Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 2

message: I personally noticed many problems with Conservapedia's page on Wikipedia's bias. For example, they adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. Wikipedia has a NPOV rule, which Conservapedia perceives as liberal, simply because it is not conservative. In addition, many of the things they accuse Wikipedia of doing (using outdated sources, etc.) they do in the same page, and various other pages. Finally, I noticed that a link for their study which supposedly proves that Wikipedia is 6 times more biased than the American public, it led to a different page on their perceived bias on Wikipedia.
Sillybear25 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia's Fallacies

message: I would like to recommend that anyone who has ever disagreed with anything ever should go read Conservapedia articles in their spare time.  There are some hilarious articles.  Also, it's fun to moderate bias and get accused of 'bias.'  Maybe they just claim my edits are biased because i made my username 'GodlessLiberal'...  omg ShiftPlusOne 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I disagree with Conservapedia's content/editorials. Always remember there are people who think differently than you and me. With this in mind, Wikipedia has an ultimate obligation to present the whole story, not just yours and mine. Wikipedia has two important guidelines for its editors NPOV and Attribution. When does or should an editor not address a fringe idea? I say my friend, I do not have the answer and I cannot speak for my fellow Wikipedia users and Wikipedia editors but Wikipedia has collaborative guidelines that we, collectively, can modify. paradoxos 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia is hilarious

message: I think that this page she be protected. Although (and I agree) some people think the conservapedia is a idiotic, hypocratic pile of rubbish, that is not for me or any other to say on Wikipedia, and this page is becoming quite vandalised. Matt. P 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its coming in and a very slow rate, there is plenty of people that have this on their watch list at the moment, we have managed to revert all the vandalism very quickly. I don't think protection is needed at all. Tmtoulouse 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: After reading Conservapedia's concerns about Wikipedia, I decided to do some measuring of their relative quality. The result is my Relative quality of Conservapedia and Wikipedia article on my own Wiki. I don't know if any of the info in that would be considered useful here, but I'm certain that adding it to the article myself would be a conflict of interest. -Harmil 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fine thing to do, but I don't see any particular reason that the two have to overlap. What I'm measuring is the quality differential over time to see if it converges or diverges. -Harmil 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, comparing Conservapedia with Wikipedia as of 2007 seems to me to be like comparing the baseball skills of someone in the Little League and someone in the National League. You can do it, but what's the point? They're not even in the same league. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might seem fair, but read what I wrote on that page. I call out two scenarios: random pages (sure, we expect a new effort to not do as well, there, but the results are rather dramatic, including one citation that's a link to a caricature of Hitler with no text, and out of my random sampling NO pages that have any citations that back up their content... NONE); and a second scenario where I compare one of the articles that Conservapedia calls out as specifically improving on the deficiencies of Wikipedia (Benjamin Franklin). It's not a comparison of article count or of overall capacity to deal with the "whole of human knowledge," as I think Mr. Wales put it, but a simple evaluation of their claim that they're including only factual and well-cited information that removes Wikipedia's biases. At this time, that claim appears to be false... my ongoing study aims to determine how that changes over time. -Harmil 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Regarding Dpbsmith's point: Harmil's page is a response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia as of 2007, not the 2002 incarnation of Wikipedia. That's why Harmil is comparing Wikipedia 2007 to Conservapedia 2007. -Eisnel 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are lots of errors there, and there are lots of errors here. But the difference is here, anyone can correct them; there -- not so much. Thus, the Conservatives are told King James I of England is still a "confirmed bachelor", and that Henry Liddell's relatives have "royal" titles, while Wikipedians are told the name of King James's wife, and recognize that peerage titles aren't "royal titles". So when Andrew Schlafly doesn't understand something, such as Catholicism's views on evolution, or what "royalty" is, there's no chance of Conservapedia getting it right. - Nunh-huh 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ... as long as you don't search for the truth and facts about sex of course.;-) Fram 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative quality of Conservapedia and Wikipedia 

message: Compare this quite interessting discussion: Aschlafly#CreationWiki. --Nemissimo II 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: License?

message: Anyone know how to fix the third box at the top of the page?  It says the article appeared on 3 August 2007 -- impossible, in this space/time continuum.  At first I thought it was a spoof or vandal, but now I see it is just a cross-Atlantic miscommunication for 8 March.  Please always write the month as a word, not just in xx/xx/xxxx format. BrainyBabe 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the whole "MM/DD vs DD/MM" issue is weird. Changed it to "March 8, 2007" :) --Sid 3050 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US/UK date

message: Obviously, Conservapedia equates "Wikipedia" and "English Wikipedia", but we should not. NPOV policy holds for all WP projects, but the era notation and spelling issues, being English-specific, are restricted to en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia vs. en-wiki

message: Before I edited it, this article claimed that Conservapedia was formed as a project "by" homeschooled children, when in reality it was created "for" such children as clearly stated in the article.  It is slightly saddening that a user would state this blatent lie for the sake of turning people off of Conservapedia. Slavik262 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies/slanted information 

message: http://www.conservapedia.com/Mikhail_Gorbachev - in articles like this, aren't they breaching copyright? (I could be wrong but that looks like a professional image to me)? Has this been discussed anywhere? --Fredrick day 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be to me, but without any sources, it's OR.  Haven't seen it discussed anywhere.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schlafly has made a comment that he isn't going to put much emphasis on image copyright issues, but to expand from that would be OR. (and it isn't notable without someone else picking the matter up). JoshuaZ 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A note to all, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not discussing how to create problems for the subjects of articles. JoshuaZ 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Timwayne has made incorrect statements about the copyright status of images, and the validity of this screenshot is probably about as accurate. Andjam 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statement amended. Screenshot is probably accurate. Andjam 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't be sure whether the image is by creationists or their parodyists. Conservapedia's version doesn't say the passenger was Jesus (it was called "StockDinosaur.jpg"). Jesus is mentioned in the file name only on wikipedia. If the passenger were Jesus, I'd say it was a parody, as Jesus was after Noah's flood. (Too much original research by me ...) Again, sorry for being too harsh. Andjam 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. It is possible it was not Jesus. That was an assumption on my part. (sorry). However, a human riding on a dinosaur is still, in my opinion, certainly representative of the overall quality and accuracy of content of Conservapedia. This picture is, as the saying goes, worth a thousand words. For this reason I believe it should be added back to the page.  In addition, since the dinosaur-man painting had been on the dinosaur entry for several weeks, I deem it unlikely to have been the work of parodists.  I am new to this and certainly want to play by the rules. That said, I am inclined to leave the picture on. Respectfully, Timwayne 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  further, I think the screen capture  represents a current event in action: the Conservapedia redacting its pages of embarrassing information (for example, see the history of the Conservapedia unicorn entry  ). Timwayne 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to this image, it seems to be uploaded today (ie after this kerfuffle). Andjam 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Digging through the history, the "Jesus riding a dinosaur" image was first included in the article 04:16, February 23, 2007 (UTC), by User:TrueReaganConservative (the image itself, StockDinosaur.jpg , is still on the site). The picture was removed from the article by User:Aschlafly 16:33, March 1, 2007 (UTC) with the edit summary "the drawing, made to look like a picture, is not appropriate in a factual resource" . --Transfinite (Talk) 02:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update "Jesus riding a dinosaur" has been deleted.   I know I'll miss dinosaur cowboy Jesus. --Transfinite (Talk) 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright images? 

message: Right now the search term 'Andrew Schlafly' redirects to Conservapedia.  This is probably the best place to ask, do people think there's enough info on him to create his own page?  Lots of notable sources I'd think.  WLU 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he meets WP:BIO- there are many sources that mention him in the context of Conservapedia, but none that are both non-trivial and reliable. JoshuaZ 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Schlafly page 

message: Delete " wiki project aiming to construct a " in order to eliminate any perception that Wikipedia is affiliated with Conservapedia. Implement change no later than March 19, 2007. 
Registered Wikipedia users distinguish "wiki" and "Wikipedia", but the causual or novice user may not readily distinguish the difference. With my experience as a registered Wikipedia user, I read the excerpt three times to fully understand there was NO affiliation between the two, and my reading comprehension is at least average. Also, the Conservapedia website graphically emulates Wikipedia, minus the globe.
I'd like to stick the " wiki project aiming to construct a " back in, but not sure where since this is not my pet project.
====Start Change====
Conservapedia is an encyclopedia project with articles that are purportedly pro-American, socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity.  Conservapedia uses MediaWiki software, thereby producing similar webpage graphics with the same functionality as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not affiliated with Conservapedia.
The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, in response to an alleged anti-Christian and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia. According to a FAQ on Conservapedia it originated from a project for homeschooled children, and its creator believes it could eventually evolve into a "reference for teachers". In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for various online courses, for example, on American History, is stored on the site.  Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. Andrew Schlafly has stated that he hopes the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers and work as a general counterpoint to alleged liberal bias on Wikipedia as Fox News does for the news media. Its earliest articles date from 22 November 2006.
====End Change====
Paradoxos 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to clearly distinguish from Wikipedia

message: Paradoxos 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End Change

message: Propose to add context and move under Criticism and vandalism. Implement change no later than March 20, 2007.
I honestly do not understand the encylopedia value of the paragraph without additional information. How is this important to the Wikipedia entry? I've tried, but can't justify the paragraph in my simple mind.  Is Conservapedia fed up with website vandalism and is just threating? If so, then they're in the same boat as Wikipedia. Apparently, Wikipedia experiences a lot of vandalism, intentional or otherwise. Even though I feel Conservapedia purports to be an encyclopedia resource, they are still entitled to tell a story how they see fit.
====Start change====
On its main page, Conservapedia claims that posting obscene material or vandalizing the site is illegal, and could result in a jail sentence of ten years. It makes these claims on the basis of Title 18 of the United States Code, specifically 18 USC § 1470 (with respect to obscenity) and 18 USC § 1030 (with respect to vandalism).
====End change====
Paradoxos 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add context, move under ''Criticism and vandalism'' heading or move to footnote or delete

message: Paradoxos 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End change

message: The project was founded in response to perceived, liberal, anti-Christian and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia.[5]
:"liberal bias" is stated explicitly on the Conservapedia website and recited by other sources. Editors may consider adding purported or another delimiter.
παράδοξος 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added ''liberal'' in second introductory sentence

message: Schlafly was on NPR's All Things Considered today.  It's already been mentioned on this page, but editors might like a pointer to the story, so you can use it as a source for the article.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPR story 

message: From the linked article: "Conservapedia, as its name implies, does not aspire to objectivity. Nor does it aspire to fairness. It aspires to give you the impression that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts."
I would argue that this is totally inaccurate.  Conservapedia does not argue that there's a "second, equally valid interpretation". It argues that there is ONE correct interpretation, and they've got it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.78.212 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Fact Of One's Own" 

message: The "kangaroo" article was cited there, as well as on this talk page (above). Methinks Robert Siegel reads talk pages...  Interested parties should access the interview and listen on line.  I heard it while cleaning stalls, and laughed myself horse (sorry) at how quickly the article ended once the absurdity of their project was exposed. Almost heard the staff at NPR guffawing in the background. Soltera 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Siegel talked with Schlafly on NPR 

message: For an article on a specifically American topic, there seems to be a lot of non-American editors, as evidenced by the constant British English added to the article. Nevertheless, please do follow WP:ENGVAR and use American English when editing. DHN 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be an intentional "jab", considering the strict "American spelling" editing rules on their site.  But I agree, American spelling is more appropriate in this article. --Transfinite (Talk) 02:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do our best, SqueakBox 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-American editors 

message: While tapping through the site I came across this link:   http://www.conservapedia.com/StudyConservapedia
It seems to explain some more of the site's origins.  It's quite clear that the first articles were written by children - though I suppose that's hardly in doubt and I don't know if it's worth adding to the article.
--Laukiz (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that bit of information could perhaps shed some light on why many of the articles were originally of such poor quality? -- Pellucid 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the origin of conservapedia 

message: Now, I know Conservapedia is bad and it used to be even worse, but doesn't it seem grossly unfair that we cite outdated articles that have since been changed? We don't even cite how long the false claims on Conservapedia were up. Imagine if someone picked out the least accurate entries ever in Wikipedia and attempted to paint the entire project with those pages; I know for a fact that the Tom Arnold article, for example, is frequently vandalized to say "Tom Arnold is gay." Would it be fair of someone to cite the vandalized article repeatedly without mentioning the repaired article even once? No, of course it wouldn't, but that's what we seem to be doing here. This article needs some serious cleanup. We need a section that mentions something, ANYTHING positive about the project, for example. I mean, there are even sections in the Adolf Hitler article that mention positives to the man. Pellucid 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, which of the examples of negative entries do you think should be removed? Second, regarding the lack of positive material- if you can find any more reliably sourced positive material, it should probably go in, but at present there does not seem to be much of it. JoshuaZ 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit removing the tag Joshua, SqueakBox 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the references to out of date articles are original research.  The works cited reference out of date articles.  A disclaimer to the effect that they have been corrected can be added, making it clear that we do not imply the idea that they were fixed because of the scrutiny (a technique which they use, dare I say liberally?) Mykll42 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noting removal might constitute original research, however many of the specific examples are still the same- also if we are removing examples we might want to expand the Kangaroo material and note that Andrew Schlafly has endorsed the material in particular, see  and . JoshuaZ 00:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That segment was under a subsection specifically devoted to creation theory. Evolutionary theory comes before it in the wiki. Oh well, I can see that nobody here understands why this is unfair. I guess I'll go add to the criticism of the Wikipedia entry that Wikipedia's stance is that "Tom Arnold is gay" and that "Bill O'Reilly is a child molesting pedophile" and all of the other short-lived edits of every article there is here. -- Pellucid 02:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever section it goes under, the bottom line is that unlike "Tom Arnold is gay" it isn't vandalism. Furthermore, the matter is sourced. For that matter, the sources also note the lack of mention of fossils and other issues including that Schlafly defended the entry on NPR. If Jimbo Wales defended the statement ""Tom Arnold is gay"" you might have a point. JoshuaZ 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see your proof that these pages were also not the result of vandalism (the Jesus riding a dinosaur picture, for example, was definitely vandalism). Yes, Conservapedia is even more unreliable than Wikipedia right now, but to cite pages that have been removed or repaired is grossly unfair. Once again, I can dig up some incredibly factually inaccurate Wikipedia entries that were not intended as vandalism if you'd like. -- Pellucid 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, weren't we just discussing the Kangaroo entry which was defended by Schlafly? JoshuaZ 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pellucid, you say that "to cite pages that have been removed or repaired is grossly unfair", and suggest that it would be unfair to apply the same standard to Wikipedia. In that case, how do you account for the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? That is a big controversy that cites a Wikipedia article that has since been changed. If it's fair the criticize Wikipedia for errors that have been corrected, then the same standard can be applied to Conservapedia's Kangaroo article. Furthermore, the external sources about the Kangaroo article refer to the earlier version, we can't change those external sources. -Eisnel 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Written by children? lol, SqueakBox 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, Genghis was a surprisingly tolerant guy. You know he executed any of his soldiers who he found to have raped anyone? That's pretty good for such an otherwise violent guy. -- Pellucid 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Free encyclopedias tag for article keeps being removed.  Why?  Jazzman123 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That category refers to free encyclopedias.  Conservapedia is free as in beer but not free as in speech.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, that's what I'm saying.  Conservapedia is free as in beer, or gratis, which means it does not cost anything to access it.  It is not free as in speech, or libre, which means that its content is not "Free".  That category only applies to the latter.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Free online encyclopedia tag for article keeps being removed.  Why? 

message: Why was my previous tag of "General encyclopedias" removed? Conservapedia has broad range of articles. Jazzman123 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservapedia is set up to cater to a specific community, not to the general public. Lurker oi! 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my previous tag of "General encyclopedias" removed.   

message: I removed a whole lot of uncited/unverifiable content at this article.  This is against Wikipedia rules.  For example, where does Conservapedia say it is a Conservative Christian site.  Please stick to your Wikipedia rules since you claim to be neutral point because that is your policy (NPOV).  But I don't see you following your policies here.  Jazzman123 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It freely professes to be a conservative, Christian site.  Read its front page, or any interview with Andrew Schlafly.  I don't have the time to go through the article right now, but I'll try to revise and source it tonight or tomorrow.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source all your claims BEFORE putting them on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Jazzman123 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add it.  Just answering the question you asked here.  As I said, I will attempt to fully revise and source in the near future.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does Conservapedia say it is a conservative Christian site on its front page as you claim.  I am from Missouri.  Please show me.  Here is their site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page  Jazzman123 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America."  And it says Conservapedia on the front page.  In the About Conervapedia page  it says "Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!"  In the Debate section entitled  "Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?" BenjaminS says, "Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible" BenjaminS is one of the founding members of conservapedia.  This link to logo discussion certainly implies Christianity [] in that a significant percentage of the proposed logos have a cross as their prime focus.  Mykll42 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I "give full credit" to Clinton for his diplomatic ability, but that doesn't make me a Democrat. I "give full credit" to Adolf Hitler for his Industrial Management ability, but that doesn't make me a Nazi, either. -- Pellucid 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, too.  And I give full credit to Christianity.  But I see no reason to single that out on the front page of my website.  Mykll42 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They specify it because they believe that Wikipedia does NOT give full credit to Christianity. It's just like how if every bakery on the block didn't sell cheesecake and you opened a bakery that did, you'd probably specify "we have cheesecake" despite that being something most bakeries wouldn't specifically advertise. -- Pellucid 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed a whole lot of uncited/unverifiable content at this article.  This is against Wikipedia rules. 

message: You state in this article that Wikipedia follows the mainstream views when it comes to the Theory of evolution.   However, it seems to me that the Theory of evolution merely has multiple streams and not one mighty river as the Conservapedia article alludes to. Here is why:
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11 
"“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007 
"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - Niles Eldredge]], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14). 
Jazzman123 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well go and argue that over at the TOE page and if you get agreement there, feel free to come and edit this article to match - otherwise it's red herring on this page. --Fredrick day 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frederick, where is the true consensus?  You haven't shown via expert opinion that my quotes are misplaced.  Isn't that right?  Jazzman123 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no I'm saying - I'm not here to waste my time with creationist quoteminers, I have other places for those sorts of debates. If you feel there is no common consensus about the TOE - then the TOE page is the place to argue that one - once you have won that argument and the article is changed, THEN you can change the representation of the wikipedia take on the TOE here. Anything else is just puff and dust.  --Fredrick day 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can forget about the "quote mine" red herring.  Just simply show the quotes are untrue via your own quotes.  I don't believe you can do it.  Now I strongly suspect you will decline this challenge once more given the sad state of affairs the evolutionary position currently occupies. Jazzman123 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of 'take it to the appropriate venue' did you not get? If you want to debate evolution, do it on the evolution article talk page. If you can convince enough mods that you're right and they're not, more power to you. But this talk page is to discuss the biases and policies of Conservapedia, not to start dissecting every article contained in Conservapedia. Jackytar 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  One final time, you want the TOE page - this page is not a discussion board about the theory of evolution. If you really want to argue such things, I suggest you head over to http://www.evcforum.net or the like when such debate is welcome.  --Fredrick day 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Fredrick day, this is way off-topic here Jazzman123. And it's rather juvenile to claim that his refusal to have an off-topic debate is an automatic admission of defeat. So yeah, your "challenge" is being declined... although I can't figure out what your "challenge" is. Do you want someone to post quotations from experts that seem to disagree with yours? Fredrick already directed you to some places where you might find someone to accept that "challenge". Not here. -Eisnel 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia and the Theory of evolution 

message: Article states Darwin influenced Gregor Mendel with reference to Trofim Lysenko's work as a Soviet biologist, and Mendelian genetics are fallacious. Gimme peas i'll show you p's.  paradoxos 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregor Mendel influenced Charles Darwin