for the InterNet encyclopedia Wikipedia competition. Equivalent two alternative offers explain the world from the view of the creationists - and provide thereby for a quantity to involuntary humor."

"While CreationWiki strives however ostentativ, to protect at least the appearance from objectivity to - even if the self understanding is designated clearly as "creationistic" - the Conservapedia is primarily a relatively dry agitation project without each realization gain. The conservative attorney Andy Schlafly rammed it in November 2006 with 58 High School pupils from the soil, because he the opinion was that the world needs a "source of knowledge for a general public without the defects of Wikipedia", as it said "Wired".

Don't you love "Rammed it in November 2006 with 58 High School pupils from the soil?" Dpbsmith (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of the Heise article is just about temporary server overload. Babelfish offers:

Gegenw?ig cannot be attained Conservapedia. M?icherweise was success and/or the demand with the curious ones too gro? Obviously did InterNet users afflict the Christian-fundamentalist on-line Enzyklop?e and Beitr? verunstaltet or parodiert. Schlafly does not find that so problematic. One made the Ver?erungen r?g?ig, was pleased the access too some IP addresses closed and otherwise?r the increased attention (fr/Telepolis) Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

well, what does "Gegenwärtig" mean? That seems relevant. I agree, there isn't anything new other than to make the notability somewhat more clear cut. JoshuaZ 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit about Conservapedia's "recent" down time:

"Currently, it is impossible to reach/connect/access Conservapedia. Possibly, the success or the demand of the curious visitors was too large." It then goes on about vandalism and how Schlafly doesn't find it problematic.

So no, no mention of registration. --Sid 3050 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Erk, German. :P Lemme see... (I'm German with good English knowledge, but I'm not a professional translator. I'll try to stick as close to the source text as possible without sounding silly. Also avoiding too long sentences) The parts that are not already mentioned in the other sources:

Second paragraph of Heise: "The project has been initiated by the lawyer Andy Schlafly, who also runs the Eagle Forum University. The Eagle Forum University also offers online courses that are based on Conservapedia, for example about American History. The "University" is associated to / affiliated with (note: both terms translate to "angegliedert", I'm not sure which fits better in the context) the Eagle Forum, which has been founded by Schlafly's mother. Phyllis Schlafly has always fought against feminism and for the conservative family and Christian values."
Heise, last sentence, third paragraph: "Generally, Wikipedia is alleged to be 'six times more liberal' than the American people, while Conservapedia praises itself for being free of 'political correctness'."
In the second-to-last paragraph of Heise: "Kangaroos are descendants of their ancestors from Noah's Ark, but there is also something astonishing to report: 'Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?'"
Spiegel mentions the article about "Gene" and quotes this version (which is also the current version at the moment) in its entirety. They also mention that the CreationWiki article for Gene(s) is "free of Evolution-bashing".
Spiegel, two paragraphs above "Auch Konservative haben Humor": "Although, while browsing, you sometimes question/doubt the intelligence of the creators of Conservapedia. For example when you compare the pure length of the entry for the Bible (roughly 1,300 characters) with the article for Dan Brown's catholicism-critical novel "The Da Vinci Code" (roughly 47,000 characters)."
- Note: I'm not sure which page of the Da Vinci Code they refer to, though. There are actually to different versions of that entry: Da vinci code and The Da Vinci Code. Maybe someone with edit rights should suggest a merge of the two? --Sid 3050 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Spiegel also refers to this article (which I can't access right now) to mention that more than 60 IP addresses have been blocked already due to "the shocking degree of vandalism or obscenity" (I think it's a quote of a Conservapedia edit note, but I'm not sure, so I translated it back to English).

Overall, nothing world-shaking, I guess. The link to the Eagle Forum University (and the course material) might be inclusion-worthy. I'll leave it to you guys. --Sid 3050 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have been looking for a source to work in the Eagle University stuff i will see what I can do. Tmtoulouse 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

American nationalism

The first sentence currently says:

...whose articles are supportive of conservative Christianity, social conservatism, and American nationalism.

Now the first two appear to be affirmed by both the site itself and all commentators, but the site does not, as far as I can tell, claim to support "American nationalism", and it would probably dispute that label (claiming instead that it's merely "not anti-American"). If this is a widely held view of the site anyway, we should cite a prominent commentator or two who has called it "American nationalist", and reword to say something like "many commentators have called its articles supportive of American nationalism, although the site itself describes them as [foo]". --Delirium 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New addition on Eagle Forum University

Based on the German source I want to insert:

"==Involvement with Eagle Forum==

In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for various online courses, for example on American History, is stored on the site. [10] [11] [12]. Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. [13] "

What do you guys think? Tmtoulouse 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a university for these people? That's pretty... scary. I wanted to add your paragraph right when I read it, but I will give you the pleasure of putting your well-sourced and informative statement into the page. I just made one spelling correction ;-). --Hojimachong^talk 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it in, but I am not sure how to properly format the ref tags..if someone knows how to do that? If not I will try and figure it out. Thanks! Tmtoulouse 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. --Hojimachong^talk 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Quarterly

Does anyone have access to this article? [14] Tmtoulouse 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference to theories

May I suggest that "and that gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven." is removed from the list of Conservapedia statements that contradict scientific consensus? The recognition of the difference between theory and fact is fairly strong in the scientific consensus, so this doesn't fit in with the obvious contractictions in the previous statements. I also just checked the article on Newton and it no longer makes the statement. There are plenty of Wikipedia revisions that could infer the same thing. BigBlueFish 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's impossible to ever prove anything. Sure, 2+2 has been 4 every time you've ever tried it, but you can't use that to predict the future - next time it might be 5. However, that doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't cite that 2+2=4 for all t. Evolution has been seen in action - there was a study done recently which introduced a predator to an island. The animals first grew longer legs to run away better, then learnt to climb trees. Similarly, gravity is an accepted scientific fact, for the most part, although there are people going on about Modified Newtonian Dynamics, Very Special Relativity and the like. However, these are all variations on a theme of trying to match a known fact to observation. Gravity exists, it's caused by mass. That's undeniable fact. It is not caused by God saying "I think Wile E Coyote should fall off a cliff". mattbuck 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to challenge either theory, just making a suggestion about the logical validity of the statement in the article. Do you have any opinion of it? It's neither the best nor the only example we have on contradictions with scientific consensus.

Going back off on the tangent you started, I think you misjudge the maturity and strength of consensus of both theories. The specific nature of evolution, even evolution by natural selection, is far from agreed or known, and as for gravity, you mention mass, yet nobody really knows what actually gives something mass or why that results in gravitational fields. I sincerely doubt, however, that any conversation here will result in scientific breakthroughs in this field so that's the last thing I'm saying on the matter. We can all read the relevant Wikipedia articles and their sources if we're interested in the scientific climate of these subjects. BigBlueFish 11:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They weren't picked at random from the conservapedia site, in fact none of the articles discussed were chosen by us per say, they were all articles that were discussed in the secondary sources. That was the grounds for inclusion, not their true accuracy or inaccuracy. Since the grounds for inclusion is discussion in WP:RS the fact that the articles are revised to fix the errors doesn't change the grounds for inclusion. However, we do have it in the article that they have been updated, one of the only unsourced potentially WP:OR items no one here is arguing about, because it seems only fair to include it.Tmtoulouse 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

French source too

[15] someone who speaks french may want to look at it to see if there is anything new. JoshuaZ 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I read through it and its pretty much the same information as before the only thing a little new is that, like the German article it talks about the Da Vinci code article, also says that the gun control article reads like an essay in support of the right to bear arms rather than something in an encyclopedia. Tmtoulouse 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the French site didn't miss a chance to poke fun at the kangaroo bit, "Dans Conservapédia, les Kangourous sont très sérieusement décrits comme provenant de l’Arche de Noë..." Jim62sch 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[1] [16]

[2] [17]

[3] [18]

[1]

[2]

[3]