Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 7

message: I think it is a more appropriate name.  That site is no comedy and some of the strings I have read over there are downright scary.  They seem to have a real out-to-get mentality and I sense a bit of paranoia as well.  Especially the founder, he gives me the creeps.  And yes, they project an elitist attitude far worse than anything I have seen here.  That whole public school liberalism versus home schooled conservatism.  I pray that they don’t really believe that.  I think they give Christians and Conservatives a bad name.  
--Baronmarbot 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's not going to happen.  Let's say... it's OR, sure.  WLU 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a better idea! What about doing that for Uncyclopedia's article on Conservapedia. --wL<speak·check> 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Conservapedia to Christianpedia 

message: I read on this in Taxon 56(2) and I think it is very funny. I think we should have a Leftpedia, another Liberalpedia (actually Liberapedia, etc, etc, as well. Berton 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia 

message: It maybe something that should be included in the article, if someone can find them.--142.68.42.145 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean here on wikipedia?  That's a bit stalker-esque, and anything we said about them beyond 'he has edited wikipedia' would be OR.  WLU 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it would be; in other articles about Wikipedia's history, such edits have been linked too.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to the edits Andrew made? 

message: Conservapedia now blocks all users who aren't "in good standing" from editing for at least 12-hours a day.  That means that only sysops (about 30) and trusted non-sysop characters (less than 10) can edit 24 hours a day, and all other editors are either vandals (90%) or editors legitimately on the site who become discouraged by having their opinions squelched and reverted, and then quit (rolling 10%).
I honestly don't think that Conservapedia can claim to be a wiki anymore.  If you suppress all but 30 of your membership, you're not an open project anymore.  See the discussion here.
Should the article reflect this somehow?-AmesG 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes - wiki just refers to the software - it really puts not specific limitations on usage (althought our article on wikis seems to suggest that...). --Fredrick day 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Ames, the problem is that wikipedia's core requirements include the need for  secondary sources for pretty much anything. If no valid secondary source has reported on it, it can not be included. If we could find an article that covered CP and included the fact then it could be added. Tmtoulouse 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It really isn't.  Most wikis have very restrictive editorship/readership - probably "Everybody who works for company X" and things along that line. WilyD 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Verifiability is a core principle of wikipedia, no we can not use less accepted sources, if a source doesn't say it, then we don't say. Tmtoulouse 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't claim to be a Wiki project anymore 

message: Conservapedia has sanctions as a disctinguishing feature. They are on the commandments page.  That is reason enough to leave the section on them in the wiki. I propose to put the section back in place Corailrouge-eng 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions 

message: In the article, it compares Conservapedia's 9 commandments to only two of Wikipedia's five pillars, not even mentioning the rest of the policies and guidelines. Is this a biased comparison? --JDitto 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the policies and guidelines for which project. The 5 pillars are a overall summary of all our policies, and I feel the 9 commandments are the same of Conservapedia. It is correct, but needs to be expanded upon. --wL<speak·check> 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see your point, it might be a good idea to compare WP:5P with the Conservapedia commandments. At the very least we should refer to WP:V and WP:NOR rather than WP:A, as the latter is no longer policy in its own right. Hut 8.5 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the comparison right? 

message: Conservapedia is impossible to navigate. When browsing it (i spent an hour frustrated with it this morning... not the most accurate assessment i guess), you will find that every single article is blocked from editing. 
Later on, my username was banned for the reason of "please chose another name" (don't understand why "itsnotmyfault" is an illegitimate username to begin with).
to discuss the block, the site invites me to post an edit to the blocker's (or other admin's) discussion page...
a little hard to do when A) every article is protected and B) you're blocked from posting...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.110.111 (talk) 13:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:This talk page is intended for discussion of the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia, not Conservapedia itself. Hut 8.5 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI they want all unknown editors to give their real names.  I was blocked for the same reason and asked the Sysops.  I presume it is so they can check the credentials of all contributors, but their site rules do not mention this, and in fact specify that you have to give your real name only if you wish. 194.9.188.21 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to navigate 

message: What is the name of the logical misdirection of which "A Conservative Encyclopedia You Can Trust." is an example - are there conservative encyclopedias which cannot be trusted etc (and some non-US conservative encyclopedias which can)?
Can someone do an archive on this talk page. Jackiespeel 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical definitions

message: Some of the Conservapedia editors (especially Andy Schlafly) do have a history of incivility: personal attacks, flaming, etc. If criticism shows up in "reputable sources" then would it be eligible for inclusion? The decision would have to be careful since it would probably show up in Andy's "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page/rant on Conservapedia. - Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've mentioned elsewhere, the appropriate place to put it would be the criticism/reaction section - and the claims would need to be backed by reliable secondary third party sources Wisdom89 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incivility from Conservapedia leaders? 

message: Surely this phrase which keeps popping up in the wiki article is POV? "Percieved liberal bias" would be a better wording.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.11.98 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rampant liberal bias"- POV? 

message: While I appreciate that edits such as this raise the ire of Wikipedia editors, I wonder at the inclusion of the information that "The site had 13,000 registered usernames of which about 7,000 were permanently blocked (about 54%)." This seems designed exclusively as a crowing contrast to the enormity of Wikipedia itself, any thoughts? Mallocks 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine it's more of a jibe at the amount of editors they ban for vandalism or for disagreeing with them. Since we have absolutely no context for the blocks, though - maybe a spammer made 7,000 accounts one morning - it seems a bit meaningless to report the fact without a secondary source to put it into some sort of context. --McGeddon 12:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't reasons for users being banned reported in the Conservapedia wiki? Dave420 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's been 24 hours since I raised the question and given its extremely dubious encyclopedic merit I'm getting rid of it. Mallocks 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was baned as soon as I registred on Conservapedia the reason given to me was "use your real name", so I appears that they do not alow nice names, although this isn't stated on there site, this could explain there very high number of banned users. --AJenbo 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further more, the two first sugestion on there site on how to contact an admin to resolve the issue does not work when you are band I found a third after inspecting the site a bit more carfuly, they refered one to send an email to webmaster@conservapedia.com but the mail server just reponds that there is no user by that name, so i'm preaty sure we can atribute the high number of blocked user to a bad/broaken registration process on there site. --AJenbo 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably correct.  Their policy is that you must contact the Sysop who blocked you if you disagree with them,  but as you are blocked you cannot post to their talk pages, and most Sysops do not list an email address that you can email.  I'm not sure how that can be included in the article however as there's no source for that. 194.9.188.21 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal bias", so on and so forth 

message: This article reads like it's on Conservapedia itself. I'm not sure what can be done other than a wipe and restart. Is anyone who's not a regular Conservapedia editor working on this article? Simões (talk/contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that adding terms like "liberal deceit" and "pro-gay" to the article is definitely not appropriate. But I noticed another change to the article when I looked at what I was reverting... Someone snuck in a link to Fox News Channel in the see also. Although Fox News was started as an alternative to the perceived liberal bias of CNN, having it alongside GodTube (vs. YouTube and MyChurch (vs. MySpace) just seems wrong. Luatha 03:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also no substantial, reliable sources confirming that FOX is a perceived conservative alternative to CNN and etc. It's best to leave that out. The POV push by a disruptive editor has been noted at WP:ANI#Requesting a quick look at Conservapedia, and the offending user has been blocked twice already; an outright ban wouldn't be all too bad, in my opinion.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never before seen 'liberal' used to such profound effect as a slur. And this is "debate", the user angrily proclaims in their edit summaries. As I state in the section above I do believe there's room for improvement ("Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project"? Big who cares), but going from one stance to entirely the other isn't it. Mallocks 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV mess 

message: Maybe we could include some information about the Big Word that some Conservapedia users have learned: "Pedantic". The word has been redefined as "any writing by one that disagrees with me". They don't use it correctly but it's so widespread on the site that it's practically a culture reference.71.35.252.65 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry. That was inappropriate. Never mind - I was in a bad mood when I wrote that.128.187.0.164 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pedantic" and "Pedant" 

message: Sorry but that's been bugging me. I mean I know they spell it "Conservapedia" but it just doesn't look right. Serendipodous 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They take the 'a' from 'conservative' rather than the 'o' from 'encyclopedia'.  It could go either way, I guess.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 10:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if this was the case, proper spelling and proper names don't necessarily coincide. :) Luatha 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't it be "Conservopedia"?

message: Just wondering if it should be mentioned that the staff of Conservapedia reported vandalism to the FBI and after being ridiculed about it being ignored started to ban anyone who mentioned it? Archived talk pages: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive26#FBI and http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive26#Prosecuting_Vandals
RationalWiki article including some deleted bits from the talk pages and a list of those banned for mentioning the FBI since the event: http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident 193.120.116.178 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That needs corroboration from outside reliable sources - rationalwiki isn't reliable, and conservapedia archives are primary sources and is pretty much original research Wisdom89 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About what Wisdom89 said that 'conservapedia archives are primary sources and is pretty much original research', what happens then with references 10,11,14,15,19,25,26,29,37,38,39,43,45, and 46 in the article? Equidistant 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections of the article that make interpretations based on these references should be deleted as they are original research.  The rule is pretty simple - any conclusion or interpretation must be published somewhere else before it can be included here.  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the FBI incident be mentioned here? 

message: Just like articles, as they please? -Dukered 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Per WP:TALK#Others' comments, you can't edit other people's comments unless it is in violation of 1.5.1.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are editors allowed to edit Talk Pages? 

message: Some Related Articles I put (Christian right, Conservatism,  
Fundamentalist Christianity, Right-wing politics, Neoconservatism, Homeschooling) have been reverted, yet I haven't seen a strong argument to do so. 
MCgeddon says that it's "broad and borderline-POV ... these should be sourced in the body text of the article (and some already are), rather than bolted lazily on)", while Hut 8.5 repeats the same thing (to claim "consensus" later on Hut?) Wisdom 89 alleges that I'm trying to prove a point, using TW. 
On that basis, virtually every article on Wikipedia shouldn't have "Related Articles" or the "See Also" section, since everything should be "covered in the body of text". Sincerely, I'd like to see some reasoning here. Equidistant 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant guidelines say that a See also section should not contain "links that are only vaguely related to the topic". The links currently in the See also section are of other conservative/religious versions of popular websites, so they are certainly closely relevant, whereas the links that were added were vague references to much wider topics that were not very helpful as navigational aids. If it can be sourced that these links describe Conservapedia's ideology then they should be included in the main body of the article, with references. What's more, several of these links already appear in the article, something else that is discouraged by WP:SEEALSO. Hut 8.5 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Guidelines are not policies, and those topics that Equidistant mentioned are closely related to how Conservapedia thinks and does. I suggest you take a look at WP:COI too. Dukered 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, who are you suggesting needs to read WP:COI? --McGeddon 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the article is already demonstrating it, then it's a simple matter of rewording those sentences to include links to those articles. If sources are demonstrating it but we aren't quoting them, we should quote them instead of giving a bulleted list of keywords. This is in WP:LAYOUT. --McGeddon 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Articles 

message: Conservapedia has no article for vagina, penis, erection and masturbation and only 9 lines for the sex article, however the homosexuality article is over 250 lines long and is referenced to 179 documents. Perhaps this kind of bias should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.--217.44.82.230 11:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source has commented on it, then yes. Hut 8.5 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of Bias in Convervapedia

message: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments
I quote:  "Minors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor."
I know we can't take this straight from the page, as that would constitute original research (I suppose Conservapedia has no such rule from what I've seen of its material), but this kind of threat—which they have in the past acted on—is clearly abhorrent and completely contrary to the purposes of the wiki software that these insects stole and shamelessly trashed.  Anyway, I'm sure most of the editors here are aware of this little bit, as much as it has been paraded around.  That this has been mentioned in countless blogs (or at least one: http://crankydaze.blogspot.com/2007/03/conservapedia.html) and been parodied at least on Uncyclopedia and ED (which perhaps ought not be included considering its blacklisted status) should or could count for something.  I'm sure some "notable" source will eventually pick up on it if Conservapedia doesn't die in the meantime, but I really think this should be somehow included, seeing as how Wikipedia uses the Wiki software and Conservapedia is fairly notable and all that. Bloodbeard 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a logical and simple reason for that policy. There were some serious issues with images being overwritten with porn purposefully. Dagomar 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but it seems that it has also been used to justify reporting relatively benign vandalism to the FBI—which I think is kind of notable (and appalling).  However, I do not work for the press, and I am no one particularly notable.  So I shall desist.  Bloodbeard 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Until a reliable source mentions this, it shouldn't be in this article.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it can be mentioned in the article, as many other things are, with references straight from Conservapedia. I know that editors cannot interpret facts without violating NPOV, but the WP:OR rule has been bended here many times. Equidistant 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point here, there are numerous references in the article that direct you to some conservapedia article, but still, past mistakes do not justify the continued violation of WP:NOR. Wisdom89 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia "Commandments" Threatening Prosecution for Vandalism or Posting of Obscenity

message: Why is an article on RW not allowed if this article is allowed to stand? Either allow both or allow neither - to do anything else would be hypocritical. Concernedcitizen102 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlassCobra 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The article you're pointed at is policy, there is no legal mumbo jumbo. And second of all conservapedia has been written about  prolifically in the news, whereas rationalwiki has not been. That makes conservapedia notable, and rationalwiki not, please see WP:N. Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, to be more specific, your article did not assert it's notability, i.e. it did nothing to follow the notability guidelines. If you think the article is notable, assert its notability in the article by following the guidelines, and it will (hopefully) not be speedied for that reason, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability guidelines specifically require "significant coverage" - as you say, the LA Times article only "mentions" RationalWiki, which isn't enough sourced detail for us to build an article from. --McGeddon 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is not sufficient third party coverage dedicated to Rationalwiki. I like the site, but right now it merits, at best, a mention in Conservapedia's article. This isn't a statement about the website, but rather a reflection of how many third party sources are available on the topic.-Wafulz 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationalwiki

message: Wisdom89, why did you revert this edit?
The claimed primary goal of the Conservapedia article is to create a "trustworthy encyclopedia."  This goal is given such emphasis that they've made it the subtitle or slogan for their site.  It appears in the upper-left corner of every page on their site, as part of their logo.
It seems to me that the first-stated goal of the Conservapedia project should be mentioned in Wikipedia's article about it.  Don't you agree?
So I added it.  But a few hours later you reverted it.
You made no Talk page comment about your deletion, and your edit summary is confusing to me.  Your edit summary said, "The less original research we have in this article the better."  Why did you call quoting that subtitle WP:OR?  Did you think that I came up with the subtitle myself?  Did you, perhaps, overlook the "trustworthy encyclopedia" subtitle in the upper-left corner of every page on their site? NCdave 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtitle "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" 

message: This article ends rather weirdly, just stopping at a random point. there needs to be a concluding section, perhaps about CP's future, or its context in the wider world. Perhaps the material to draw on isn't there yet, but the article ending does kind of hang in mid-air. Incidentally, this is not a call to add uncited speculation. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good you mentioned this is not a call for uncited speculation; we'd be reading the usual jargon by now. Flor Silvestre (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the article 

message: I've put the title back to "Accusations of Censorship". The first title is both not NPOV and is not supported by the sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is. What do you understand for "dissenting views are deleted"? Isn't that censorship? And then Dr. Lipton was blocked because he simply contradicted the sysops and Schlafly. What is that? Suppression of dissent? The source doesn't accuse Conservapedia of censorship. It says that they do it.| DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the source, and what it says definitely fits the description of suppression of dissent. --wL<speak·check> 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This may need to be amended further. Much of it is about vandalism, so shouldn't it be "Vandalism"?4.246.211.226 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've perused the article. First of all, the "dissenting view" statement that was erased because it allegedly violated WP:NOR should be reinserted since the article actually reports that verbatim. However, the phrasing may need to be altered to show the reader that it isn't Wikipedia's conclusion - it was the author of the article. Secondly, to my recollection, the article makes no mention of censorship. Ergo, "Accusations of Censorship" and "Censorship are ill advised.Wisdom89 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I won't disagree with you about that - not one iota - but I'm loathe to use a word that the article itself doesn't even mention. Although, I suppose Suppression of dissent and Censorship DO go hand-in-hand. If that is the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the lesser of two possibly non-NPOV titles? Wisdom89 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wisdom89 - the reference doesn't mention censorship, so using censorship as the section title strikes me as kind of POV.  The point the reference does make is that critics worry about "material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seeks to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion" and that "dissenting views are [quickly] deleted".  I think this is more like propaganda than censorship, although neither of these words are mentioned in the reference.  Perhaps the section title should be Dissenting views are not tolerated. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be fine with something like that, but "Dissenting views are not tolerated" is long. It might make more sense to just remove the section header and include it as part of the previous section. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section header must stay, because this is an important aspect of how Conservapedia works. The line "A glance at an entry's history -- which shows editing over time -- makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted" from the source, does not limit to the breast cancer article. It speaks in a general way, evidently saying that all dissenting views are, indeed, deleted. But if you want a tamer tone, then the title could be "Dissenting views". Flor Silvestre (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Censorship" v. "Accusations of Censorship" 

message: According to the Conservapedia statistics page, the most often searched topics as of 10/20/2007 are: Homosexuality‎ (1,505,034 views), Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ (516,277), Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ (417,416), Homosexuality and Parasites‎ (387,532), Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ (333,452), Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ (328,632), Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ (322,735), Homosexuality and Syphilis‎ (262,583), and Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ (257,560).
So it appears that a large percentage of Conservapedia's audience is interested in homosexuality.  Had topics regarding homosexuality placed only a few of the top page ranks, it might not be considered newsworthy.  However, save the main page, articles regarding homosexuality outrank every other conservative issue (such as abortion, the Bible, the Commandments, terrorism, etc...) out there.  This might be something to consider writing about.  Dinjiin (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a reliable source reports about it, we can't add the content to the article - I'm afraid it would be original research. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned on Boing Boing today (), which is a good enough source to add it to the article. The same source also says that it's probably the result of malicious click bot. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boing Boing is a blog and shouldn't be used as a source. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published weblogs are fine under WP:SPS if the author has sufficient authority in the field, which Mark Frauenfelder does. --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Freind of a friend?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One would think simply visiting the website and confirming the fact would be enough. Statistics are accessible right off the main page, as easy to verify as can be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.47.129 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That constitutes original research. We should not be citing Conservapedia directly. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  We don't need to add things in to details that are almost certainly pranks (see for example Seth Finkelstein's comments on the matter) when they come from barely reliable (if that) partisan sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  In any event, Boing Boing has since acknowledged that this is a probable prank. See there updated version http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-ten-most-viewed.html . JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I tacked it onto the end of the paragraph about coordinated vandalism, when it first appeared. A new "Attacks" section with both the click bot story and the RationalWiki paragraph seems like a good idea; I'll make the change. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most searched topics 

message: The LA Times article includes the sentence "A glance at an entry's history -- which shows editing over time -- makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted." - what are other editors' opinions on how we should use this quote? Is the writer talking about a single article (the breast cancer article that she goes on to discuss), or does she mean "any article"? Is the line sufficiently ambiguous that we can't really conclude anything from it?
The current version of the Wikipedia article uses this quote to conclude that "Conservapedia's sysops quickly delete dissenting views added to its articles on science and medicine.", but this seems like too much of a generalisation (and perhaps credits the Conservapedia sysops with too much omniscience). What do we think? --McGeddon (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship lead 

message: I discovered conservapedia last night and basically laughed out loud the whole night nonstop. Anyhow, seeing how the project seems to be serious from it's editors, I hope wikipedia does not get caught up in their accusations and react in anyway. I did find one line in the article here: "Such accusations are not found in Wikipedia's article.[20]" which seems to be a provoked response to Conservapedia. I think it's best to refrain from starting a fight of any sort and to remain objective. The title of this article is 'Conservapedia' not 'Comparisons of Wikipedia and Convervapedia'. So I'm removing that one line, hope no one has a problem with that.
Abhishekbh (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex that Conservapedia only exists to serve a narrow agenda, and to even acknowledge their attacks is to lend them undeserved credence.  To respond to Wikipedia's "bias" by starting up a biased and censored counter-pedia is laughable and should be treated as such by those of us who believe deeply in Wiki.  I learn more in a 15-minute Wikisurfing session than I do watching a month of network TV, and I know that the knowledge I'm absorbing comes from members that represent the entire political spectrum.  I challenge anyone to introduce obvious bias into a popular Wikipedia article and see how long it lasts.  I challenge anyone to edit bias out of a popular Conservapedia article and see how long it lasts. KyuzoGator (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a line from the article 

message: The Daily Show reference was removed today.  The Daily Show is very notable, is it worth a mention?  Perhaps not as a criticism, but as a reaction?  I'm trying to find the video and having little luck.  WLU (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you couldn't find it anymore, here's the link to the video you were talking about: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=89307&title=new-media --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Stewart 

message: The question has arisen whether " Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." is less correct than " Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological scientific theory defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." 
I submit it is more correct; the sentence describes the process of evolution, which is observable, and not the theory, which is not. Further, Wikipedia's article on evolution begins by presenting the observable fact of evolution, and doesn't mention "theory" until the third paragraph. "Process" is correct here. - Nunh-huh 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence specifically mentions empiricism, observation, and measurable evidence (data) - these are hallmarks and basically the definition of the scientific method, which is used to build scientific theories and models. I fail to see why semantics warrants numerous reverts. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not semantics, it's paying attention to making the sentence accurate rather than sticking links in where they don't make sense. - Nunh-huh 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia defines Evolution as a scientific theory as it adheres to the principles of the scientific method. Ergo, it is more appropriate to say that "Wikipedia presents Evolution as a Scientific Theory..." Wisdom89 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already pointed out [1] the sentence refers to observations, not merely theory, and [2] the Wikipedia article on evolution points out that evolution is a fact, the mechanism of which is explained by the theory of evolution. WIkipedia has a whole article devoted to the distinction of the fact and the theory of evolution. So not only does the link you seek to inject make a grammatical nonsense of the sentence, it's misleading and offers no advantage over the long-standing and present wording. - Nunh-huh 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still missing my point. My qualm isn't regarding the distinction between fact and theory - I am well aware of the science of Evolution and quite familiar with the distinction you make. My point is that the sentence, as it currently reads, is describing the THEORY, not the FACT of evolution. It speaks about the tenets of the scientific method, which functions to build paradigms and scientific THEORIES. The term "process" is just a generic throwaway word with little substance and meaning in this context. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't miss your point, I simply disagree with your reading. Since our positions are quite clear, I suggest we wait for other opinions before going further. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. That's the best approach Wisdom89 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents evolution as a scientific theory lacking support. It asserts that creationists, creation scientists and some secular science journals state that evolution is in conflict with the majority of evidence,Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9. whereas Wikipedia presents the mainstream scientific viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explained by the theory of evolution."Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)"Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007) Conservapedia also criticizes the theory of relativity, suggesting that academicians who question the theory suffer for their beliefs.See Conservapedia's article.
The point is that Conservapedia claims evolution is only a theory (indeed, "evolution" is a redirect to "theory of evolution") while Wikipedia's article on evolution describes a process that the theory explains.  Note I've deleted the reference to Newton, who certainly didn't have anything to say about Wikipedia's article.  I actually think it would be best to find a secondary source describing both Conservapedia's and Wikipedia's articles about evolution rather than these summaries which border on WP:OR.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it (it's interesting that Conservapedia has "evolution" redirect to "theory of evolution", and Wikipedia has "theory of evolution" redirect to "evolution"), but there's a repetition that should be eliminated. Instead of "Wikipedia presents the mainstream scientific viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explained by the theory of evolution", perhaps "Wikipedia presents the mainstream viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explainable by scientific theory"?  I agree the reference to Newton is irrelevant: in looking over Conservapedia's article on evolution, I note that they mention Newton along with such other notables as Archimedes, Aristotle, and St. Augustine as foes of evolution! Astonishing! - Nunh-huh 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia presents the mainstream viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explainable by scientific theory" - This statement is perfectly acceptable to me as well. My objection merely rested upon "evolution as a biological process" - sounds a little tame, that's all. Didn't really agree with the term "process" for the most part. And yes, the reference to Newton should be nixed. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  process 

message: Wisdom89,
In the Conservapedia article, the claim that Conservapedia has the "stated goal" of being oriented toward right-wing Christian views is not verifiable. Anyone who bothers to visit Conservapedia and look for such a statement will come up empty-handed. It is indeed obvious that this is what Conservapedia is all about, but there is no such mission statement at Conservapedia.
Thus, the correct way to note the site's bias is to say it is "apparent" rather than to say it is a "stated" gaol, when no such statement is made. To say the goal is stated, when it seems not to be, constitutes "original research" on the part of the editor. Where does Conservapedia state such a mission?
My correction was in perfect order. Please revert your revert. --The Oracle of Podunk 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as much about any goals Schafly may have stated in interviews, although you may be right in that I can't find any relevant quotes in the sources; he does seem to be careful to pitch it as "without left-wing bias" rather than "with right-wing bias". --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims should be backed up with evidence 

message: Re this change:
The cited sources do confirm that Schlafly and Conservapedia have said this. The derivation of the statistic is indeed unscientific (the words ludicrous and comical might be appropriate, too), but the cited sources do not criticize the statistic, nor do they call it "unscientific." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "six times more liberal than the American public"

message: Does conservapedia have guidelines similar to wikipedia?  Such as NPOV, OR, etc.?  I just took a gander at their homosexuality page (hey everyone's doing it) and it is basically one huge hate crime - it repeatedly references completely discredited theories and individuals, and presents as facts almost all of the most disparaging and scientifically inaccurate anti-gay claims ever made.  Other than being plain offensive, it leads me to the conclusion that they must not have any of the guidelines that wikipedia does.  What exactly are their rules or guidelines, and should this be in the article here?VatoFirme (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their official guidelines are their "commandments", as the article already says.  On the other hand they clearly have a strong editorial policy enforcing US right wing conservative Christian viewpoints (see Christian right).  Although this is plainly true, the article in Wikipedia is bound to Wikipedia's policies of NPOV and OR so it can only say what other sources have said about Conservapedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines?

message: The Conservapedia entry for Moustache seems minimalist and that for Pelagianism appears to contain incorrect information - and I would expect the article on Liberalism to mention Gladstone and others under the European section.
Using the "basic counting of articles" "statistical" method I used previously, Conservapedia still has a higher proportion of unsourced articles than Wikipedia. (I am not going to write the comparative statistical article mentioned above: I am just observing.)
I think "examples of blocking policies", "examples of seemingly bizarre presentations of articles" and "fallacy of 6x general American liberal bias statement" have been flagged often enough for minimal further references to the topics. 
As there are repeated references on the talk page to NOR - can "the proverbial someone" do the Wikinfo article, and so resolve the issues mentioned rather than "never decreasing circles" here. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Useful Conservapedia" articles