Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 1

message: I see several people on talk are concerned about finding positive references to balance all of the negative. While concern with balance is good and important, it would be improper to seek to manufacture balance where none exists. My understanding is that Conservapedia itself would be entirely non-noteworthy but for the sudden rash of criticism against it. As far as I am aware appropriate "positive" sources to include simply do not exist for us to cite. We should not feel guilty about that, and it would be an error trying to bend the Wikipedia article out of misplaced guilt over that fact. If positive sources do exist, or if positive source do appear, then by all means add them. If Conservapedia truly is noteworthy and truly has positive aspects worthy of discussion, here then others make those judgments and we will cite them.
My Original Research is that Conservapedia is (at least for the time being) a non-notable vanity site that became a tourist attraction of the train wreck variety. If they can grow and mature into a site of importance, then good for them. Alsee 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of use are saying that we have to create a "balance" per se. The only point I have been trying to make is that we have pretty much covered whats out there, and what we do not want is to just make this a clearning house for every complaint that pops up about the cite. There is plenty here till we get something different or more substantial.Tmtoulouse 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Just noting a few thoughts here since I'm not sure how to incorporate them in the best way (or if they belong into the article at all).
* The sentence "Schlafly has stated [...] explain natural phenomena." is WAY too long in my eyes. A list may be better (either inline or with linebreaks) to guide a reader better, but I'm not sure what the MoS or Wiki Consensus says about lists in the middle of an article.
: I rewrote that section, and added some more of their objections. Kronix1986 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh certainly they are, but until we have reliable sources that discuss them we can't say anyting about them. As to the first sentence, feel free to rework it. JoshuaZ 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's what I thought, too. I inserted a link to the List of Biases on Conservapedia, not 100% sure if it's okay with the "don't cite a Wiki" rule, but it struck me as appropriate. Un-link if it's over the line, though. --Sid 3050 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few thoughts 

message: Whats the deal with the "lectures" that are posted? And the various talk pages full of what looks like homework assignments? Is conservapedia moonlighting as a place for Andrew to post info to his students? Tmtoulouse 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, yes. Again, no reliable sources have discussed this so we can't cite it. JoshuaZ 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the site itself talks about it could we use that as a source? Tmtoulouse 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only in a very limited fashion - WP:RS discusses this. And given the Wiki nature of the project I'd think that makes citing it as even more questionable. JoshuaZ 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still concerned about the original research element. JoshuaZ 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Guardian article  says that Conservapedia started as a homework project... I assume that's where the homework assignment element comes in. mattbuck 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What are these talk pages? You mean the debate pages? Nil Einne 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, check out the talk page, for example, of Economics its turned into a discussion forum for homework assignments. Tmtoulouse 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lecture series

message: Kelly Ramsey in the last edit removed what the editor termed "unreliable blogs" However, the blogs in question were being used as primary sources of notable individuals commenting. In particular, Andrew Sullivan's blog , Carl Zimmer(one of the head science writers for the NYT). While some of the other blog entries such as | this one may be questionable(I think you can make a pretty good policy based argument otherwise but since the source is not that important for our purposes I'm not going to deal with it now), it is hard for me to see how the Zimmer and Sullivan blog entries don't meet WP:RS about what these individuals have said, and given who they are, there opinions by nature are notable. Input from other editors would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to the blogs being included at all, particularly Zimmer, but my question is that the number of sources critical of conservapedia is growing but no one is picking up the cause and writing WP:V sources that are even remotely positive. The goal of this article shouldn't just be a growing depository of criticisms with each new secondary source that comes up with another argument against the site. At some point don't we have to say "enough critical sources" or "enough criticism" and wait for additional sources that focus on elements other then whats wrong with it? Tmtoulouse 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing, however, both Zimmer and Sullivan are two very notable critics (and having a notable conservative critic is pretty hard not to note). I'd agree about being worried about including too much criticism, but it is hard for me to see in this limited case how we can't include them. (Incidentally, there is another reason to not have too much criticism- we don't want it too look like some sort of Wikipedia hatchet job on a critic). JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wired says that that is meant to be criticism so...JoshuaZ 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wired just says that he is "bemused", and that he failed to respond to their request for comment. --McGeddon 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Jon Swift blog as well, the wired article refers to him as a conservative blogger, but it was removed by with a commenting calling his blog a parody. Anyone know for sure? Tmtoulouse 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "unreliable blogs" 

message: (I am a pretty active Conservapedia editor. Please do not ask me why as I'm still trying to figure it out myself).
These really are musings. They're not rhetorical questions to which I have an answer in mind.
"The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly..." Do we know this? Is there a statement anywhere of who founded it? Would he accept this as a valid characterization? The Guardian piece does call him "the" founder in one place, but mostly it refers to "founders," plural. Who are the others?
User:Conservative, a highly highly unreliable source made a reference to a "board." Does it have a board? Who's on it? Do we know? What exactly are the roles of some other higher-profile editors. Is TimSvendsen, a sometime-WIkipedia-defender one of the Christian homeschoolers? Is PhilipB? Who's an adult? Who's a kid? Who's the webmaster, incidentally? Schlafly himself? Who took care of the obvious recent upgrades in capacity and bandwidth?
The article makes the same mistake that its sources do, of solemnly treating Conservapedia as if it were a tidy monolithic command-and-control encyclopedia with nice clear institutional points of view. On the Web, a little business can look a lot like a big business, and a toy Wiki can look like it's a serious competitor to Wikipedia. The article should make the point that this is a tiny site. The Latin Wikipedia is about four times as big. The Interlingua Wikipedia is about the same size.
Much of the mockery of Conservapedia is due to the striking contrast between its impressive false front and the ramshackle building behind it.
Today, Conservapedia is a virtual church basement with half a dozen people who talk a lot, a few harried-looking adult volunteers trying to conduct RE classes, fifty-eight kids, and people wandering through who can't tell the difference between the pastor's newsletter and the ninth-grade bulletin board. That bulletin board has on it a few posters trying to explain the Bible and a bunch of student project written in magic marker for a class exercise on "Places in the Holy Land." What are all the camera crews are doing outside?
It's so tiny that there may well be newcomers who notice that JoshuaZ and dpbsmith are fairly frequent contributors and may well assume that we're both Christian fundamentalists who are homeschooling our kids somewhere in New Jersey. (For the record, I'm not. I won't speak for JoshuaZ).
90% of what's written about Conservapedia, including this article, is actually about a) Conservapedia's home page, and b) Conservapedia's attack on Wikipedia. I'm not saying these are unfair targets. But are they "Conservapedia?" Are the textbook definitions posted as teaching exercises for students to expand ("Empress Lu: The Empress of China from 195 to 180 BC. She forcefully installed her two infant sons as emperors.")? The sometimes-clumsy student contributions? The prank entries ("Massachusetts Liberal A Liberal from Massachusetts. Generally, they want to throw out all rules of God, and live like animals. Often they are also evolutionists.")? The Andrew Schafly op-eds? The well-meant attempts to write actual articles (which are somewhat comparable to those in nostalgia.wikipedia.org? What is the "real" Conservapedia?
The article draft suffers from "recentism." To those who've been Googling on Conservapedia and reading the blogs that mention it, or reading Conservapedia frequently, the arboreal tree frog article is a hot news flash. The wave of parodic vandalism that washed over Conservapedia now seems to be in check. (What is Conservapedia doing about new users? There have been some new ones so account creation can't always disabled. Maybe he lets a few in, watches them, blocks them, lets a few more in?)
Well, OK. One more thought. Which is a more notable topic, "Conservapedia" or "Andrew Schlafly?" They both fall somewhere in the hazy twilight zone of borderline notability...
I guess I do have a sort of tentative conclusion, which is, first, Conservapedia isn't really all that notable, at least not yet. I voted against Eon8 a while back and I don't think Conservapedia is anywhere near as notable as Eon8 was. Second, I'm not sure how much we really know about Conservapedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all serious problems, and I agree that you've brought up good points, but we can't discuss Conservapedia's non monolythic nature unless we have sources about that. (Also, I disagree about the Eon8 comparison, Conservapedia has far more reliable sources discussing it, and a google search alone shows that Conservapedia gets many more hits than Eon8). JoshuaZ 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: If conservapedia ends up getting an article, then we may want to have an article on vandalism of wikis, as it would now be a phenomenon no longer confined to just wikipedia. Andjam 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone has written about it as a general phenomenon, it is going to be original research. JoshuaZ 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That proviso on original research really is a bitch mattbuck 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this sort of case yes, when dealing with cranks with their own versions of relativity or ideas about where the pyramids came from, no. JoshuaZ 09:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The example entries seems to have OR. In particular, the 2nd law of thermodynamics set is all OR. JoshuaZ 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the 2nd law example, but the arboreal tree octopus is discussed in the wired article. There are several other examples that are discussed in the wired article too we could pull out if we wanted more examples.Tmtoulouse 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does anyoen else think we should have more examples from the Wired article? I'm undecided on it, since we have a lot of negative content already and almost every entry discussed in the wired article was described negatively. JoshuaZ 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about OR 

message: From the article: "Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project.[13] "Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants."
Question [1]: does Conservapedia actually use Wikipedia content to build variants? (I don't think so: if so, does it meet GFDL requirements? (I don't think so))
Question [2]: to what extent can Conservapedia be said to be "free culture"? It doesn't seem to specify its licence, so I assume they simply claim copyright. No copyleft, no public domain, no GFDL, no "Free" as far as I can see. Probably I've missed where they specify, but it would be good for us to be clear if we can find the answer. Is the "free culture" alluded to here simply their use of free software? Again, it would be good to specify. - Nunh-huh 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the comment just means "If they want to use our software to play on their isolated island with weird rules, they have the freedom to do so." So I it's possibly just a remark about the MediaWiki software since Conservapedia doesn't re-use Wikipedia content (from what I can see). The issue of Conservapedia content copyright is somewhat interesting, though. --Sid 3050 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andrew doesn't apparently want to put the content under the GFDL. I sent Jimbo a note a while back pointing out that Conservapedia was not in fact under the GFDL in regard to that comment. JoshuaZ 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free??? 

message: Excerpt from "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" (Conservapedia): "Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'.[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."  ....So what??? ...or do they expect Wikipedia to be an exclusive domain for Americans??  Did they ever stop to think that perhaps non Americans use and edit Wikipedia and that they may be proportionally more 'liberal'?  SPatrickB 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably already get that current ratio if you only look at those americans who can read, write, have access to a computer and can handle it, understand what is wikipedia and find a way to change its contents instead of taking them all... --192.35.17.10 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Non-American 

message: I tried to create an account on Conservapedia, but couldn't.  Was I merely botching the signup process, or has Conservapedia restricted access in some way? JamesMLane t c 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservapedia no longer allows users to create accounts, meaning it is edited by the sole 58 high school students who created it. I guess the truth was too much for them to handle... A user was blocked for adding "liberal references" to their "Theory of Evolution" article. --Hojimachongtalk 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I believe that one can send an email to the eagle forum to get an account. JoshuaZ 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I'll go try that out. --Hojimachongtalk 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Accounts registered earlier are mostly still active; mine, for instance. There are more editors than just the original students. Tsumetai 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does Conservapedia mean by "user-controlled", if users cannot register? Are some users more equal than others? Tabletop 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  As a physicist, I wanted to edit the "Gravity" article - do we know of any way that this can be done by users not already registered? jgates 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that if you email the Eagle Forum, they will give you access. JoshuaZ 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of new users 

message: This topic seems to be stirring up a fair amount of emotion in the unregistered posters, I've seen two reverts in the past hour. Anyone else think topic should be semi-protected? mattbuck 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two in an hour isn't enough for semiprotection, IMHO. Just put it on your watchlist, and revert anything stupid. It seems our friends from Conservapedia have been editing . --Hojimachongtalk 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock topic? 

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

message: The issues is NOT that we deny that this has been disabled, but whether it is WP:OR. There are no WP:RS other than the primary source to the site itself, this MIGHT fall under WP:SELFPUB but you are not reference a page on conservapedia that says that only their login page. That is WP:ORTmtoulouse 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we need a newspaper to say new users cannot register before we can say it here! It is a fact... new users can't register. By this logic, isn't the whole Wikipedia article WP:OR?Dave 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ATT and WP:NOTTRUTH, I really was interested in getting the information about Eagle Forum University on to this article, I just found it really interesting, but had to wait till a secondary source wrote about it. We are all watching for sources and the  moment we get a secondary source that mentions the registration issues it will be included. Tmtoulouse 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also note that Wikipedia relies on sources other than Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of new IDs on conservapedia

message: My first thought on Conservopedia was, "This is a parody site", my second, third and fourth thoughts were along the same lines. After reading through it, i can only come to the conclusion that this site is supposed to be a parody site along the lines of uncyclopedia. Is this true or is this a legitimate site? If it's a parody, shouldn't it be in the appropriate catagory?- Count23 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite clearly not a parody. Nil Einne 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Somebody went through and corrected the article's spelling and grammar, but ended up botching sentences. Looking at the flurry of edits, I'm guessing the changing of British spellings to American ones was Conservapedian vandalism which wasn't reverted. Just so it doesn't turn into a tug of war, I'll explain my corrections. You have an aversion to something, not of something. Doctrine equals the collective teachings of an ideology. "The facts" as opposed to "fact" is redundant. It's not "the Conservapedia". By the way, can this be locked? It looks like people are removing perfectly valid sections and making questionable edits. Kronix1986 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to guess about the changing of British spellings to American ones.  If you trouble to look at the history, you'll find this edit, in which I changed the spellings and included my reasoning in the ES: "(1) use AE not BE spellings in article on U.S.-based site".  That reasoning is still valid, so I'll restore my corrections.  I didn't make any of the grammar changes you dispute. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections of corrections 

message: Conservapedia seems to be closed to new registrants, because of legitimate edits which corrected nonsensical statements made by the in-house contributers. When it first appeared on the radar, many thought it would be a serious attempt to reinterpret history and science to support their stated ideals. It turns out that it's a wiki encyclopaedia written by 58 homeschooled children who are all introverted creationists, and lack a basic understanding of topics and concepts most of us covered in school.
With registrations closed, it's nothing more than a private circle-jerk between some ignorant and/or dumb kids. Does it deserve an article? Does its notoriety alone justify an article? If an article is justifiable, it should be made clear that:
1) It's closed to new entrants in order to avoid undesirable edits.
2) It's maintained by children.
Kronix1986 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to rehash the DRV here. Consensus of the community is that it deserves an article. Everything in the article needs to be from a WP:RS and we do not yet have one that clearly states that its closed to new users. Until we get this we cant make a big deal out of it. I thought the use of referring to it as a "private" wiki was a good compromise till we get a source. Also we do say in the article that it was created by a group of homeschoolers as part of a class project. It is not maintained solely by these students though as several wikipedia editors can attest.Tmtoulouse 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: P. S. In the past few days there has been an obvious improvement in speed. There has also been an influx of editing activity by usernames I haven't seen before, whose usernames do not fit the pattern that seems to have been used by most of the students. I have no idea what's going on; I suspect, guess, surmise that perhaps new users are being allowed in by invitation only. (I could always ask, but I haven't). Also, AFAIK Conservapedia has never billed itself as being a site that "anyone can edit." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed someone being welcomed who started editing today. You may also wish to check out Schlafly's user talk page discussing the subject. Andjam 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can Email the Eagle Forum to request a username and account. I'm going to test the waters of Conservapedia... wish me luck in closed-mindedville. --Hojimachongtalk 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The source article from Wired has him down as a "conservative blogger" a user has suggested that he is satirical and not a conservative, does anyone care about this? Should we use "conservative" "satirical" or no adjective at all? Tmtoulouse 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian which mentioned him described him as conservative. JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a need to class him at all? Isn't it better to be silent than be knowingly wrong just because somebody else was? I've tried to find an outside source to state that Jon Swift is satirical, but he doesn't appear to break character and it's proving difficult. All I've found is his nomination as best humor blog in the Weblog Awards. AlmostReadytoFly 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:ATT mean we go with sources on these issues, so we defiantly wouldn't call him satirical or liberal, but I don't see it as a requirement that we HAVE to class him. The point that was originally being made was that even conservatives were being critical. I think we should get more input on this, and in the mean time keep the original authors sourced wording till consensus breaks the other way.   Tmtoulouse 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know. This is difficult. I would however, point out that with the Sullivan comment we already have evidence of conservatives being unhappy without it being necessary to mention Swift at all. However, clearly the reference we have thinks he isn't a satirist and mentions him because of his negative opinions about the subject coupled with his self-identifying conservatism. Given that, if we do mention him at all we should mention that he is conservative since that's part of what makes his criticism notable. JoshuaZ 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Swift

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

message: Based on the German source I want to insert:
"==Involvement with Eagle Forum== 
In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for   various online courses, for example on American History, is stored on the site.    . Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. 
"
What do you guys think? Tmtoulouse 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a university for these people? That's pretty... scary. I wanted to add your paragraph right when I read it, but I will give you the pleasure of putting your well-sourced and informative statement into the page. I just made one spelling correction ;-). --Hojimachongtalk 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take care of this. --Hojimachongtalk 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New addition on Eagle Forum University

message: Does anyone have access to this article?  Tmtoulouse 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional Quarterly

message: someone who speaks french may want to look at it to see if there is anything new. JoshuaZ 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through it and its pretty much the same information as before the only thing a little new is that, like the German article it talks about the Da Vinci code article, also says that the gun control article reads like an essay in support of the right to bear arms rather than something in an encyclopedia. Tmtoulouse 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the French site didn't miss a chance to poke fun at the kangaroo bit, "Dans Conservapédia, les Kangourous sont très sérieusement décrits comme provenant de l’Arche de Noë..."  •Jim62sch• 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French source too