Talk:Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservapedia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Good article Conservapedia was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Contents

[edit] Rationwiki nowhere to be found

Hi, i was checking back on conserapedia and wikipedia has no reference to rationalwiki other than just one sentence or an article about it. even if an external link is deemed not needed, why not a sentence elaborating that since conservapedia was started in opposition to wikipedia, rationalwiki was started in opposition to conservapedia? The more information people have, the better, no? Saadbd (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They consider it an "enemy site", in fact, you type the words Rational wiki in an article or talk page, the filter tells you it has to be removed! "See no evil, hear no evil..." 123.243.72.161 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conservapedia is homophobic?

Hey, I checked out on conservapedia's homosexuality article and they seem to demonize gay people and say that gays are silencing free speech (but in reality, gays are being oppressed in hte U.S. when they denied the right to marry) and I notice there are lots of lies in conservapedia. So can I say that conservapedia is homophobic? --Dark paladin x (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not without citing WP:RS to comply with the core policies of Wikipedia - We rely on verifiability, not truth. I'm sure many, including myself, would agree with you, though that isn't the point. If you can find an outside source that has taken notice of the bias, then by all means introduce it into the article. Otherwise, we have a WP:OR problem. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, their homophobia is within their homosexual article itself. Also, they fail to mention how socialism tends to be more gay friendly. Dark paladin x (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{pseudoprotected}}

It seems that someone has decreed that I can't make substantial improvements to this article [1] without asking permission first. So, here goes: Is there some reason why we can't put cold, objective facts about CP in ahead of the WP:SYNTH-violating stuff about how it's not WP? Is it OK if I remove some of the editorializing verbiage from this article? I'm trying to push this article a little closer to something that demonstrates that Wikipedia can live up to its own standards. Mother may I? - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you often condescend to people you disagree with? It's a fairly unbecoming trait. I suggest you ditch that attitude and concentrate on JUST the article. In its present form (with the "editorializing verbiage" - if am interpreting you correctly) is precisely how the article should read. Wikipedia reports from the angle/perspective of the secondary party, not from itself - otherwise readers get the message that Wikipedia is drawing its own conclusions by each statement. It's merely your opinion that the article portrays a "Conservapedia is not Wikipedia message" - but, that's kinda the point since that's how, more or less, Conservapedia defines itself. For instance, why gut the lead as you did and reduce it to two sentences? As is, it's a good summary of the rest of the article per WP:LEAD. Wisdom89 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Declaring your favored version "precisely how the article should read" is not exactly respectful of a dissenting view. Which I have. Stating (as the article again does) that the content differences between WP and CP "stem from editorial differences" is WP drawing its own conclusions, rather than simply stating that 1) policy differences exist, and 2) content differences exist. Characterizing CP's version of science as "controversial" is unnecessary (and unsourced) commentary; its content speaks for itself. As for "gutting the lead", the material there did a poor job of characterizing the subject, so I moved it where it better belonged. YEC is only one of several recurring motifs (hardly the defining one), so I moved that to the section where the content of the site is described. And I added a header to place the longish history in a history section; the origin story of CP is not a current event anymore, and is no longer the most important aspect of the site. Note that I didn't remove any of the comparison between WP and CP that you're defending; I merely moved it beneath more neutral and objective information.
Now, if you think that the lead should contain more summary information (and I agree), you are of course free to add to it. If you think for some reason that the reader needs more help reaching the "correct" conclusions about CP, you can re-add the bits of commentary I snipped out. If you think that having an unflattering comparison of CP to WP as the very first section after the lead somehow doesn't reflect a pro-WP/anti-CP bias, you can move that back to the top. But please show a little more respect and faith in the wiki process, and keep your finger away from the rollback button. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The synth objection is a serious one. Do you have specific points that you think are serious original research? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American/British Spelling

I do not know the statement from Consevapedia that British spelling is "unpatriotic". This is the quote from the Conservapedia guidelines:

American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English

Jasra (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added requests for a couple of citations. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't go through the various newspapers, but I found two CP links. Since I dunno if CP itself counts as a source for those, I'll just post a few links here for now. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (Entry #22; it got removed in the following diff) and Conservapedia:Commandments (Entry #5; again, this is the last perma-link before the rule was removed). Might check the official news articles later - I'm pretty sure that at least some of them mentioned CP's "American English only" rule. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Numerous of the article's sources point out the spelling issue (TheStar, Heise, Guardian Unlimited, etc), but I like the way this site puts it, but then again, I like snarky comments. CP's own pages also bluntly imply British spelling being unpatriotic at least; for example this section where "PhilipB" (CP's webmaster) says: "The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words." --Sid 3050 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, I forgot that a CP link might constitute OR. I added one in that section, showing the edit to their "commandments" removing the American spelling rule. I understand if it has to be removed, and hope I didn't ruin the article in the meantime. Huw Powell (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Northwest tree octopus

Does anyone know of any sources connecting this to the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus on Conservapedia? They are clearly the same joke but linking the two is original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the article no longer exists on CP, so it's really no longer relevant. It was a hoax article, plain and simple (just like WP gets), and the fact that CP admins failed to catch it (like happens to WP sometimes) isn't particularly noteworthy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes except for the fact that the person who runs the project claimed in a reliable source that it wasn't vandalism but an attempted parody of envrionmentalism. If Jimbo Wales did the same for a vandalism entry in a reliable source it wouldn't be an example of non-noteworthy vandalism either. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was a (perhaps friendly) parody of environmentalism; that's clear from the original. It was secondarily a prank on CP. Granted, AS was a fool to keep it on CP "as" a parody of environmentalism, but that lapse of judgment by itself isn't particularly notable, especially since he has since corrected it. Does Wikipedia contain a list of unwise things Jimbo has done in the past? Of course not, because A) it'd be a trivia magnet, and B) it would be a POV-pushing collection of selected facts. I really don't see any point to bringing up the arboreal octopus other than the fact that it shows how silly CP is. (I think several of the other examples of how CP content is different from WP are also examples of synthesizing a case for what nutjobs CP's admins are, but at least they refer to content that CP still stands by.)
Well yes, but Jimbo is a much more notable person than Andrew Schlafly so there's a bit of an issue with not being able to include them all practically. Note also that Wikipedia,Criticism of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales all contain examples of statements that Jimbo has made that weren't very smart that were then picked up in reliable sources. That seems to be exactly the situation here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not often that a person's non-notability is cited as the reason for talking about them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Er no. Andrew Schlafly is notable in the context of Conservapedia (that's why we have a redirect from his name to here). Reliable sources have interviewed, quoted and discussed him in that context. He is not a notable individual by himself. But his opinions about Conservapedia and what reliable sources have quoted him saying in that context is notable. Now, Andrew isn't as notable as Jimbo is(who is notable enough to get his own article and not just a redirect). Now, if we had say a 20 different relevant things that Andrew had said about Conservapedia that were quoted and discussed in and we had to pair them down(as has had to occur at Wikipedia) then you'd have a point. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page reverts

(I've also reverted your most recent edit because it made major changes without discussion, please discuss on the talk page before making such major changes). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is this page supposed to be protected? Why do standard Wikipedia policies not apply here? Just because this article is about Conservapedia doesn't mean that their policy of reactionary wholesale version applies. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
First, you made a large set of changes in one edit. When someone does that it is very hard to see if they are all good or not. Second, for controversial articles it is a good idea to discuss large changes before making them (I do this for pretty much all articles I edit, but it is especially important to do for this sort of article). Third, you removed sourced material claiming it wasn't "pertinent"; removing sourced material that has had a long standing consensus definitely should be justified on a talk page before removing. I especially disagree with your removal of the tree octopus element since that was covered in multiple reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
When trying to fix the organization of an article (which is the main thing I'm trying to do here), it's impossible to do that incrementally in bite-sized edits. This article reads like it's been randomly pasted together a sentence at a time by dozens of different editors... because it has. Perhaps because that's the only type of edits that get past the gatekeeper here. The current form of the article is not based on consensus; it is based on enforcement of an undeclared semiprotection. And it needs restructuring. I mean, come on: A section header "Andrew Schlafly on Wikipedia" doesn't make sense in an article that is about neither Andrew Schlafly nor Wikipedia.
But OK, if you want to discuss the changes I want to make: Discuss them. You too, Wisdom89. My proposed changes are right there in the edit history. You have time to look them over. What other specific problems do you have? - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you make a good point about organization. I have no objection to reorganizing closely along the lines you did as long as material is not removed. Removal of material however does require further discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am very rarely, if ever, against the reorganization of an article. However, I feel that in its current form, and the form that Jason seems to prefer, the article is of diminished quality compared to the original, which is why I was resistant to the changes in the first place. Now, this may just be due to a mental familiarity with the original, but I feel the other versions are choppy and discontinuous. I especially hate the one-two line introduction to the article. However, with that being said, I will work with the two of you in order to achieve a flow and architecture we all can agree on. Additionally, as indicated, I am also reluctant to remove sourced content unless it is discussed here first. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The organization of the article when I first saw it was focused on two things: explaining how CP is different from WP, and showing what a joke CP is. Almost every paragraph contained a reference to Wikipedia or Jimbo, or was in a section about differences from Wikipedia. It's as if the darkness that is Conservapedia could only be described as the absence of the light that is Wikipedia. By leaving most of the content intact, I've barely made a scratch against that, but I tried to set up a framework that welcomed objective information to be added. This article should be about Conservapedia: What is it? When was it founded? Why? Who runs it? What are its policies? What is it used for? How has it performed? How is it perceived by the public? Not: How is it different from Wikipedia? What are its wackiest assertions? That's what the article is about so far, if one is to be honest about it. It makes sense that some references to WP will be made in answering these questions, because A) WP is the most familiar wiki encyclopedia, and B) some of the "why" answers refer to WP. But any time an article refers to the publication in which it appears, that's a red flag that objectivity has gone out the window. Is the version I restructured it into "choppy and discontinuous"? Yes. That's because its lacking the kind of NPOV material that the existing structure had no place for. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is that many reliable sources that care about Conservapedia are primarily interested in how it differes from Wikipedia. And that should be given due weight. (And this incidentally what Conservapedia seems to want. See how many links to their own article on Wikipedia they have and how many of those are in their article spacewhat links here from the article on Wikipedia in Conservapedia. They've had over 20 items on their front page about issues they've had with Wikipedia. See [2] and they feel a need on their copyright page to compare themselves to Wikipedia [3]). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Schlafly

I think this redirect should be deleted. For example, in the article on his mom, the link is misleading. Conservapedia is the only thing he is 'notable' for, but it's only one aspect of who he is. If there is not going to be an article on Schlafly himself, the redirect should be deleted and people can still find related articles by looking at the search results. Richard001 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You should bring this up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia, Evolution, and Soay sheep

The Conservapedia article on evolution consists of large chunks of strung-together "quotation soup" rather than "an argument for or against".

There are some examples of evolution in action - for example the Soay sheep mentioned at [4]. (I am deliberately excluding evolution in which humans have had a deliberate part - eg the agricultural revolution, pets and so on).

Jackiespeel (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have any relevance to the Conservapedia article, however. Your link doesn't even mention the site for starters. We are all aware of the slanted tone of Conservapedia's article on Evolution, but nothing here can be included in our article. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The text does provide a viable anti-proof to the Conservapedia claims about the non-obviousness of evolution (and I know that is a double negative of sorts).

Can someone start off a Wikinfo article or similar so that Conservapedia-the-site can be analysed: which would resolve one thread on this talk page.

(CP appears to be down again.) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a Wikinfo article is, but there is a wiki that, among other things, is virtually the internet's best repository of information, rebuttal and mockery relating to conservapedia. It's mentioned in the article. The url begins with "Ration" and ends with "alwiki". This is often abbreviated to "RatWiki", but that won't get your browser to the site. Neither will "Trashionalwiki", although it might raise a chuckle. Huw Powell (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can it still be called an Encyclopedia?

Conservapedia is not just too biased to be called an encyclopedia (their articles on deceit, saying it is directly linked with liberalism, accusing Stalin and Hitler of being in 'alliance') but it is also deliberately factually inaccurate (linking breast cancer to abortion) and filled with libellous statements (for example, denying Richard Dawkins academic credentials). It is, in fact, the most moronic, basest propaganda tool which is so moronic that it actually damages the conservative cause. It is well documented that when it was released many people thought the entire thing was a comedic hoax. I don't know what it should be called; 'propaganda tool' is not totally accurate and is too emotive for a real encyclopedia as Wikipedia aims to be, however to call Conservapedia an encyclopedia is wrong and inaccurate, incidently giving it way more credit than it deserves.--Superdantaylor (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still an encyclopaedia, though not a good one by any stretch of the imagination. It's not our place to assign minimum standards for an encyclopaedia.
Also, Wikipedia has an article on the Nazi-Soviet Pact, an agreement of non-agression between Stalin and Hitler (which was broken before too long). 81.174.226.229 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but there's a big difference between a Non-Agression Pact and an alliance, an alliance implies they were militarily affiliated which is not true, otherwise the Soviet Union would be involved in the Second World War on the side of the Nazis. It's as much an encyclopedia as uncyclopedia, which is not considered an encyclopedia by Wikipedia. I think describing it a a Wiki would be a lot more accurate.--158.143.165.215 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We describe it how Conservapedia describes itself (and how other sources describe it) - It's not up to Wikipedia editors to interpret the site's policies or its nature - That's a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link to RationalWiki

I have re-added an external link to RationalWiki. I admit that just a link to the RW mainpage is not valid so I have edited the bullet to include links to some of their more prominent pages concerning CP. -Icewedge (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that was a good idea, those links are better and more relevant than before. 206.248.129.147 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been done to death - it's mentioned in the context of an article but not as an external link - an EL should enhance the article and the understanding of the reader. Do you think that refers to the owner of Conservapedia as "assfly" and make statements such as He has been known to spill his seed during these daydreams, but God assured him that it's OK if he's only fantasizing about smiting, and hasn't touched his pee-pee in a bad way. is sign of a quality site that expands the understanding of the reader? nope. Conservapedia is a joke and deserves to be treated like one, we claim to be an encyclopedia and should damn well act as one. --Fredrick day (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While RW does have a whole lot of sensible stuff (and I resent your accusation that it's not a 'quality site' - under what criterion is humour disqualificatory from the status of being of worth), I think that Fred's probably right - we don't need a link. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
External links don't necessarily have to be too sites that provide research grade information on a subject. The question to ask is, would people coming to this page in search of information about Conservapedia find a visit to the linked site worthwhile. I would say in the case of this link, yes. Also I disagree with Fredrick assertion that this matter has been "done to death". Their has been much debate over whether RW is a reliable source (which it is not, its a Wiki) but not over an external link. -Icewedge (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While one would be hard-pressed to find an article dealing with CP on RW that does not contain some "humor" of one kind or another, some of them are pretty good coverage of CP - Schlafly Statistics, for example, is well researched and shows the rather odd sense of reality held by the founder of the blog site. But as far as an EL, it's no big deal. People can find RW fairly easily if they want to find out more about CP, I think. Huw Powell (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i have no idea why ""Tmtoulouse+&group=&limit=50"" RW admins are here adding that stupid link again, unless of course it is to give them more traffic through advertising on Wikipedia.--Elassint (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean, of course, the one that you keep deleting? Hi Elassint! Huw Powell (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the one that I keep getting rid of. I wish to cleanse wikipedia (or at least it article on conservapedia) of unneeded EL's. --Elassint (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And I've removed it....too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.186.128 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

IMHO this article is completely disjointed and disorganized - it lacks flow and coherency. I think it should undergo a major overhaul - but before I make any wholesale changes, I want to get the opinions of the other major editors. Am I alone in feeling this way? Wisdom89 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot better than it used to be, I think. The intro is a bit lumpy, though. The 3rd sentence is broken in half by IDing Andy's family tree, for instance. The 2nd lists an outfit he does legal work for. What do they have to do with an overview of what the article is about? What does his being a lawyer have to do with anything? Why not just call him a conservative activist? I do like the first sentence, however. A lot of the "wiki" stuff in the second half of the intro belong way down lower in a section for people who care about that kind of thing. Just my Pi cents, thanks for asking. Huw Powell (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Schlafly

"Wikipedia can use [this picture] without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy."
"Wikipedia can use [this picture] without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy."[1]

For completeness we need a photo of Schlafly here. There is a picture of him here on his Conservapedia biographical page (yes, article space; I guess they have different notability standards than we do) that would be good for this article. Unfortunately the moron hasn't specified what he means by 'released rights to it', so we probably can't use it can we? While it sounds like public domain, it could also be interpreted as 'released some rights', e.g. GDFL etc (which would still be okay, but we can't specificy which one). Ugh, so annoying... this guy is supposedly a 'lawyer', yet the whole copyright policy of Conservapedia is a legally vague disaster. Richard001 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked, and lo, he answered:

'Wikipedia can use it without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy.'

Fairly predictable response, but this, together with the comment, make it clear he's fine. It's here. --Wikinterpreter (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Typical, there always has to be injected barb - regardless, if someone would care to include the image in the appropriate section, that would be great - I'm guessing the "Aschlafly on Wikipedia" portion. Thoughts? Wisdom89 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would fit well there. In fact, his comment above would make an excellent caption. Although I doubt it meets the "tone" WP seeks to achieve. I put it he way I envision in this talk section so you folks can see what I mean. The ref is simply the link provided above by Wikinterpreter. Huw Powell (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia can use it without restriction" unfortunately falls short of what we need, which is release under GFDL. It needs to be released so that others can re-use it as well, or it's not free use here, it's fair use. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on both the image pages here and there, I read that he's released the rights from his control, and is PD. --wL<speak·check> 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, if there is no free alternative due to copyright and GFDL, then it should qualify as fair use. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No - the image could be replaced by a free alternative as the subject is alive. Hut 8.5 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's very true, but what if the subject objects. Does that preclude us from using a free image? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you went and took a picture of Schlafly, and then released it under a free license, Schlafly can do nothing about it because the rights to the image lie with the photographer and not the subject. So no. Hut 8.5 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The image can be used as fair use. The copycenter license we use on CP would allow it. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, 'released rights' is vague. Does it mean 'released [all] rights', or does it mean 'released [some] rights' (perhaps under a non-commercial condition?). I bet if you explained to him that releasing all rights means people can do whatever they like with the picture - e.g. using it to denigrate him, he would reconsider.

Anyway, I'm happy with the PD tag. If he meant something else he should have been more specific, and he can always complain if he doesn't like it. I'd put it in the history section.

I would have asked him myself, though he blocked my account there after I created an article on sexual conflict. Richard001 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Have added the image, though I note we also need a screenshot of the site as well as just the logo. Richard001 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Have taken a screenshot and made a nice PNG of it (its content aside), but I'm not sure what license this is supposed to be used under. We can always use fair use, but ideally we want to use the most free license possible. But given the ambiguity and lack of any precise legal terms in their copyright page, I don't know exactly what to call it. Maybe someone who hasn't been erased could ask Schlafly again what terms the screenshot could be used under? Richard001 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trustworthiness of Conservapedia

There is still a certain level of uncorrected inaccuracies - eg Gordon Brown's accident; secondary consumers still eat primary ones.

The high level of articles without external references should be mentioned. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless we can find an outside source that has noticed it. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "plain observation" count? The method used was using "random article" a sufficient number of times to get a result that appears statistically sensible, ignoring lists, redirects and similar and basic number crunching on pages with and without external or internal links etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:OR/WP:V. Especially so with controversial topics we need reliable sources that have made the observations. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Article-counting of the above kind is useful as a general check for factual based Wikis (whether or not accepted for Wikipedia). (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And if it's not accepted by Wikipedia policy, we cannot include it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Last comment" - talk pages can be useful for general observations (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Random article is a bad way to check that sort of thing. Try it on Wikipedia. You'll find 50% of articles cite nothing. Richard001 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick count on both WP and CP shows a far lower rate of external and internal references on the latter. As a starting point for non-statisticians, it can be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Useful for who? Nothing we do as "non-statisticians" can be added to the article without smashing head first into policy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone just now changed name of the section under "Reactions and Criticisms" titled "Conservapedia and dissenting views" to "Conservapedia and accuracy". I've read that section before several times; that focuses practically only on CP's position on the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. How do you think this section should be named/written? I find this section of the talk page the best place to comment on that section. If we really want to includes criticisms of CP due to accuracy, we need to find stuff beyond the Schlafly/Lipson debacle. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

There's a small typo, but Wikipedia won't let me edit from my IP. In the quote under Andres Schlafly on Wikipedia reads "six times more liberal than the American public." "Liberal" should be plural. I'd change it, but I can't. 163.1.162.20 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, liberal should not be plural in that context. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an adjective to describe Wikipedia, rather than a noun referring to wikipedians. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides, it's a quote. Even if it's incorrect English we should always quote exactly. Hut 8.5 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing restrictions

The "articles uneditable for most of the night" statement is incorrect. Can someone change it to say by new users? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of URL

I believe we should remove the URL link to conservapedia as many of its article (particulary those concerning homosexuality and Baroke Obama) insight hatred. It must be remembered that wikipedia is an international encyclopedia which has a lot of people who are more liberal than the average american. Many people cant dont tolerate the views expressed on conservapedia. Anti homosexual views arent going to be as shocking to americans as europeans as they see more of it ,but i asure you, you cannot say these sorts of things in most of europe. Wikipedia should remember it represents all members of the world not just americas who tend to lean to the right of politics. At the VERY LEAST there needs to me a warning attached to the URL informing people that they might find its content offensive. Realist2 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats a strange answer , would you like to give a reason for it , Realist2 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

People just keep trying to bring back WP:BADSITES in some form or other, don't they? (See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why a simple warning can be added though, as most of the content would be considered hateful in europe and hopefully the sane half of america, opening tht article and reading its content is actually shocking. Realist2 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A warning is not sencorship is it? Realist2 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A warning is unnecessary as it is implicit that Wikipedia contains articles, images, and links that people find objectionable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless we're using the URL incorrectly, it shouldn't be removed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
With some external links, we add something like (requires subscription) or (contains explicit content). Here it might be appropriate to add (contains hatred and absurd nonsense), though this should be clear from reading the article if we have done a good job describing the site. Richard001 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How would you say that in an NPOV manner? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, you said that many people can't tolerate the views expressed on Conservapedia. How do you decide that it is the intolerant Conservapedians and not the intolerant Wikipedia readers who are wrong? I am sure many people are offended by some things they read on Wikipedia, too. Yet we don't have warnings on all pages of which someone might not be tolerant. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but MY point is that wikipedia is not solely for Americans , America is a LOT more conservative than Europe, Americans might not blink an eye over the content of conservapedia as their used to seeing it EVER day. However Europeans would find the content disgusting. My suggestion was to leave a warning for users not familiar with the American political system. I dont care about the culture war between the left and right in the US, I care about the people outside of america who will be offended. Wikipedia does not tolerate discrimiation so why link someone up to a hate sight (In the eyes of Europeans) without a warning. If a homosexual accidently came across that page (which I imagine some already have done) they would be heartbroken. Additionally I dont care what conservapedia fells about this page , they still dot realise that this is an international encyclopedia. When they develope an IQ large enough to understand that instead of burying their heads in bibles, then and only then are their opinions relevant on wikipedia. Realist2 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Heartbroken? That's sweet, but I have a feeling most would be fairly unmoved! Petitphoque (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care that people are offended (no seriously, it's policy). This is a dead horse. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, Realist2, I occasionally see things on Wikipedia itself that dislike. But that doesn't mean everybody caters to me to keep from offending me. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a warning would be not be neutral. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, a warning would cast judgment on the content. The article makes it very clear what Conservapedia contains, and if someone is going to be offended by that, they'll know if they read the article. This would only be for the unlikely case where someone skips all of the article text, and says, "Ooo, let me randomly click on this External Link!" and have it be someone who is so sheltered that they don't know that homophobia exists.
Frankly, I find the content at the Time Cube website to be far more offensive than Conservapedia, and there is no warning in the external links section on that article -- nor should there be. The article itself tells you everything you need to know, and lets the reader make up his or her own mind. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not the same though, its so stupid no1 would take that cube thing seriouslt , people might actually believe conservapedia is ment to be serious and real and start spouting the hatred. No1 cares about that cub thing , its a joke , conservapedia s more sinister as it pretends to be really while spouting bigotry. Realist2 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just not our problem - people visit external sites at their own risk - we have a big disclaimer to that effect on every page. It's not going be removed, so what's actually left to be discussed? --Fredrick day (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hum let me think ... what about the morality of wikipedia linking children up to a hate sight with no warning? Realist2 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Using that POV how about the morality of wikipedia having links to sexually explicit articles with no warning? /shrug 195.216.82.210 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should bring a case to wiki to change the rules on rhese things. Realist2 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, Conservapedi is meant to be serious. It's not a mean to be a disguised joke as you suggest. And I would be much more worried about children seeing some of the things on Wikipedia. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
By using an example that is basically "think of the children", you demonstrate that you have no understanding of basic core wikipedia policy or practice - I'm not going to explain it to you - go and read WP:NOT, then head over to Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer, those should start you off. If you want to carry on with the same inane line of questioning, it's would be polite of you to actually find out about those things.
Maybe we should bring a case to wiki to change the rules on these things. where's the WE in this? if YOU think there is a case, head over to the village pump and make it - be warned, it's all be heard before and would be WP:SNOWed out of existance in less than a couple of hours. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't be fruitful - trust me. It would be shot down within seconds by consensus. It is not our obligation to warn, censor or worry about the morality of children. Chances are if the children are using the internet, they and the parents are aware of the risks anyway. But that's another point. Again, we simply have no obligation. It would also completely violate WP:NPOV - which, to paraphrase is "nonnegotiable". Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol i just dont want ppl to be tainted by DECEIT. Realist2 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, I think you have completely missed the point of WP:NPOV. While I may agree with many of your viewpoints on Conservapedia, they are still viewpoints. Wikipedia already undermines the more outrageous claims of Conservapedia by presenting factual information that contradicts their wacky ideas on evolution, etc. However, it does not explicitly pass judgment; it presents the facts and it is left up to the reader to judge. That is the whole point of Wikipedia, and it is exactly the act of passing judgment and injecting viewpoint that Conservapedia differs.
What you are advocating, basically, is to change Wikipedia into Liberalopedia -- which is painfully ironic, considering that is exactly what Conservapedia (wrongly) alleges.
Wikipedia does not pass judgment. I cited Time Cube for a reason -- even in that case where it is obviously nonsense (and I think it is not a joke, I think they guy is serious, even though he's a whackjob), Wikipedia is carefully to never explicitly pass judgment. Same standard applies here. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How will "the proverbial child" come across Conservapedia? What proportion of "children and young people" (or adults for that matter) will be instantly blighted by investigating the topic - any more than by reading about (insert "unpleasant" topic of choice here)? Is the point of Wikipedia to describe the world, provide the means of interpreting it, or to change it? Sufficient information should be given about Conservapedia - and any other wikis operating from a specific world view (ie most of them) - for the reader to make their own judgement on pursuing the topic further. Most people will be able to deduce immediately what areas The Sporting Times will cover (headings are likely to be of the form "English earthquake affects sporting facilities") - Conservapedia's position is different (not least because there are several definitions of Conservative). As for changing Wikipedia's policy - Wikinfo and other places can be used for such matters.

I think most of the issues arising from Conservapedia have been aired, both on the main article page and the talk page (and its archives). There is a usually implicit dialogue between all the wikis which includes how they define themselves - the point about Conservapedia is that its nature differs more significantly than most from Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aditionally i might add , there is already an external link to conservapedia at the bottom of the page. So why keep the link at the top? When at the bottom people have sufficient notice. There is no need for a top link. Realist2 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that for articles on websites and web-based organizations, it is the custom here to put the URL in the box at the top of the article. See Politico, Citizendium, MSN Games, Google, Yahoo, and Uncyclopedia. If we changed this custom only for Conservapedia and not for the thousands of similar articles, we would be violating NPOV. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Made Changes

sheesh, this article was once nominated as a "good article"....what has happened?

i come back one year later and find this article is not the same as it was. the content of this article is heavily influenced by conservapedia and not by wikipedians -- let us contribute! παράδοξος (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether Wikipedians or Conservapedians are editing the article. The article became unkempt due to heavy edit reorganization. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Examples of bias on Conservapedia

The link to the 12 step program for liberals - makes Rivers of Blood look tasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.12.126 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Between hours of 1AM and 6AM

dont keep removing reason, it is clearly stated on the same page as the rest of the existing sentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the site claims that there is vandalism during these hours doesn't mean there actually is vandalism. Given the dubious actions of the administrators in general (filing complaints with the FBI against vandals, claiming wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public) and specifically the fact that the user you are citing has left Conservapedia in clouded circumstances then I don't believe many will constitute this as a reliable source. 58.168.28.93 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you can't take something as true just because it's on Conservapedia. They complain that Wikipedia publishes gossip, yet have just created an article on "Hollywood Values" that consists of little but gossip of the vilest sort. Their complaints about Wikipedia, once made, seem never to be reevaluated. For example, Conservapedia complains that in our Henry Liddell article, "Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica." In comparison, Conservapedia's entire article on Henry Liddell consists of five short sentences. It has no mention of his family, early life, or educational background. It mentions his Greek-English Lexicon, but completely neglects his History of Rome. It can be read with no risk that one would learn an annoyingly unfamiliar term such as "double first" - or, indeed, any concept that might be too taxing or expand one's knowledge of the apparently dangerous-to-understand British educational system. One will learn the years that Liddell was Dean of Christ Church, but will learn nothing of what he did as dean. Curiously, for an allegedly religiously conscious website, one will not learn that Liddell was an ordained minister. The Conservapedia article is not illustrated.

Contrary to Conservapedia's claims, the Wikipedia entry contains no "grammatical error in its first sentence", tells us up front about Liddell's term as dean of Christ Church, contains no description of "royal" titles (though it accurately describes the peerage and baronetage titles appertaining to Liddell's family), and mentions Alice Liddell prominently, in the first paragraph (of six paragraphs that make up the entry). The use of public domain text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition in the development of the article is duly and clearly acknowledged, though little if any of such text actually remains in the article. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Conservapedia and Wikipedia - editorial conflicts" section

The BBC radio 4 interview needs to be balanced with some of Jim Redmond's responses if possible. Also, despite being a far left liberal myself, this article is slightly more favoured for the criticism's of Conservapedia. More needs to be written about the positive aspects... if that's even possible. ScarianCall me Pat 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This edit appears to go against WP convention. Empirical observation shows that good articles on websites include a "External links" section containing a home page link basically 100% of the time, and the infobox is only meant to provide an at-a-glance summary of the subject: not to replace article content. This should go back in, regardless of the general content of the site. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I've also restored the link. JamesMLane t c 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that - You guys are correct. The official site should be in the external links. It just immediately hit my brain as superfluous. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there should also be a link to RationalWiki in the "External links" section. It's a reliable (sort of!) third-party source of information on Conservapedia. Maybe add it in the form "RationalWiki - commentary on Conservapedia". Snalwibma (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly how is it reliable? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to answer that one question, RW is a "reliable" commentator on CP in that virtually all "assertions" are carefully permalinked. Unless CP deletes and recreates a page (which they have done a few times), the reader can verify for themselves what is being said. Huw Powell (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, this one I disagree with. Per WP:EL, anything in said section should be informative beyond what is already stated in the article. I don't see how RationalWiki satisfies that requirement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If skepticism sites are notable they should be discussed and references in-article, which i see it already is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


There is already a link to RationalWiki in the main article and a reference to it. We don't need one in the External links section. --Elassint (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Schlafly

I noticed that "Andrew Schlafly" redirects to "Conservapedia". Isn't he notable enough? --Caravato (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an article on him would fail WP:BIO, as he isn't notable beyond the development of Conservapedia, thus it is logical to redirect to this page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See [5] as an example of what I mean. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand, thanks. --Caravato (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

I see that a note has been made about Schlafly's tactics on Obamas article. Should it also be mentioned that, even when informed and 3rd party source confirmed that the misleading picture of Obama not holding his hand during the anthem, was not actually during the anthem or pledge, but right afterwards, he refused to remove the comment that it was. We all know why they have it as the first picture and with that heading, just curious if it warrants mentioning. Hooper (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing article histories

On the “liberal style” list, which is currently on both its own page and “liberal bias”, Conservapedia claims liberals “often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal”. This previously ended “saying that about a fellow liberal” until they decided to accuse Sen. Obama of saying it about Sen. Clinton; now, the article histories appear as if they always said “supportive co-liberal”. Can this be included as observable from primary sources without having been commented upon elsewhere? The older version still shows up if Googled and is copied e.g. here [6] and here [7] Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say no, it really shouldn't. Currently, the article is littered with primary sources that cite Conservapedia directly. My opinion is that if any new information is going to be added tot his article, it has to be reported elsewhere by a reliable source. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted fact check

The fact check was reverted for some reason. I don't know why. It is a well known and commonly known fact that several wikipedians infiltrated Conservapedia and many if not most of the articles are written from a liberal or liberal/subversive point of view. 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Jesus Loves You

You didn't preview the page :-)
It looked like this :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not realize I had screwed it up so much. My deepest and most heartfelt apologies. Thanks to the kind Soul who repaired my srewup. 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.202.28 (talk)
Crud, I just messed it up again. The powers do not want me to help on this article. So sorry, somebody please fix. 74.220.202.28 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know what you were trying to do, although I noticed you changed the ref names from NPR to NPRUS95, if I recall... so what were you trying to do? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article makes it sound as though the site owner thinks Wikipedia is biased just because it allows British English as an alternative to American English. The site doesn't have a problem with British English being used in topics on the site that pertain to the UK (as this article states), just with it being used in articles that are about the USA. That said, I definitely am not for the site because I don't think that it presents things from a NPOV, but I also don't think that Wikipedia does regarding subject such as Earth and earth's origin.--Urban Rose 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The spelling issue is directly from interviews with Schafly, and the article does point out that Conservapedia allows British spelling in British articles. Any other issues, or can we delete the tag now?Kww (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"While Wikipedia allows both American English and British English to be used on its articles, Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve edit wars. Schlafly considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias." - This last sentence basically contradicts the previous sentences by saying that Schlafly considers Wikipedia to be biased for allowing British English at all, while Conservapedia does allow British English in select topics. I don't think that Conservapedia considers Wikipedia biased for simply allowing British English to be used as an alternative, but considers it biased for allowing British English in topics that pertain to America.--Urban Rose 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Schafly accused Wikipedia of preferring British spelling. It's in the first minute of the interview. Listen to the interview, and then read my change. We can't really discuss what "Conservapedia" thinks, we can only discuss what Schafly thinks.Kww (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much one big attack article on Conservapedia. In no way do I agree with Conservapedia, but most of what's in this article should be listed under "criticisms". I guess there's really nothing that can be done about it because most of the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia actually have Conservapedia in the wrong, but it's still a little annoying to find articles like this. M.nelson (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to clean up this article to tell better what Conservapedia is rather than how bad it is, although I also disagree with many of their views. Regarding the British vs. American english issue, I reworded the section of concern for grammar and also to reflect that Schlafly believed in the "favoring British English" pretty much only around the time of his BBC Radio interview. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in Wikipedia

Here's the latest version of CP's list of alleged Bias in Wikipedia. Although I do admit some of the examples are pretty silly I also think some of them could be considered in improving WP factually or neutrally. The list also lists some errors of this article itself. Any suggestions? I've been on talk pages of homosexuality and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed discussing this matter too.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They seem mostly to be complaints that we don't enforce Schlafley's opinions as rules. They're clearly not useful to us as a guide; if you find any of his points actionable, you should bring them up at the appropriate talk pages, rather than here. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have gone to some talk pages as you've suggested and I stated earlier. I do admit that some of the items in the Bias page are just plain silly or based on ignorance. And then a lot of those items get quickly outdated; I guess that some of their claims are based on seeing unreverted vandalism... --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
But on the other hand, I defend the Examples list as a consequence of certain issues that the WP head honcho editors have frequently whined about (e.g. fancruft and those infamous trivia sections and "in popular culture" lists) - find their mentions of "the 100's of entries about silly TV shows and obscure rock n' roll bands" or something like that on the list. (P.S.: Also a consequence of the addition of original research in some instances [when they say "WP smears so-and-so with all this..."]) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is actually one of the things that Conservapedia is good for, helping WP. Ironic isn't it how we can become more critical of ourselves through them? Katana Geldar 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)
Crankery notwithstanding, good point. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also today an editor removed the statistics stating the growth of the "Examples" list. Why? I don't see how it violates WP:NOR; it just states how CP sees bias in WP.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference demonstrating growth is to the current Conservapedia page, not to a 3rd party that has mentioned this. Comparing a 3rd party reference to something directly observed at Conservapedia is original research. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's essentially it. The article already has issues with citing Conservapedia directly, which, ordinarily would be original research. The only reason it's been overlooked to this point is because now Conservapedia has enough second and third party coverage to merit a stand-alone article. Blends in, in other words. However, present mistakes shouldn't set precedent for future ones. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
When I added the stats, I first cited two tertiary sources stating that there were 40 items back in March 2007. I'm sure that CP's own Examples list is fine to state it's "grown" to 110 or so. If your logic is going to be how this page is to be run, I guess that 1 + 1 = 3, right? What's wrong with using only the primary source as simple proof of expansion?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Are you referring to the Star as the third party source? Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(I was that editor). Using primary sources to draw a conclusion is WP:OR. Find some reliable secondary source that shows that the list of bias in Wikipedia has grown (ideally one that correlates the page growths too given Wikipedia now has over 2 and a half million pages). Using Conservapedia as a source for something that they say on Conservapedia is not only using self-published sources but it is partisan too that doesn't represent a more global worldview. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I see now, the OR page here says that uses of primary source may not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." I'd always thought it was an innocent factual claim that the list had 40 items (sources: The Star, Brent Bozell column) and in May 2008 about 110 (source: CP itself)...all I'm trying to imply is that there's an Examples of Bias in Wikipedia list on CP and how many items it has!
But I also see the point in including the correlation with the overall WP growth. I think we might be doing CP too much a favor by saying "110 items" solely based on their own stats. Thanks for your assistance. Is the conclusion here that the 110 items claim absolutely must be supported by a secondary source? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Is there a place on this page for a section on how a lot of Conservapedia's articles were based on original research? In the past, it didn't seem too interested in having actual facts based on evidence. I remember the Australia page where it said that the country was populated by Eskimos and that kangaroos were a problem in Melbourne and Sydney CBD. (For the record, they aren't.)Katana Geldar 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless a citable source discusses the kangaroo and Eskimo problem, there really isn't a place for it in the article - after all, "no original research" is our tenet, not Conservapedia's. (Although it's really meant to be our way of enforcing "no nutjob theories"). We can't just list all the misleading or erroneous parts of Conservapedia; someone else has to do that, and then we can quote them. -Nunh-huh 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I meant about the kangaroos and eskimos, "nutjob theories" the lot of them. There is the article's history, but unless you want to act like conservapedia.... I just hope somehting will come up as anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. Katana Geldar 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)
On the contrary, by requiring secondary sources which state that Conservapedia includes nutjob theories, rather than evaluating them as nutjob theories on our own, we'll be acting like Wikipedia, not like Conservapedia. - Nunh-huh 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant by using such things. Katana Geldar 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

[edit] Examples of bias in Conservapedia

How about starting a separate article titled Examples of bias in Conservapedia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to create Examples of neutral point of view in Conservapedia because I feel that the Examples of bias in Conservapedia is nearly all of Conservapedia. We would only bother with such things e.g. deliberate Google map obscuring, for notable source. Conservapedia is partisan and if it wasn't for the fact that it reads like a parody, I'd call it a hate-site. It's funny but I wouldn't give them the time of day. I looked at it thinking - maybe I could edit stuff (e.g. their article on the Euro gives the EURO-> sterling cross rate as 0.51 ...which is the cable rate i.e. US dollar to sterling ?. OK, small error and on Wikipedia I'd fix such a error in a flash but on Conservapedia it is very unclear what the copyright is (as an Open Source evangelist I actually read EULAs) and then there is the fact that it is ruled by Lord Aschlafly. Verily he projectile vomits whenever he cometh within sight of a liberal and it probably cometh out of both ends if he saw a liberal atheist such as I (even though I'm considered very right of centre by others who know me...I'm Liberal). Ttiotsw (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we are not in the business of grudges or retaliation, which is precisely how that will look. That's WP:ABF. However, I do believe that the Conservapedia article needs some more positive information (I know it's out there) to meet WP:NPOV. The article is doing pretty good, but it's a bit slanted at the moment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV if you believe that it should result in an article that says equal numbers of "good things" and "bad things". NPOV should lead to an article that has good things and bad things in quantities roughly equal to their proportions in secondary source: in this instance, the appropriate proportion would be that found in press coverage of Conservapedia. Since that press coverage has been more or less uniformly negative, we don't have an NPOV problem here. "Knowing" that positive information is "out there" is different from it actually being out there. And if it has to be hunted down and sought out, the odds are that including it in this article would be to lend it undue emphasis. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I assure you that I do not have any sort of misunderstanding of NPOV, and I am fully aware of WP:WEIGHT. I also did not say anything about a equity of content. The fact of the matter is that, while most coverage of Conservapedia has denounced them as parodic or smeared them as bigoted, it does not mean that we should ignore positive (likely right-wing) and laudatory statements. I should have made myself clearer. I'm not just surmising they're out there. I know it. I've read them. A lot of said press coverage resides on Conservapedia itself. I'm not defending the site, but I have a vested interested in maintaining this article in good standing, because as of right now it's horribly skewed in one direction. As an analogy, when a film is mostly panned, but receives positive reviews by a minutia/small number of critics, they are still mentioned. Do you see my point? Now, I could be bold and just add them, but I felt it obligatory to bring it here first. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's good to know that you recognize that the weight to be reflected in the article is not "good" vs. "bad" - your original comments certainly didn't reflect that. If you can actually find any significant commentators writing positive reviews of Conservapedia, of course they should be included. But you shouldn't lament the lack of such reviews when they don't seem to exist. Sometimes things are just bad, and it's appropriate for their articles to reflect that. If you ever encounter a positive review of Conservapedia again, be sure to note down where you found it. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This alread exists but noting so is OR unless you can get Nature to publish such a claim or something. Sorry, eh? WilyD 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually both suggestions would likely breach WP:NOR. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin infighting

I have some links here of two "synops" plotting against their own cult website. It might be nice to write something about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cheers. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, none of that is reliable. I could invent something close to that myself on my own computer, sorry. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you think i found it? I was studying the edits of one of these synops involved, HE provided these links to Andy on his talk page. The guy owned up. I can provide a link showing the guy disclosed all this. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still unreliable unless you have a reliable source who picks up on this. In the end it's just fringe gossip so unless it was the guy that runs the place was being dumped it's way too niche. Wikipedia isn't that liberal. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
WP has no place for that. Let Conservapedia concern itself with childish insults. The article here should be an encyclopedia overview of the website. Fishal (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution Social effects of the theory of evolution

Conservapedia has an article titled www.conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution "Social effects of the theory of evolution". What about this joke article which says evolution is responsible for rise of Nazism ad racism? Should we include conservapedia's view in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS. Only if it's reported elsewhere. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think something to that effect belongs here on the WP, certainly as a section or a subsection of Creation-evolution controversy! There is currently a large section devoted to that topic at Answers in Genesis#Morality and social issues, an article about a Creationist group.
CP's position on this issue _might_ merit a mention here, but we can't very well summarize every single CP article here on WP. "Kangaroo" has had enormous amounts of press coverage, so it certainly belongs here. Obama, maybe-- it seems to be generating a fair amount of off-site dialogue. But has "Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution" garnered any notice outside of CP itself? If not, I'd say it need not necessarily get a mention.
Fishal (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No as CP is in no way a reliable source by even the longest stretch of the imagination at this time. They may improve in time but right now it's way too partisan. On other matters,
  • I get a bit suspicious on how traffic gets driven to CP links so I've nowiki'd the links.
  • the question on the "Evolution" it has nothing to do with improving this article unless the controversy was bigger than the "Kangaroo". It isn't. The 'roo article is way more funnier.
  • Are we to have to repeat this everytime someone sees some page on CP that is remotely related to some page on Wikipedia ? Ttiotsw (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's talking about reporting CP pages as fact! The talk was all about whether that particular article belongs on this particular page here. And I think consensus is that it does not-- that only the most notable articles (Kangaroo, etc.) should be mentioned individually. I had absentmindedly mused that the topic itself is a fairly common Creationist charge, and probably should be mentioned at Creation-evolution controversy. That's all. Fishal (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School prayer = necessary to conservatives?

I think this sentence seems a bit assumptive.

For example, its article "Liberalism" lists grievances over liberals' opposition to school prayer and other values important to conservatives.

The assumption is that school prayer is necessarily important to conservatives. Now, this is definitely from what I know personally, but if school prayer is in a top five list of issues important to conservatives, I'll eat my hat. Any objection to the following edit:

For example, its article "Liberalism" lists grievances over liberals' opposition to school prayer and other values Schlafly considers important to conservatives.

--Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely appropriate. It might be too cumbersome, but perhaps "school prayer and other values the website's community considers important to conservatives" would be more accurate, although from what I've seen Schlafly runs that site with an iron fist. But it is definitely true that the site uses a very specific definition of conservatism as its guiding principle. Fishal (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who added that sentence, I apologize for skipping NPOV there. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia and the truth

"The truth shall set you free" - but The Domesday Book covers parts of England not Great Britain - and Vladimir Putin's political status has changed.

What is the public opinion on their "Public Opinion" page (and whether it should be renamed "Public opinion"? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikinfo page

The Wikipedia page has been copied to Wikinfo: as there are many "comments and opinions" here, appropriate critiques should be pasted there (which should resolve some of the issues raised here). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CP not a good source?

Andrewlp1991 - why would an artical [8] describing CP's view about liberism not be sited here? Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because citing conservapedia directly is one step above a primary source, it's essentially original research. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
After some thought I can see your point, though I might disagree with it. I either event, if someone wants to remove that and the attached sentence, feel free. I woun't dispute it. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the idea that directly quoting anyone or anything (which was available in the internet or books/letters etc.) can be original research. Original research is if you present your one views or possibly if you present someone's views without quoting directly, not if you quote someone. Or does this rule (ban for direct quoting) applies only to Consevapedia? Jasra (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A good article will use quotes, and the quotes should be cited. Quotes can be used to illustrate and to enliven the text. They should not be used to prove a point or argue a thesis. So:
  • Bad: "Conservapedia articles betray a misunderstanding of scientific evidence. It says, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in theory of evolution." (cite, [9])
  • Fine: "Conservapedia often favors creationism. It says, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in theory of evolution." (cite, [10])
The first example is bad because it interprets the quotation. The second example is fine because it uses the quote simply to illustrate a summarizing statement. The text summarizes the quote; it does not provide any new interpretation. At least, that's my take on the policy. Fishal (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both your examples interpret their respective quotations. The second quote, which displays Conservapedia's ignorance of either the theory of evolution or of the fossil record (or both), doesn't favor creationism, though you have so interpreted it: it simply misstates facts about evolution (which is usually the method of creationists, but can be done by non-creationists as well). - Nunh-huh 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine PBTH. Change to "Conservapedia frequently questions the validity of the theory of evolution." I hope that's sufficiently nitpick-proof; now let's please discuss whether the general principle is sound. Fishal (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion I'd say the general principle is unsound, it is a primary source and thereby commentary on it is original research; the advantage of secondary sources is that it avoids any unfortunate word usage by Wikipedians themselves, such as 'frequently' in your given example. Mallocks (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's the thing. If we view Conservapedia as a primary source, then according to policy we can cite them as long as we have cited second and third party sources in the article (I'm doing this essentially from memory, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). However, (and this is my view), if we do not perceive quoting Conservapedia as primary, then it's unsuitable as a reliable source and unacceptable to observe what they do and say and report it here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd contend that even at its best it tends to add an unfortunate smell of bias around the place. Not so long ago the page was a horrific example of unencyclopedic nit-picking, essentially a victory celebration over the comporable quality of Wikipedia. I think that allowing quotations directly from the site will only encourage users to seek out specific instances of what they percieve to be mistaken ideologies or theories and use this article page to exhibit them in a trophy room of sorts. Mallocks (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, yeah, you're taking it a step further. That's a different angle, but we are pretty much in agreement. It would tend to encourage editors to cherry pick from Conservapedia. However, my original comment was focused elsewhere. First we need to examine the definition of a primary source and determine whether Conservapedia falls under that category. For an analogy, Wikipedia states that a primary source is likened to a direct Witness of a car accident, however, what about the individuals involved in the car accident, which, in this analogy would be Conservapedia and their editors? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be a use of a primary source-- however, I cannot see how selective, illustrative quoting would be a bad thing, if done in moderation.
However, in this case I would agree that it's best to err on the side of caution-- you're right, many editors would simply compile a list of Stupid CP Quotes. Just to be safe, maybe quotes from CP should be limited to quotations that secondary sources have already quoted. E.g.: On NPR the interviewer read, "modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood." ([11] (audio), taken from [12])
It's a very involved question. I agree that "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" doesn't really cover this case; I think that the policy wasn't created with the analysis of an alternative wikipedia style entity in mind. Mallocks (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In an article about CP, CP is a primary source. Fishal (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well again to look at the quote from policy, CP isn't just close to the origin of this particular topic, it is the topic. Mallocks (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, anything that lacks a reliable source can be viewed as original research. Is Conservapedia a reliable source? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To determine that would, alas, be original research. Mallocks (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely somebody else has commented on Conservapedia in a secondary source and given quotations? We could just refer to them in the usual sense, thus avoiding the whole issue. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NPR used the quote that I gave above. The issue, of course, is that CP is not static, and the quote they used then may not still apply. Fishal (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop me if I'm talking crazy talk, but I think it actually doesn't matter; we just report that "NPR said that Conservapedia said 'such and such'", and we're doin' fine as long as it otherwise meets sourcing requirements. They did say it after all; I don't think that later removing the text matters (might be worth a note to that effect if the removal was significant of something). You might look through Category:Wiki communities to see how other articles about wikis have handled this (presumably a common issue) if you're not convinced. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)