Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 12

another one of Andy's complaints

On Dec. 13, Andy Schlafly added to the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page that this article "conceals" how CP is an educational resource. Thoughts? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's any reliable third party reference to CP as an educational resource, then it could (should?) be included. Your task: to find such a reference (we can wait). TheresaWilson (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)First thought: there's no point jumping through Andy's hoops to double check his claims. Second thought: aren't we trying to reduce dependence on CP? It's a primary source. Is there a source outside of CP that quotes Andy saying this? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Totnesmartin. "Concealing" implies that we purposefully try to hide it. We're simply not mentioning the "educational resource" because, if it exists, its not important enough to be mentioned in a secondary source, and, therefore, not important enough to be mentioned here. Idag (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what's he mithering about, it's mentioned in the History and overview section (first and second paragraphs). Totnesmartin (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, but shouldn't we imply that CP considers itself an "educational resource"? It says so in its About and Differences from Wikipedia pages. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to cast aspersions, but I doubt Schlafly read beyond the first paragraph. Fishal (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

But I really think that Schlafly points out that we don't mention that CP is intended as a general educational resource, not just for his own homeschoolers/Eagle Forum University students. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, "educational resource" is implicit in the word "encyclopedia". Totnesmartin (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The article contains the following: "Schlafly has expressed hope that Conservapedia will become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceives in Wikipedia," and that sentence was present before December 13th. The complaint is baseless. - Nunh-huh 19:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's in the very first section after the lead. And it's tagged to two footnote citations. Agree fully with Nuh-huh. Fishal (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess either Schlafly either is willfully ignorant or has a low level of reading comprehension - something we wouldn't want to find in a lawyer (especially if he attended Harvard!) I guess we can move on to more important matters now. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But do check out an IP edit war from 86.128.102.95. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is still at it! (Much though I agree with the entry -it's not referenced enough) TheresaWilson (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it would be advantageous to explain this to the IP editor - I'm not sure anyone has provided an appropriate explanation to him, as terse edit summaries are a very poor way to engage editors. I've made an attempt on his talk page; others should feel free to improve it. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't even know if the IP has even seen the edit comments. I've seconded your talk page comment. TheresaWilson (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall the original LA Times article by Stephanie Wilson referring to Bethany (not using her name, of course) as a student, and quoting her saying something about courses on the site. That could be used as a source, no? --Hojimachong^talk 05:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it does not specifically mention the courses offered on the site. --Hojimachong^talk 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Educational resource

I've removed two attempts to describe the "Educational resource" aspect of Conservapedia.[1] [2]

They both contained non-neutral language and seemed to amount to critiques of the website.

There is also a minor problem with presenting anything about a website on the say-so of its authors. The time to write significant content about this would be when we have information about it from a reliable source. Until then such time as that happens we should include perhaps a single sentence to the effect that the website also hosts courses. --TS 04:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the removal of some aspects of the bits I wrote, but I think it was unnecessary to remove it all. The points regarding the marking were based upon statistics which can easily be calculated from the website itself, and I would think it a very significant point that the average mark is in the high 90s with no one scoring below 90%. I think this marking despite obvious errors etc is a point of note no matter what your opinion of the subject matter itself. I think anyone who has ever been to school will easily identify that the questions asked are meant to be essay questions, and the factual errors in the lectures themselves are self-evident, with the example I provided being one of them. I will repost the section, but I will delete the aspects that for now I think may be more questionable, at least in terms of sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 (talk • contribs)

Your comments would be better suited for RationalWiki. We're not here to dish every little detail about CP, only the ones that are essential for a reader's understanding.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I'll be sure to look at RationalWiki, but I think the material I added regarding the courses is appropriate given the claims Conservapedia makes to be an educational resource. The grade inflation is obvious, all I actually did was state the statistics and not that this was in fact grade inflation, that can be left for readers to determine, especially since the link is provided. Additional sources seem unnecessary for what is a statistical fact that can be found on the website itself. I can perhaps appreciate the need for extra sources for my other two main points, especially to one highlighting the lack of scientific understanding shown by that example from the lectures, and I shall try and provide a good ref for that soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When we represent an opinion (such as the opinion that there is grade inflation) we need to be clear that this isn't our opinion but a widely represented one. Since we have no reliable sources for the observation, we cannot do that. It's original research on our part. The fact that evidence of grade inflation can be derived by analyzing the website doesn't absolve us of the requirement for reliable sources. --TS 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems an odd policy that statistics derived directly from the website itself, without any actual mention of personal opinion of grade inflation, require additional references which will simply be someone else's opinion that there is in fact grade inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I could say something like "Representative X opposes environmental regulation; Representative X has received donations of $3,000,000 from local heavy plant industries." I haven't explicitly created a link, nor drawn a conclusion, but the writing isn't neutral because it's slanted to convey a point of view (which may well be valid but that's not the problem.) If on the other hand I say "The Green Party has added Representative X to its list of those in Congress who have opposed environmental regulation after accepting donations from heavy industry", that's writing a fact about an opinion. --TS 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Parody?

Are we sure this is not a bad parody/spoof site? The Barack Obama article boggles the mind. [Per the "right-wing debate"] were the "criminally misinformed" members of the the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 even allowed a seat?   Redthoreau(talk)RT 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there's speculation on RationalWiki that Schlafly could be a parodist, but the argument runs along the lines of "surely nobody could actually believe that" - but apparently they do. We, however, can't really put it it the article until a reliable source mentions it, and discussing it here won't really improve the article. This talk page isn't a forum, remember. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Totnes, I agree on the WP:forum, I guess I just got caught up in 'thinking out loud', and found myself astonished after reading the above entry ("cerebral bewilderment" can be a perplexing thing). As for this article, I would suggest going the extra mile to give their site as fair and neutral a representation as possible ... despite the fact that they seem to have little regard for such standards with others. In some respects, this wikipedia article could act as a symbolic example of our sites competing missions. By ‘turning the other proverbial cheek’ and granting them an objective review, wikipedia can display the sort of reportorial standards, that unfortunately their site (legit or not) seems to be sorely lacking.   Redthoreau(talk)RT 18:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can speak for all the regular contributors to this article when I say that that's been our goal for quite a while. Fishal (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it Fishal, and I have confidence you and others will continue do so.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Andy's a parodist, otherwise he wouldn't have blocked Bugler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.103.177 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing it has right

Unlike Wikipedia which is 42% libertarian, 40% socialist/liberal/democrat, and 8% conservative, at least conservapedia isn't disproportionately liberal like this site is. Oh another statistic that is irrefutable: wikipedians are 8 times more atheistic than the rest of the general population. Yea, there's some bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because we care about the truth. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Systemic Bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not state for a quest of "truth". "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." It's verifiability of those assertions, theories, etc. we Wikipedians are after. That's how a "liberal bias" could happen. Just a note. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 07:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How desperate can you be?! So what if most are atheist or liberals? WP has a system that prevents people from inserting their viewpoints into articles. On the other hand you could also say that CP is 8x more conservative than the general population. Diego_pmc ^Talk 10:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make up figures, how were these calculated? dougweller (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "calculating"... Why does everything on Wikipedia always have to be about such things as "calculating", "accuracy" and "facts"? :D 78.34.145.131 (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite apart from Benjamin Disraeli's comment on statistics - what definitions of liberal and conservative are being used? Given that Wikipedia's contributors come from "a large variety" of countries, cultures, and professions, most statistics beyond "higher degree of literacy, relevant computer skills and "use and interpretation of knowledge" than the average population are likely to be meaningless. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that this page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing Conservapedia or Wikipedia and certainly not for religious debate. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the "main issues" WP users have with Conservapedia have been repeatedly aired on the talk page.

Possibly some discussion could be decanted to the Wikinfo pages concerned with Conservapedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexism?

could we add "sexist" to young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian? looking for a source. obvious from original research, but i need a source (check out the differing tests for andy's student's exams on conservapedia, for example, girls get easier exams than boys)--Mongreilf (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not until a reliable, secondary source brings it up. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

well, duh. that was the point of my post. i think i said "source" twice, or didn't you read it? why do so many wikipedia editors assume everyone is some newbie who needs to be told this?--Mongreilf (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is "sexism", it must be apparent in the whole of Conservapedia (ie. articles of female politicans written in a demeaning manner), not one admin's personal pages. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

no, it only needs to be verifiable etc. haha--Mongreilf (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually hiding arguments?

I just got an IP ban from conservapedia for the reason that I tried to make a reasoned and loigical argument that Obama was not a Muslim and I got an infinite IP ban. Is there any case to have something said about moderation and censorship on the site? I wasn't even provided with an opportunity to make my case or even edit my post, of which was rather angry, but still a reasoned argument, which was entirely removed though I made it point-by-point with reasoned evidence.

And on a side note, I am in Australia, am I safe from the United States code?

Katana Geldar 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary source discussing censorship on Conservapedia, then we can include it. Keep in mind that the source must meet the requirements of WP:V. With regard to the U.S. code, it only works within the U.S., and, even if it didn't, I wouldn't be too scared as Conservapedia folks like to threaten people w/ litigation that any judge would throw out in a heartbeat. Idag (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki has a long section about censorship on Conservapedia. This article also talks about it. It raised an interesting point, Conservapedia often slams Wikipedia for it's "censorship", here's another thing we can get them for. And yes, I am disgruntled but I have since heard a little about the admin that banned me there.Katana Geldar 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't a reliable source (for a number of reasons). --TS 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And also, this article isn't out to "get" Conservapedia. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, a good secondary source is something like a book or a newspaper article. Take a look at the requirements in WP:V. Idag (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't a reliable source , but it IS a notable critic of the site. The reality is, Conservapedia is completely barmy, and the fact that its being used as an educational resource for homeschoolers is deeply worrying, so the fact that Rational Wiki is a critic shouldn't be a criteria to disqualify it from being a critic, because thats illogical. 116.212.202.114 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CP: they may just have a point

We don't tend to add all of an organization's beliefs in the opening paragraph for articles concerning progressive/liberal groups (sometimes not even labelling them, instead letting a quotation do that job), let alone first sentences like this one. I do not know (and frankly don't care) about the proportions of liberals and conservatives in WP, but does "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view" sound like a good lead for an encyclopedic article? Is this some kind of warning or what?

My proposal is to change that opening sentence to just reduce the clutter of claims (not matter how citation-able they are) to just Conservative Christian. The other three have been tediously expanded and "explained" in Conservapedia#Editorial viewpoints and policies, maybe to an unnecessary extent, and the "Conservative Christian" phrase covers the political aspect, as well as the religous part about the site. Short and simple, and mostly controversy-free!

(I had written this right after reading Conservapedia's own little debate.) --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia was explicitly founded for ideological reasons, so of course its ideology belongs in the lede of our article. As for the debate on Conservapedia you linked to, it seems that there's agreement that our description is accurate, and some disagreement as to whether it's pejorative. Schlafley's claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I think you'd be hard pressed to find "right wing" listed as a pejorative term in any dictionary. I think the only reasonable objection to "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view" is that it crams a lot of information into one sentence. I would see no harm in removing young earth creationist from the lede (while retaining it elsewhere), since the YEC viewpoint isn't Conservapedia's raison d'être. But otherwise, it's a right-wing Christian American website specifically founded because Schlafley thought Wikipedia was too atheist (allowed C.E. and B.C.E. dates), too left-wing, and too international (allowed British spellings). If you'll note in the talk page's archives, the reason "right wing" is used here rather than "conservative" is that "conservative" means one thing to Schlafley, and another to many of our readers. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave as is. Nuhn-huh deals with most of the relevant points. Given that Conservapedia's YECism is something that has gotten it a lot of attention in press (indeed, almost every article about Conservapedia mentions it) it would not make sense to remove that either. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

it could sound like a warning depending on your perspective. if you're an atheist liberal biologist, it might be a warning. if you're a fundamentalist right wing creationist who doesn't believe in dinosaurs, it wouldn't be a warning. i think it's neutrally worded because it's factual. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken

CP has died, or so it appears. The site is completely inaccessible. Is this worth mentioning? Anyone know? --70.208.4.24 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning. Stuff like this used to happen to Wikipedia every other day before server side management got really slick. It looks as if they may have fumbled a dbms upgrade. --TS 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Temporarily" shifted to http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Main_Page. Koro Neil (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but currently operating on what looks like a locked copy of their weekly backup. The latest entry in Recent Changes is 19 January. --TS 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be encyclopedia material in this. The political blog Wonkette, and now Chris Steller in the Minnesota Independent, report that Conservapedia carried an article titled "Senate Democrats from States with Republican Governors", which read:

The Constitution provides that if a senator is unable to complete his or her term then the governor of the state will appoint a replacement Senator. Below is a list of Senate Democrats from States with Republican Governors. Currently the Democrats hold a 58 seat majority in the Senate. If these Senators were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors, the Republican Party would regain a commanding majority in the Senate sufficient to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from socializing medicine, nationalizing the financial and auto industries, and creating a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.

This was followed by a list of about 14 Democrat senators. The Minnesota Independent reports that Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was one of them.

The Minnesota Independent reports that the site later replaced the article by a message blaming the article on internet vandals and "terrorists".

• Wonkette report

• Minnesota Independent report

As yet there is no news from Conservapedia about why the site is down, but it's conceivable that the reason is related to that. I personally checked the history of the article and found that the creator was User:QWest, who doesn't look like any kind of vandal or "terrorist", but alas I am not a reliable source. --TS 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya gotta love Wonkette, who describes Wikipedia as "filthy with scientific facts and frighteningly detailed Buffy the Vampire Slayer trivia" and terms it the "homosexual devil box"; but ya gotta love the Minnesota Independent more, since they quote Schafley's favorite part of this article. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys think, but CP looks dead. Both Conservapedia.com and conservativeencyclopedia.com are inaccessible. Can we pronounce? --75.196.82.17 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like more than a glitch. I'd say it rates at least a mention in the article; it can be removed later if it's resurrected.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little silly. What if it's down this week, then up next week, then down the week after that? Report up to the minute updates on the status? More likely they are trying to change the domain and are having technical difficulties. Now if a news article comes out that says that Schlafly shut down CP, that would be a whole other issue... JazzMan 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of working right now ... http://www.conservapedia.com/wiki/Main_Page works, and although http://www.conservapedia.com/ doesn't load it gives you a directory which will lead you to the right page. And http://www.conservapedia.com/wiki/Obama is now the URL of the article for Obama (previously it was just http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama ). So more than likely they're just configuring stuff and can't maintain 100% uptime during configs unlike Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Wikipedia had outages. They're not worth mentioning. TK says he disagrees with my on the authorship of the article. He says he's pretty sure it was by a parodist (QWest is apparently the name of an ISP).

The Wonkette thing may be worth a mention, especially as it was also mentioned by Minnesota Independent. But it's a bit borderline. --TS 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

After its original creation the list was edited by several "respected" sysops who didn't see fit to radically amend it. Anyhow there is now a hiatus in the wiki's history (loss of about a week's edits) which has removed the "Wonkette thing" from existence so rendering its inclusion impossible. TheresaWilson (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The loss of the primary source has no bearing on whether we should write about it in the article. At this point I only question whether the two secondary sources we have are prominent enough coverage. I think probably not (though I note that PZ Myers' Pharyngula has also picked up on it, in part due to my own blogging [3]). --TS 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I find it more amusing, in that it shows CP's lack of self examination, than significant. TheresaWilson (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the article was created by vandals, or edited by "senior sysops" (and let's face it: who's to say they aren't vandals anyway?), the Wonkette article is trying to suggest that the article was a hit list. This seems a little far-fetched, especially when the average Conservapedian is probably pretty bitter about the '08 election and wants to have hope (heh) that things will turn around. If you take out the conspiracy theory element of it, then there's no noteworthiness to the article anyway, and it should be left out. JazzMan 06:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia and modernism

From the main page "The Conservapedia Evolution Article is Picking Up Steam" - "full steam ahead": slightly anachronistic.

Is the comment under the heading "Please Sign the Academic Freedom Petition" an ezample of begging the question.

The appearance or unavailability of CP (or any other website) is only noteworthy if it is a frequent occurence.

To what extent is this talk page an "analysis of the subject and reactions to it" rather than discussing the WP article itself? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation 11

Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard’s line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-06-08.

Not exactly what I would support as a citation in any article. While I may agree with a number of the sentiments about Conservapedia, the writer is clearly biased. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anything, it only adds fuel to the fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHarnden86 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Three of the four things that use the ^[11] tag have other citations backing up the same claim and thus the '11' could be dropped safely; the other one is a claim that Conservapedia states that abortion causes breast cancer. While this is true right now, it might not be in the future. As a general rule, describing the contents of any wiki is probably a bad idea as it may change at any time. So that part might be a good idea to remove.

However, to answer your main objection, there's no policy against using biased and/or critical reviews as references. The only requirement is that the whole article has to balance out to satisfy NPOV. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's the characteristically graphic Australian use of the vernacular that causes RHarnden86 to pick up on this citation in particular, but the critique provided in that article is, you will find if you check it, cogent and factual. Mahoney demonstrates that a Conservapedia article on evolution selectively quotes a source, E G Corner, in such a manner as to give a misleading impression. He make several remarks on Conservapedia's reference to the hippocratic oath, supported in part by a work from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library of the University of Virginia health system. He provides solid evidence from a recent Harvard study and a 2003 workshop of the National Cancer Institute to refute the false claim, made by Conservapedia, that "the vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer." This is a first class reference. If it says that Conservapedia is grossly inaccurate, that isn't a result of bias but of solid evidence and logical argument. --TS 11:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The content of the article was not so much an issue, to me, as the tone. Thank you for your clear, prompt response.RHarnden86 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the tone because it's important to get it right on such a sensitive subject (a competitor to Wikipedia). What's your opinion? Do you have specific examples where we are getting it wrong? --TS 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, but: "a competitor to Wikipedia"? You're jesting, surely. The only claim for that point of view is from the 4 or 5 Conservapedia sysops who're as deluded as Schlafly. I'd be more prepared to put it in category "Comic websites" and forget it. TheresaWilson (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They certainly see themselves in that light. I agree that they're not significant competition for mindshare (I checked Alexa the other day and Wikipedia's daily reach is over 8%, whereas Conservapedia's is just over 0.002%), but they are ideological competitors and tend to be depicted in that light in the press. I think we do owe them a duty to be scrupulously fair because there is a clear conflict of interest. --TS 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead?

Site is being redirected to http://serv01.m264.sgded.com/suspended.page/ (which doesn't exist) - does it mean it's dead? --79.41.234.132 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the DNS has been hacked. Possibly the hosting service screwed up. --TS 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Images for deletion category

I notice that the article is in the category "iamges for deletion". which image id for the chop, though? They're both stated as public domain, so it's not a copyright issue - is it because of the "personality rights" thing on the picture of Schaffers? What is to be done? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reference update

The link for reference 65 is broken but can now be found at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog. 97.114.175.157 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The link seems to work again now. --TS 10:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Trustworthy Encyclopedia? Yea, right.

"The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits (see Medical marijuana) although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment."

I know this isn't directly related to the article, but I couldn't resist putting it in. I copied and pasted this straight from the Conservapedia article about "marijuana". Hallucinations? That's ridiciulous. Not even LSD causes true hallucinations. The article even goes on to say "Marijuana is mostly favored by liberals and hippies". Lol, what is this biased drivel? And to think I couldn't even edit it to "protect against vandalism".--206.28.43.170 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• If we're going to try and list every single example of bias over there, this article is going to get veeeeeeeeeeeery long. Look at their page on Obama, whom they unfailingly refer to as "Barak Hussein Obama." They're still beating the dead horse of the birth certificate issue, and insinuating he is a "secret" Muslim. I've nevewr read such drivel in my life. And yet, Shlafley mocks anyone who suggests editing the article so that it reflects the actual facts, and accuses them of being "secret" liberals. I think simply having a link to their main page is enough, anyone can see from even a cursory glance at any one of their articles that there is no attempt at accuracy, just blatant POV pushing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't mean to add on to a useless section, but check out their article on "Liberal". It says "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical common sense, often for self centered reasons". Oh, so Environmentalism is self-centered? Man, I guess they could teach me something! Seriously though, it's a joke. And nearly every page over there is locked to where nobody can even update them, let alone insert actual facts. Their admins are mad with power too, no joke I saw a person who got blocked for 5 years in the block log with only 2 edits in his history. The reason for the block- "I warned you, cite your sources".--Metalhead94 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

'Quite a few' Conservapedia entries do not cite sources. The entry on Elizabeth the Queen Mother - at [4] is 'somewhat POV'.

Anything which describes itself as 'a trustworthy encyclopedia' immediately raises suspicions of the reverse. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And for about a year the caption was 'trusworthy.' --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: User:the_ed17/Why Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia. 206.28.43.170, if you registered there and removed that, you'd get blocked for "liberal POV pushing". I'd bet money on that happening! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AS much fun as this may be, this is not the place to discuss the merits and otherwise of Conservapedia. Please stop. TheresaWilson (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a "Criticism of Conservapedia" page over on Wikinfo - and critiques, reviews, analyses from various points of view and positive discussions of the topic (or any other) are also welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs a POV check

I just read this article, and frankly, it reads just as much as a condemnation of Conservapedia as a description of it. Yes it's hard to dispute that CP is biased, but this is wikipedia, and we have to rise above that. The main issue I have is that criticism of the site is scattered all over this article, instead of being limited to a Criticisms section; by contrast, it's a lot harder to find supporting comments of CP. Again, I openly acknowledge that it may be a lot harder to find the good in CP than the bad, but that's no excuse to tip the scales.

My suggestion is either move the critisms scattered throughout the article into one single section, or remove those outside the article. Alternatively, if this won't come across as a POV fork, most of the criticisms could be moved to its own article, thus leaving this one a lot easier to balance. toll_booth (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Criticisms" sections are definitely not considered acceptable; POV forks are not acceptable. There's been no tipping of the scales here; we have reported the reactions as they are available to us, and proportionately. That the end result is unfavorable to Conservapedia is not our fault, and doesn't mean we change the rules. - Nunh-huh 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address my concern, though. The article reads like one giant condemnation of the site, and IMO that is POV. toll_booth (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, the article is decently weighted. We don't need to 'tell both sides' equally if, so far as reliable and verifiable information goes, they aren't. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, that makes it harder to do. But per wikipedia policy, we still ought to try. toll_booth (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not Wikipedia policy. Please look at WP:UNDUE, which is a section of the policy on expressing a neutral point of view you cite. To use an extreme (and admittedly Godwinned) example, we can't devote half of Adolf Hitler to a discussion of how he kept the trains running on time. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can find reliable sources that praise Conservapedia, we can write about them. If we cannot, then the article will be negative and that's a reflection of the sources. The Neutral point of view doesn't mean we balance negative points by fabricating positive points where there are no reliable sources reporting anything positive. --TS 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is compare this article with other resources on Conservapedia and compare/contrast their tone and focus. Articles on things widely regarded as negative will be negative, as per NPOV's essential mirroring of the general consensus in published materials. Similarly, the article on insulin is likely to be very positive, as insulin is really good and almost everyone agrees on that. WilyD 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article must mirror the secondary sources about Conservapedia, not articles that are contained on Conservapedia. If a secondary source praises Conservapedia for a positive article, then we can put it in. Idag (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

on Convervapedia = of which Conservapedia is the subject. Secondary sources seem to have very little positive to say about Conservapedia, as far as I can see, though. WilyD 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then that is what this article must mirror. Idag (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so in other words, if about 90% of external sources have something bad to say about it, and less than 10% have something good, it is *not* POV to have the subsequent article be overall negative? toll_booth (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's it. If the sources reflect general opinion, and split 90/10, then our goal is for the article to also split 90/10. That is NPOV; treating opinions which have different levels of support as though they had equal levels of support is POV and, frankly, misinformative if not deceptive. - Nunh-huh 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Any other comments before the NPOV-check tag comes down? toll_booth (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I mention the Wikinfo "Criticisms of Conservapedia" page [5] in this context, as a way of resolving the above issue. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, the issue seems to be about a misunderstanding of how the NPOV policy works. — R² 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks for the feedback, everyone, I learned a few things about wikipedia. :) toll_booth (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that some template or warning should be put up that, although this is as NPOV as possible, this does reflect a negative view of Conservapedia. 24.141.132.222 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't reflect a negative view of that ... place. It presents a realistic view. That's like saying that being objective about the Ku Klux Klan is being "negative" by pointing out they're a bunch of ignorant racist cowards. If Conservapedia was anything but completely over the top in what it was, you would have a valid point, as it is, it's almost like a Colber-esque parody. I'm afraid that trying to find some kind of token positive or placing some kind of happy label on the page saying "Gee, this sounds awfully negative, we're sorry" is very simply denying the bald ugly truth. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As you understand, Conservapedia is derived from the words conservative and encyclopedia. I doubt the editors would prevent the site from living up to its name. "Let the my truth set you free" said the anonymous being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.11.205 (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's just like how the Discovery Institute actually discovers things, Scientology is based on the study of Scients, and my achilles tendon actually came from a god. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd venture to say that most conservatives who are aware of it find Conservapedia to be an embarrassment. So I think the article reflects reality. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all wrong, this article is being done in the style of its subject. Something seems inherently wrong with that. It doesn't feel encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.251.173 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Assessment

Looking over the article, I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. Would anyone be uncomfortable if I nominated it? Idag (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Make it so Mr Idag. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye captain. Idag (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, but it does seem rather ironic. I suppose if 4chan can be a featured article, this can too. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think maybe conservapedia will make [6] their featured article? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is the link to the featured article discussion. [7] There appear to be some sourcing concerns, so some more established editors of this article may wish to comment as well. Idag (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there's some FAC suggestions about the citation tags in this article (see above link to FAC). I'm not very proficient with those tags, so is there someone here who wouldn't mind taking care of that? Idag (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The assessment is over - Conservapedia will not be promoted to FA. The discussion is now here. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

recent lede change

Today the phrase "Biblical literalist" was added to the lede and "young Earth creationist" was removed. I'd like some opinions on this. I think it's not a good change: [1] Conservapedia actually has a project to rewrite the Bible, hardly a "literalist" thing to do, and [2] young Earth creationism doesn't follow from literalism, as asserted, and [3] young Earth creationism is a striking feature of the website. The editors there devote far more attention to defending young Earth creationism than they do Bible literalism. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention that a young earth creationist doesn't necessarily have to literally interpret the biblical creation story, although it is fairly universal. YEC is broader and more encompassing anyway. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From the second in command at Conservapedia, referencing Andy's (and therefore Conservapedia's) position. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy's stated opinion on what Conservapedia is (and/or does) doesn't usually correspond to reality. And TK's stated opinion of Schlafly's opinion doesn't necessarily correspond with Schlafly's opinion. The lede is about what Conservapedia is, not what it thinks it is, or says it is. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy's description, or the descriptions from his administrators, are completely immaterial to this point. If a band self-describes as death metal when they clearly do not fit the criteria, they are not considered an authority. In fact, they never are. Ideally, the lead should describe that this is how conservapedia is reported to be. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who changed it to Biblical literalism. I felt it is a much more concise generalization of the CP belief system. Ie, they subscribe to YEC because it says so in the bible, they believe the flood actually happened because it's in the bible. Accepting the bible as literal truth is the defining quality of CP. I see no evidence of CP attempting to "rewrite the bible", if this is the case then the biblical literalism comment should be changed.Qc (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the case. Conservapedia's Bible Retranslation Project. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"young Earth creationism doesn't follow from literalism,"

I don't see how this is true. Using literal chronology one comes upon approximately 4000BC as the date of creation. read Ussher.

Qc (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you agree with them or not, some people think they are both biblical literalists and something other than Young Earth Creationists. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They've got Young & Old Earth Creationists in the Administrators. Ed Poor is OEC, I believe, while Schlafly & others are YEC. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one can actually define Andy as YEC. He has made some moedrately hostile remarks about YECs (collectively), including that they are materialists and likely liberals (which really is almost as strong an insult as Andy can make). The there are OECs and YECs in positions of authority. There are Christians, cultists and atheists in positions of authority. Therfore reporting "what it is" instead of "what it says it is" is pretty hard. It is a diverse community. Probably more diverse than Wikipedia in some respects. Oh, and "biblical literalism" is not an accurate description of the hermeneutic position of YECsLowKey (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheists? Name one please. (I believe that he (AS) did somewhere state that he had "converted" to a YEC belief in 2000CE - I'll look it up & get back with the info.) TheresaWilson (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly → YEC. here (I can't recall any "hostle remarks about YECs". He's lambasted a YECist (PJR) for not being pro-gun, not for being YEC. TheresaWilson (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-gun control", that should have said. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

doo thet nawt teech yoo Devonians too rede? It doo zay "For not being pro-gun" i.e. for being pro-gun control. Yew bee zilly, Martin vrom Totnes  :) TheresaWilson (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what happens when I edit on a Monday morning :( Totnesmartin (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And given CP's views on BritEnglish, what would they make of "local colloquial" etc: would Strine be acceptable Australian articles, etc - and what about Lallands for regional Scottish?

[8] [9] [10] or just read the whole discussion at [11]. Andy was definitely claiming that some significant number (IIRC it varied between "most" and "some") of YEC's are also materialists, and even said that many arrived at YEC for materialist reasons. I would normally say that he had misunderstood materialism, but we collectively defined both materialism and YEC a number of times, and he insisted that the link is undeniable. He also specically said that many are liberal (not just PJR). At some point (in some other discussion) Andy said that he rejected OEC, but lately he speaks of YEC as third party, and mostly critically. As to atheist sysops and senior editors, maybe I should say "until recently". There are a couple still around that I think are atheists but haven't said so; and most of those that were overtly atheist have been taken out by TK (and I don't mean socially).LowKey (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd put your 3 examples as Andy flailing in the dark in an attempt to justify otherwise unjustifiable statements. He changes his tune to match the dance, I don't think he's got the mental ability to know what he believes. The man and the website are ludicrous but he did state that he came to YEC in about 2000 CE, so, until he renounces it, that's what we've got to go on. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:) and that comes full circle to the question of do we report "what it is" or "what it says it is". Andy is a far right-wing conservative, and I think everything else in his worldview comes from that. Did you find a source for his statement that he came to YEC? I only found a comment of his that he rejected OEC, and with Andy that is not necessarily the same thing.LowKey (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly is certainly YEC, though he accepts people who aren't if they are conservative enough in other respects. His rants against YEC materialists are not against YEC. See, Andy has a bunch of criteria for what is a conservative, and one must meet just about all of them to qualify. Being YEC is not nearly as important to him as views on abortion, classroom prayer, and gun control (guns are more important than Jesus). His rants are a response to the idea that if someone is YEC they are de facto conservative, regardless of views on his Big Three issues. He tries to make the point, in his unique brand of idiocy, that plenty of ACLU-supporting, gun grabbing, atheistic liberals also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, so someone claiming they are conservative because, though they support gun control, they also believe God created Adam and Eve in 4004 BC, is meaningless to him. To Schalfly it's like saying "I'm conservative because I think the sky is blue"; to him it's so obvious that anyone with a brain thinks that. -R. fiend (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What R. fiend said. :) TheresaWilson (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this looks a bit like OR to me - surely what we can say is limited to two things: quoting CP as to their "official" position (pro-Christian?) and quoting what reliable sources say about their apparent position. We can't determine their apparent position on our own. Huw Powell (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's tons of OR here. I'm not saying that my explanation should be included in the article, I'm just trying to explain the warped mind of Andrew Layton Schlafly to any interested parties. As with any organization the "official" position of CP should be stated as their official position, whether it it true or not. They claim, for instance, to be an encyclopedia, when it's very clear that they re not one. -R. fiend (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this useable?

A Conservapedia sysop has retired from the site, and here is an essay describing his grievances. Can we use this as a reliable source? Or could it go into the External Links section? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not use Wikipedia Review or the pages Akahele.org, Wikipedia-Watch, or Wikitruth as reliable sources about criticism of Wikipedia. Some of it is just way over the top. Although Mr. Rayment sounds like a reasonable person (and I read the entire thing) I would not consider this a reliable source. He mentioned possible interviews with the Los Angeles Times. Is that already being used here? --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing yet - give it week or so? Assuming anyone does interview him, and if it gets printed. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

The article refers to Conservapedia as an "encyclopedia". I posit it'd be changed to either "project" or some other more appropriate description. Conservapedia is a social blog (or community blog, use whichever word you like), not an encyclopedia per se. The site does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Even if I call our cat a "horse", it's still a cat. Reminds me of the old joke "if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?". The answer is, of course, four. Just because you call the tail a "leg", doesn't a leg out of it make. The same w/ Conservapedia. Just because they call themselves an "encyclopedia", doesn't automatically make it so. The project must be assessed on it's own merits, and as it stands it doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. I posit this is a minor change, clarifying the position of the article. What saith thee, fellow WikiPedians? -82.181.94.185 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't describe it as a "blog" unless there are verifiable sources which do so. Otherwise Wikipedia editors are just placing their own POV into the article. & Then Wikipedia wouldn't be encyclopedic either. weaseL FETLOckS 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your input. However; although I also understand there's no need to continue this line of inquiry, I also fail to see how it's POV to use correct designations. Blog is perhaps then not correct, but neither is encyclopedia. Nevertheless, for now, this issue is then closed. (Sorry for not signing in.) -82.181.94.185 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with finding the "correct" designation is a big one: correct according to whom? Who decides correctness? The answer is reliable sources, which is why WP's guidelines on Original Research are so strict. Fishal (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The question perhaps, is to what extent can Conservapedia be compared to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia - which had its own particular viewpoint (albeit somewhat different from Conservapedia) or "Encyclopedia of (obscure topic of choice)" - which covers nothing outside that topic. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. All the while trying to steer clear from too much "forumness" in these talks, it'd definitively be of service if the issue could be addressed in a coherent fashion. Conservapedia is definitely not "well rounded" as is one criterion of an encyclopedia. A "special interest encyclopedia" seems to be the closest thing, but as said; without neither published sources nor scholarly consensus any change of designation would mean inserting POV into the article. (Sorry for not signing in again.) -128.214.133.2 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh - what's the point of this discussion? Conservapedia is obviously an encyclopaedia - with a POV, and a more specialised area of coverage - but those have nothing to do with what is, or isn't, an encyclopaedia. All the sources call it this too (for an obvious reason). This seems like simple soapboxing ... WilyD 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A concern is that if this article is calling it an encyclopedia then this article becomes a verifiable source for a flawed statement. Conservapedia's homepage is clearly an exposition of political views. I believe a neutral description such as "web site" would be accurate and would keep Wikipedia from validating a false identity. 12.144.219.194 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to it as an "encyclopedia project" in all but one place where it is refered to as an "encyclopedia" (Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[quote from page on this date]). In this one instance it is putting the views of the representatives of the website in context. This raises two issues, does "en.. project" imply all the factors of 'encyclopedia-ness' exist and should the reference to it as a "encyclopdedia" be in inverted commas to represent it as not a fact about C-pedia, but a represtatation of how the founders perceive it. (Protectthehuman (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC))