Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

current conservapedia outage

Visiting conservapedia.com I see a 403 Forbidden error message. This has been the case for a couple of days now. However, I can't find any news about it having been taken down or attacked. Nothing in the article either. Does anyone know what has happened? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They're blocking ranges of IPs from even seeing the site - been doing it for a good while now. At one time most of Europe couldn't see it. They've taken down some of the blocks but are obviously instating more. They're moving in mysterious ways. --Roger Bunting (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

see Can_someone_help_me? above. --Roger Bunting (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we could probably include a special statement about the 403 as improving the encyclopaedia under WP:IAR as this has come up a number of times and seems to be permanent. How do people feel and if so h what should it be? Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for including a short note in the article or some sort of "No, CP is likely not down, it just doesn't want you to look at it," infobox here on the talk page we can point at whenever someone asks about it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're IARing, then how about using Conservaleaks as an unreliable source? That's the closest we're going to get to a definitive statement. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could have a small FAQ on just this point at the top of this talk page but I would start sticking sources like that into the article itself. I see IAR as a last ditch and not to be used where not necessary. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen that site as it gives:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
So, not a 403 error but a 404 error, or what? And is it reasonable to have a site which cannot even be visited? 85.217.15.109 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a proper 403 error. A 404 error would say "404 Not Found" instead of "403 Forbidden". I think the bit about 404 is just that it gets a "page not found" (404) error while trying to load a custom Error Document for the 403 message. Kinda like it saying "Something failed, and my attempt to load a better error message also failed". And you're of course right - preventing people from even viewing your site (especially when said site is supposed to be an open and educational encyclopedia wiki) is not terribly intuitive. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

History and Overview

It's probably a minor point, but this section indicates that Andrew Schlafly founded Conservapedia after edit conflicts on the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. The New York Times article it cites says likewise. But just out of curiosity, going through the edit history of that page, I noticed it was his brother Roger Schlafly that was involved with the edits. So I don't know what Andrew's statements on this are (maybe he was standing behind Roger as he typed!), but the information as it is now seems to conflict with what actually happened. Beatbots (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, not sure how I missed this section - That's what I get for not paying proper attention to my watchlist, I guess! - but you make an interesting point. *taps chin* A few thoughts:

• Your article history research is intriguing, but ultimately OR. RS says Andy did something, no other RS contradicts this, so there.
• There are plenty of possible scenarios: Anonymous editing, editing under a non-obvious name, using his brother's computer...
• The NYT article mentions "a Wikipedia entry on the controversy over teaching evolution in Kansas schools" and no time window when this had taken place - how sure are we that it was that exact article in late 2006? I didn't look into this subject, so I genuinely don't know if there were other, similar (sub-?)articles at the time that might qualify as "a Wikipedia entry on the controversy over teaching evolution in Kansas schools", but we could maybe play it a bit safe and take our article closer to the source by tweaking "edits to the article about" to "edits to an article about". I dunno, it's really a minor nitpick by my side, I guess?

Lastly, I don't think there is any sort of public statement by Andy about his Wikipedia history. I had been around on CP back then, and I vaguely recall people poking him about it, but without any concrete result. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia histories are not RS? Interesting statement. The New York Times would not be the first mainstrteam WP:RS found to be in error, by talk page consensus, on Conservapedia. The LA Times was, too. Yet the LA Times info is still in this article. nobs (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we are allowed to invoke WP:COMMONSENSE sometimes, when something is patently not true for instance. It is best to stick to the policies but occasionally WP:IAR should be invoked. I think it would be best to leave the New York times bit but put a bit in brackets afterwards saying that only his brother Roger Schlafly is recorded as editing the article. In fact that would be treating the history log as a primary source referenced because of the NYT article so it wouldn't even need to invooke WP:IAR. So we don't even have to invoke the commonsense policy. Dmcq (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia histories are not RS? Interesting statement." - It did strike me as Original Research to go through the history of an article that is not even explicitly named in the RS, assume that Andy must have edited with an account name we would recognize instead of using a pseudonym or simply editing anonymously, and basically claim that Roger's account's edits are the only ones who fit the vaguely described editing patterns in an unspecified timeframe. And it's possible that Wikipedia policy disagrees with me there, but in my eyes, manually evaluating 250+ edits to an article does not look like a RS and more like OR.

And since Nobs brought up the question whether or not the NYT got something wrong, here's a Conservapedia talk page post by Andy Schlafly, which can be found in the archive:

• Whatter, I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I can confirm that my edits to evolution topics in Wikipedia are changed within minutes by the pro-evolution editors and admins there. In one case much factual work about a hearing in Kansas that I wrote and entered was gone so quickly that I thought it had never been posted at all! But it had, yet pro-evolution Wiki editors stand by to censor anything and everything unflattering to their theory. This is beyond childish. It's pure censorship and one (of many) reasons why alternatives like Conservapedia are essential.

So I'm for removing the recently added part - Andy claims that he made whatever edits got reverted, so what's the point in highlighting that the account named "Schlafly" doesn't belong to Andy? --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've self reverted. I thought the database search was appropriate since the article talked about the article. I don't think it matters much if it is actually true or just truthy from seeing what happened to his brother. I don't see any other edits that fit the bill ips or otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to show that the Times article is wrong, but rather more generally that there *may* be a discrepancy between Andy's statements in the article and the edit history of the Kansas evolution page. Like I said initially, it's probably a minor point. The question of whether Roger or Andy made the edits, in my opinion, seems too convoluted and obscure for a brief overview of Conservapedia's history. In fact, if you look at Conservapedia's article on itself, the top paragraph only says that "other occasions of liberal bias, including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia," without mentioning Andy's involvement. link

There may be a multitude of reasons why the discrepancy exists, such as the two brothers sharing the same account, etc. But without sources to back it up, we just can't know. In the spirit of remaining neutral, here's what I propose: change "repeatedly reverted his edits" to "repeatedly reverted edits." That way, you're not contradicting the citation, while at the same time not explicitly identifying Andy as the author of the edits. However, I won't argue if you decide to leave it as is. Beatbots (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Importance of this article

I would like to challenge the status of this article as being important to conservatism.

I dont have the statistics to support this, but I believe most conservatives would consider Conservapedia to be a very bad representation of conservatism.

So, I would like to propose that this article be downgraded to mid or low importance. Shon Lee (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Changing to "mid" per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Help#Importance.Lionel (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can access Conservapedia again

I found I could access Conservapedia straightforwardly again today. Have they just lifted their widescale restrictions? Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears so. My workplace has been blocked entirely for at least the better part of a year, and I can now access the site again - strictly to provide lunch time humor, mind you.Prebys (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've removed the bit in the box saying access is blocked for many areas. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got access and my edits are actually staying, or at least not being reverted - a first... "...strictly to provide lunch time humor, mind you". Isn't that like "...I only read porn for the articles"? :) Dinkytown talk 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was a Conservapedia Administrator who blocked half the planet, and then died. So now the range blocks are being undone. nobs (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Terry Koeckritz blocked half the planet on Mediawiki, one A Schlafly esq blocked half the planet on the server aka "403 blocks". It was Schlafly who deliberately and intentionally blocked millions of IP addresses from even viewing his site. StarDelta (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The top of his talk page which says "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." is probably a little inappropriate now but nothing that can be done about it. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations about homosexuality

Have we got some reliable sources about Conservapedia's agenda on homosexuality. I'm not saying what's there is wrong but the citations attached don't seem to show any interest by them in any homosexuality agenda or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexa figure

I removed the up down indicator someone stuck onto the Alexa figure as it is confusing whether it means the number or the ranking. I also do not see that we need a running commentary on it when there is a link to the original at Alexa and it does not say if it is one day, one week one month or three months or whatever.

Secondly they rounded the figure saying it would stop people changing the figure so often! I don't see it doing that. It also alters the given figure unnecessarily.

Thirdly the time when the Alexa figure was got was removed from the display. This rather removes the point of the up down indicator.

Fourthly the American ranking was removed. That is probably the most important thing about the Conservapedia ranking as they don't care about the rest of the world. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Alexa figure is hardly accurate in the first place so no accuracy is lost because it never existed in the first place. More on my talk page. Marcus Qwertyus 09:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) in relation to this article or the problems raised so will revert. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the explanation on the talk page indicated and can and it looks like they have just ignored the problems raised. They fail to acknowledge the problem with the indicator. The length of time is just assumed, I gues they think people will know from one to another article but they won't. The rounding of figures is just arbitrary. They fail to acknowledge that Conservapedia is only really interested in America. They fail to put in when in with the figure. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And not only do I consider the up down indicator confusing I really see no point in it for Wikipedia. This is not a running commentary of this point in time, readers can easily go to the Alexa page if they want today's latest update. We're not running a tickertape. Occassionally updating the figure is reasonable but this type of messing around is just silly. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was recently blocked from the Conservapedia for removing the word "socialist" from Baracks page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.43.64 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This section is about Alexa figures. You need a section heading. Anyway what you said has no content for improving this article. This page is not a forum for grumbling about your treatment elsewhere, it is for improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

recent news story

Here's a fairly recent article that may be of use for the article: http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2011/07/new_jersey_home_schooling_the.html - Nunh-huh 03:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorial viewpoints and policies

For the citation needed in that section, this may be the best description available. It links from Conservapedia's blocking policy which Conservapedia is an open wiki that does not allow liberal censorship. The same idea is also stated here, 9.We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. [1] nobs (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source talking about something like that and referencing it in some way. The link in that 'recent news story' section before this for instance is a reliable source and shows up all sorts of weirdo things with the site. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is cited to the subject itself, and notable enough for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Positioning of the Conservative Bible Project section

Whenever I read through this article, I generally find that the 'Conservative Bible Project' section, being at the end after, seems to mock Conservapedia as if saying 'you've just read all this ridiculous stuff, you won't believe this', just as The Onion does in its stories. Maybe it should be moved? Jookia (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't read it that way, but anyhow where else would you put it? The Bible project is a major separate part of Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It just seems like this article is written as a parody, then adds something more unbelievable to point out 'hey, we're not serious'. But it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jookia (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it for real? If so, it should stay in there. I struggle to believe it's real though. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

For any article in Wikipedia you should be able to verify the contents by following the in-line citations or references at the end. For anything which people might doubt like here there should be in-line citations - the little numbers in blue at the end of sentences. Just click on them and you'll see where the source is. In this case you should also be able to check the stuff from the horses mouth as it were. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

His edits to the hearing on evolution.

Anyone got a link to the version with his edits? Assuming that wikipedia archives edits for that long, of course. 98.223.134.100 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion/speculation about this subject a while ago, this may point you in the right direction. Bottom line is that Andy never supplied a link, but his brother's account did edit the article in the relevant time frame. Whether or not Roger's edits fit the claim Andy made and/or if they're the only ones that fit is another set of questions that I didn't really bother to research. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

something to mention

The hundreds of articles about obesity/bestiality 71.204.179.212 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We only mention articles in Conservapedia if WP:Reliable sources talk about them, we don't go trawling round the site and selecting things ourselves. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with scientific views

Is the mention of the Talking Points Memo necessary? If the intent is to suggest the extent to which the public is interested, I don't believe that show serves as a good indicator. It's only one show, as popular as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.28.213 (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Alexa rank on it it does seem very popular indeed, I'm quite surprised. I certainly don't think it can be dismissed as yet another popular show. But what it is in for is saying how the matter came to prominence and that is reliably sourced and the sort of thing some people are interested in. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was interested in the section intitled "Conflict with scientific views" mostly because I am a scientist. I see how my background doesn't really apply. Now that I think about it the phrase "...scientific views" should have clued me into what is really going on here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.28.213 (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Is this something like the business with Fox News where people keep trying to stop it being accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Free alternative logo

A user recently replaced the Conservapedia logo in the infobox with this freely licensed SVG alternative. By the looks of it, the free logo is a rendition made from scratch by a random user - it is in no way official to Conservapedia. While it closely resembles the actual Conservapedia logo, there are still quite a few easily noticeable differences: the color tones, the size of the stars, the number of stripes, the fontface, and the tilt of the text. As a result, I believe the official logo needs to be restored for accuracy. Thoughts? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Do it. The official logo is available to us via FUR so might as well use it. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Far right

Far right has been stuck twice into the lead. As far as I can see that is not supported by any citation. At best "Conservapedia: Far Righter Than Wikipedia" is supported and that only just about as a headline about them saying Wikipedia is liberal. Right wing without the far is supported but that's covered by conservative in the lead sentence anyway. I see no need to start sticking in extra adjectives there when the rest of the lead explains things pretty well. Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently have two sources (including an academic study) and about to add another academic book. The idea that it's far right is not really that contentious. Soxwon (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The first one is very problematic as it just says an insight into the far right rather than saying it is a far right website. One can get an insight into the far right by reading bits of Wikipedia. It is an indicator but no better. I can't access the second but it strikes me as odd that it is about cloaked websites and Conservapedia doesn't strike me as cloaked. I'm not saying they are not far right just that it seems like an arbitrary point of view to stick into the lead when there's more appropriate ones and it didn't seem well supported. American conservative christian seems to be a much more appropriate description to me. It always seems better to me to start with the facts and give opinions afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That book also does not at all seem to support saying far right at least according to the preview I saw which showed me a single page with Conservapedia on it, perhaps it is mentioned somewhere else but the preview did not find it? ANyway I'd like to know what the cloaked sites one says. The first one doesn't actually say much at all so it is problematic even for showing about the homosexuality agenda, I can't see much point to it at all. The book in the third reference though is worth referencing somewhere as it says a bit about the founding and it is a book. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeminly Jessie Daniels who wrote that second reference has written a book about the subject. Conservapedia only appears in a reference somewhere pointing to Conservapedia: Like Wikipedia, but Rooted in Christianity, this is short but may be useful as it does actually talk about Conservapedia a bit. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the references seem to be good enough to me to justify sticking far right into the first sentence.

1. Reference 1: [2] A throw away line 'A little insight into the pathologies of the far-right'. Nothing else there except a list of Wikipedia top articles showing its major hangup about homosexuality.
2. Reference 2: [3] which basically says anyone who views Obama as inexperienced radical unpatriotic and foreign is far right and points to Conservapedia's entry of Obama as an example. It doesn't really say much about the Conservapedia site never mind analyse it i any detail at all. The one liner in the first article at least is followed by a list of a number of articles there.
3. Reference 3: [4] which basically says that 'her son Andrew a Harvard Law graduate has founded a conservative alternative to Wikipedia and is revising the bible to counter liberal modern translations.

I think the references are pretty weak for use in the lead. Perhaps they could be used in 'has been called far right' later on in the article? The third only really seems useful for an article about Andrew Schlafly's mother. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd article in question mentions the repeated attempts by the far right parts of the conservative spectrum to villify Obama in a completely unprecedented manner. The third quote (if you had further than just the page he was mentioned on) is listing the examples of the far right turn the Republican Party seems to have taken and chronicles its journey there (along with examples of the modern manifestations). Soxwon (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So what? They don't do that in the context of Conservapedia that I can see. This article isn't about Obama or the far right or the Republican party. The first sentence should be for things which are well supported and generally accepted. How does this sort of stuff differ from Conservapedia's "Wikipedia is a politically left leaning online encyclopedia written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK), teenagers and unemployed persons"? Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It gives context to the site's political leanings within the modern American political realm. From the beginning, they have stated that they founded the site to reflect a political ideology. The citations provided go on to place that political ideology in its appropriate place on the political spectrum. Soxwon (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain exactly what you're saying. How can one get 'far-right' from 'Her son Andrew a Harvard Law graduate has founded a conservative alternative to "Wikipedia" called "Conservapedia" and he is currently revising the Bible to counter modern liberal tendencies'? We need sources that talk about the subject and give their views and this stuff doesn't even get that far. I think the preacher one can be used in something about what people have said about them but that's about it. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you had around that quote, you would realize that it is discussing the modern far right tendencies of conservapedia and its modern manifestations (such as Conservapeda). I would appreciate it if someone else weighed in on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I need to bring this up to the POV noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD we need consensus to add this.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would avoid the term far right. Even though some writers use it to describe elements of American conservatism, its most common usage would be for sites like Stormfront. TFD (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Coming from NPOV noticeboard. Sourcing is too weak to label Conservapedia "far right", all the more so in the lede. What we have are a couple of passing references. We'd need several sources, that spend more than a single sentence on the topic, and that are of good quality. Whatever seems obvious to Wikipedia editors is pretty irrelevant here. Per NPOV, it's the secondary RS that decide these kinds of things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly standard practise on Wikipedia to avoid this kind of rhetoric on articles that address topics on the left and the right. As an example, there were several discussions on the Media Matters for America page that all resolved to not adding the "far-left" lable despite the fact that MMfA describes themselves as an organization that only exists to correct "conservative misinformation". The only reason to include "Far-right" or "far-left" is to satisfy the zealot's desire to beat an uniformed reader over the head with a point-of-view before they read anything else about the topic, and that is not a good enough reason to bypass WP:NPOV. SeanNovack (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that Wikipedia avoids such labels, it's that sourcing needs to be strong for such labels. Media Matters for America is not described as "far left" in scholarly sources - which is what counts. There are organisations which are described on wikipedia as "far right" or "radical right" because academic opinion generally places them there. Conservapedia happens not to be one of them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? It's not like we have to choose one of the following terms: "far left, left-leaning, moderate, right-leaning, far right". It's silly to try and cram every site with a political angle into this left/right spectrum. Yes, if I personally had to choose one of those existing labels, I'd go with "far right", too. But we're not bound to those labels, and if the sourcing consensus doesn't directly call it that, that's all the more reason not to use it. The point is that Conservapedia goes well beyond what I'd personally call "far right", unless "far right" suddenly means "We need to re-translate the Bible to conservative English", "Jesus disproved relativity", "Palin won't be the presidential nominee because The Social Network lost to The King's Speech in terms of awards", or... this. Really, the term "far right" makes the site sound less absurd than it is, and I'm sure we can find a better one that is supported by the sources. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In some cases (e.g., the KKK), the term "far right" is the most widely used description of ideology and is used even by writers who question where they belong on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I somehow had removed Conservapedia from my watchlist so didn't know there was this response. Anyway I think looking at that there seems to be more weight on removing it from the very start of the article. I'm both glad for a decision and thankful it seems to align with my view of it. So I'll go and remove far right again, well in fact I'll revert to where I moved a couple of the citations to the start of the political ideology section and say some people say that.

That flying kitty on Conservapedia... Every time I think I've seen it all something even more extraordinary comes up. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia clearly is not far right by any standards and wikipedia stating it just fuels the fire and proves the left bias of wikipedia so neutrality is the best course to take and conservapedia should be stated as conservative and not far right. -concenred wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.79 (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and climate change is a conspiracy by scientists and Obama is a Muslim and is not American, and the Bible needs to be revised to extol the virtues of the conservative capitalist Samaritan. The reason it is not far right is because that is just too constraining to encompass that the world was created nearly 5000 years ago and the Grand Canyon was the result of the flood, and that liberals and atheists are fat. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where should this be?

There's aine at the bottom of the Political and religious ideology section:

In May 2009, Vanity Fair and The Spectator reported that Conservapedia's article on Richard Dawkins featured a picture of Adolf Hitler at the top.

I think it is notable that they demonize people tis way but I don't think that is the appropriate section. I was thinking of the conflict with scientific views section but I'm not sure, it just doesn't seem to me to fit there if I just copy it there. Any ideas what should be done with it? Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Try something like"The website sometimes adopts a strongly critical stance against figures that it perceives as political or ideological opponents. For instance, In May 2009, Vanity Fair and The Spectator reported that Conservapedia's article on Richard Dawkins featured a picture of Adolf Hitler at the top." or something. Feels less like it's just dropped in out of nowhere? PaulHA2 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay trying that out thanks. It does look more integrated. Dmcq (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted the first paragraph need something

added a reference to a Conservapedia article, might add more else where, I think it helps keep the article pointed on facts, truths, and how these people think. they have alot of "Gems" that point out how they are acting exactly how the accuse everyone else is - and their counterpoint arguments are not grounded in verifiable facts. sorry if that ruffles some feathers 68.148.46.49 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We only report on what WP:reliable sources have reported about Conservapedia. We don't go trawling round the site and picking our own quotes, that's called WP:Original research on Wikipedia and banned. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not what WP:OR means. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.--Olsonist (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a WP:reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether trawling is banned (it isn't) is a different argument from whether Conservapedia is an RS (it is WRT itself, WP:SELFSOURCE).

In fact, WP:SELFSOURCE says about Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves that they may be used as sources of information about themselves and gives five requirements. Quotes must pass that second requirement but quotes about the Theory of Relativity and Moral Relativism easily pass. It also mentions Twitter and Facebook, a couple of unreliable sources if ever there were.

Again, Conservapedia is already used as a source for this article, as well it should be. And further, the lead paragraph requires citations, WP:CITELEAD, The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. It specifically says that controversial subjects may require many citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And quite a number of those other references should be removed. What SELFSOURCE actually says is Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:.... Information about Conservapedia that is admissable under this includes things like its policies and aims and who set it up. The article about Moral relativity is not about Wikipedia. It also fails under some of the other conditions.

That an article may require many citations does not mean that is desirable. What Wikipedia requires is verifiability not citations. Citations are desirable in an article but they should not be repeated continually within an article if finding the relevant one is reasonably easy. What CITELEAD says is The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Note the 'challenged or likely to be challenged'. It goes on to say of that sentence you quoted ' Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.' Are you really saying that there is a big dispute about the contents of the Conservapedia article as opposed to just the site itself is rather strange and most editors here think the article provides a reasonable summary of what's said about it in reliable sources? There are section about most of the stuff in the lead which go into detail about them and expand on what's said there and provides citations. They are easy to find. There is no great need to repeat all the citations in the lead and doing that leads to bad style in a lead. The exception where citations should be repeated in the lead is 'Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality'. By generality there they mean the lead or introductory text to a number of sections. That can apply to statements about Schlafly for instance. Dmcq (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

First, as for contentious, politics is always contentious and this article has already been labeled Controversial (see above). Since the Conservapedia site was started as a response to Wikipedia, it is doubly contentious. Citations are required for contentious claims and citations in the lead is fine style. The article is already most of the way there. It is after all, a Good Article. My intent is to make it a better more thoroughly sourced article.

WP:SELFSOURCE gives restrictions on what is permissible. The admissibility requirements, inferred or otherwise, that you state are not there. The existing Conservapedia citations are good self sources; the material is here in this article about Conservapedia, not there in that article about Moral relativism.

Quoting and referring to Conservapedia in an article about Conservapedia falls under information about themselves. That's pretty basic. Perhaps an admin can weigh in. Without objection, I'll post an RfC.

The New Scientist reference should be moved down to the Conflict with scientific views section. It does not directly support the claim made in the lead. It is however an awesome secondary source in the right context.--Olsonist (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Conservapedia citations to article pages are not reliable sources and are not about Conservapedia. They are there at most as a courtesy because they are referred to in secondary sources but it would be very reasonable to remove them. If you want a second opinion about this WP:RSN can advise about reliable sources and WP:NORN can advise about using the Moral relativism page and whether the New Scientist article supports 'criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism' Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I must point out that this is not hard to find (its in the first sentence of the first paragraph) on the site, its an attitude reported on elsewhere ad nauseum to the point where the parody websites notice that its close to their tone - but in absolute seriousness. The quote is referenced back to Conservapedia, and allows the reader to understand just what these people are thinking. Perhaps we can edit it(the sentence with the qoute) until it meets your standards, but for now, it should stay 68.148.46.49 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It doesn't go in until it passes WP:RS and WP:OR. Sorry if that ruffles your feathers. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

no, I'm just physically sick after visiting that website. So much hypocrisy, scare tactics, non-facts 68.148.46.49 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If we didn't have these type policies people could just write their own articles picking and choosing whatever they like about a topic. It may make Wikipedia a bit staid and I certainly can think of quite a few things all over the site where something pretty obvious is being left out because of it. But on the whole the site is better off excluding things than including things. See WP:5P for a good start on all this. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between WP:OR and pointing out that the sky appears to be blue to the naked eye and that water is wet. Linking to the article titled "Examples of bias in wikipedia" to support the statement "Conservapedia believes wikipedia to be biased" is about as far from "research" as you can get IMO. 195.195.4.162 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles can only be used to substantiate factual assertions as noted in secondary sources, they must not be used as citations for opiniomn. All these points are cited properly in the main article. It is possible to go and duplicate all the citations in the lead as well but that is not good practice and only if the assertion really is unlikely. None of the assertions is the least unlikely, the fact tags are just people sticking in drive by tags for the hell of it rather than bothering to look at the appropriate section as summarized in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Conservative Bible Project, a conservative interpretation of the Bible"

Can that line be re-phrased with the term " self-described," or with some other phrase that makes it more clear that what's happening there is an attempt to translate the Bible along an EXTREMELY particular idea of what "conservative" means? I see no reason to associate this project with any sort of mainstream notion of what "conservative" entails. Maybe something along the lines of "What the website/Schlafly sees as a conservative interpretation...."? PaulHA2 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho ho, don't want to be associated with them eh? Sorry you're quite right. I'll try putting in their own description "free of corruption by liberal untruths". Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I'm no conservative; far from it, in fact. But if we want the term to have any real meaning, I'm not sure we should be letting one guy on the internet define the word for us. Nice work on that re-phrasing. Looks a lot better. Thanks! PaulHA2 (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias of Conservapedia

[EDIT: Logged in and signed it.]

Hey guys, ThePastaKing here (Can't be bothered to log in right now, browser issues), I noticed on Conservapedia's article on themselves (which is protected, unsurprisingly) that Wikipedia is '[biased] against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism'. I have been haunting wikipedia for quite a while now, and haven't seen any examples of this supposed bias.

I have also noticed that a vast amount of citations in the article about wikipedia are from the online newspaper 'The Register', which seems to be incredibly biased against Wikipedia.

It's just an observation, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Any comments, people? ThePastaKing (Talk) 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM - that said, it seems to me that the people behind Conservipedia believe that reality have a liberal bias... WegianWarrior (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw WP:NOTFORUM (Maybe this discussion will create encyclopedic content ;) ). And yes, It does also seem that they believe that liberalism is (Dare I say it) sin. Take a look at at their article for Barack Obama, for instance. ThePastaKing (Talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[EDIT: It does seem that I cannot type. Fixed the NOTFORUM redlink. Derp. ThePastaKing (Talk) 14:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) ]

The Register has this executive editor Andrew Orlowski who doesn't see any problem with sticking any of his thoughts in without noting that it is just editorial rather than proper news reporting. From the vantage point of Conservapedia if you don't see the liberal bias of Wikipedia then you are totally blind and almost certainly a fat liberal. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I must be totally blind ;).

I strongly believe that encyclopedias that want to be respected as sources of knowledge should be kept as free from bias as possible. Conservapedia only seems to serve as propaganda for fundementalist christianity and conservatism. Now, I know this seems harsh, but, in all honesty, That is all I can see in the site.

And as for Orlowski, If he is going to spoof articles, he does not deserve his place as a journalist. ThePastaKing (Talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as conservapedia is concerned, you're just stating something well known, which in addition is kinda obvious to anybody sampling conservapedia. Expecting from a conservapedia article unbiased comprehensive information on anything (nevermind wikipedia) is pretty much a futile venture. Having said that WegianWarrior is probably right mentioning that isn't a forum to gossip over the apparent shortcomings of conservapedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken! ThePastaKing (Talk) 10:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Moral relativism

There has been a discussion at my talk page about some citations and disputed conbtent at my talk page after I reverted what I saw as unnecessary citations into Conservapedia itself and some RationalWiki citations at User talk:Dmcq#Moral relativism in Conservapedia. I've copied the latest bit below and replied as any extended discussion about article content should be here

The Counterexamples article first critiques what liberals say about relativity and then tries to disprove the Theory itself; these are separate issues. Nowhere does their article say that the Theory supports moral relativism which is what the Wikipedia article says that it says. So the Wikipedia article is just wrong on this. Further, your cited reference never says this either so it isn't valid support. With the exception of its last paragraph, it is mostly concerned with the 39 counterexamples. As a secondary source, it is reliable but of little if any value to warrant the sentence. Further, it duplicates 41 (of course, there are other duplicates as well).

But really, you're getting their argument backwards. Conservapedia is saying that it is liberals who are misusing the Theory to defend Moral Relativism: Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. They are not saying that that it is the Theory itself which promotes Moral Relativism: criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism. In sum, their complaint is with liberals and not with the Theory. This is not a small difference. Of course, the article then goes on to try to disprove the Theory on separate grounds but that is a separate matter.

All claims should be backed by sources, whether in the lede or not; citations do not impede readability. And regardless of the fluidity of Conservapedia, it is referenced some 17 times including Talk sections.--Olsonist (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On the last bit first, what I said is that one should try avoiding putting citations into the lead unless necessary and they aren't really necessary where what is there is an accurate summary of whats lower down and is fully cited there. It is not true that all claims should be backed by claims, all claims should be WP:Verifiable and they are not only verifiable but easily verifiable if the claim is clearly cited in a section dealing with it. If people dispute a claim we might have to duplicate a citation to be rid of the problem but it really isn't the cright way to go around writing a summary of an article in the lead, the main citation in a lead should be of notability and the rest should try to accurately and neutrally summarize the article in a way that is accessible to people new to the topic. Citations tend to detract from the purpose of the lead by turning it into a separate mini article. The lead of articles is described in WP:LEAD.

The poster has been trying to argue that we should put in more links into Conservapedia as a primary source so people could see for themselves, in fact that it is required by our policies. I have pointed to WP:PRIMARY.

On the moral relativism question the argument here as far as I can see is that Conservapedia have a page [http:conservapedia.com/Moral_relativism Conservapedia: Moral relativism] and sems to want to link to it. I put a link to an article in New Scientist that talked about the claim Gefter, Amanda; Biever, Celeste (11 August 2010). "E=mc²? Not on Conservapedia". New Scientist., and the page this points at is Conservapedia: Counterexamples to relativity which quotes the following from the counterexampoles page

The website TPMMuckraker recently drew attention to a page on the site titled "Counterexamples to relativity". It says: "The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

In a footnote, this comment is followed up by: "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold."

I believe this backs up the statement here of "criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism" and that we should not be doing original research trawling through Conservapedia for other articles. If the information on Conservapedia was much different we should remove stuff anyway considering a secondary source as being not reliable but I don't see that here. I see no reason to go to their Moral relativism article and get bits from it or start quoting bits from it in the lead about "While the idea of moral relativity exists independently of (and substantially predates) the scientific theory of relativity, moral relativists seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" to start qualifying what the counterexamples page says.

On another note but I don't think this sort of consideration should affect the above, the Counterexamples page is regularly contributed to by Aschlafly, in fact the last contribution as I write this was by him, whereas the Moral relativism page though set up by him in 2007 hasn't been touched by him since and that statement there is not his. So if one wants a definitive statement as far as anything is in COnservapedia the counterexamples page is it. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are absolutely correct. There is no need to add those links to the lede. The reference there about moral relativism is a good source, and the portion about breast cancer is covered in the body. If people want to know more about Conservapedia and their views on these matters, they can simply go there and research. Dave Dial (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's create yet another Article.

There should be another whole Article on RationalWiki. It is a reactionary site just as Conservapedia is, just at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Both are therefore equally notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to start RationalWiki if enough sourcing exists to establish notability. But notability is absolute, not relative. In other words, it's got nothing to go with this article. SÆdon^talk 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been deleted several times.[5] See Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Even as an ardent fan of and participant in RationalWiki, I have to admit its actual third-party coverage approaches zero. Some atheist blogs like RW, that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Liberapedia

Liberapedia is sort of the opposite of conservapedia (except that it sticks closer to the facts). Perhaps it should also get an article. Muchuchubacca (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

THere needs to be something in a WP:Reliable source about it first. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes RationalWiki look noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not noteworthy. First of all it is a wikia site, not even its own independent site. And if Rational Wiki doesnt get its own article that shouldnt either. Cadiomals (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Joining

I've been up, down, about, and around every part of Conservapedia and I still can't find a clearly-labeled 'join' button or page. No search result unearths the page, no finder program can reveal a page plugin that would give me a "create your account" popup window or similar. Could someone link me to the page, or inform me of its nonexistence so that the impossibility of joining is added to the article proper? 216.79.193.254 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

They turn it on and back off periodically so no one can make troll accounts while they are away. Basically, there has to be an active moderator online at that exact time for account creation to be possible.Farsight001 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean the login/create account link at the top right of every page? If it doesn't work I'm afraid we can't say anything about that in the article unless a secondary source says something. I believe it used to be you had to send them a begging email saying what a good person you were. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After hearing that, my desire to add to the amount of rational, neutrally-themed thought available has been sharply curbed. Thank you nonetheless. 216.79.193.254 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:UserLogin/signup currently seems to work for me but it varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Registereing an account seldom does any good. You'll be be immediately checkusered and blocked if you're in the same state as someone else already blocked. And if not, they'll block you if they don't like you name. And if you ask questions you'll probably be blocked. nobs (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I registered an account today after reading comments here. The "log in / create account" links in the top right hand corner of their pages worked for me. Almost immediately I made an edit of noted whacko Sheriff Joe Arpaio's page. A legitimate edit though, not vandalism. A few hours later my account is still intact, evidently the Conservapedia thought police are not aware of my left wing sympathies. SpencerCollins (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Update of the above post. I have been banned from Conservapedia for an "infinite" amount of time due to Spam. I haven't spammed the site or have I stirred up any trouble. It appears that maybe they read this discussion. The admin who blocked me calls himself "Karajou", looking at his user page he comes across as one arrogant redneck son of god's arse. To quote directly from his page "This user does not believe in so called Tolerance when it compromises Truth."

Funnily enough the edit I made remains on the site. Apparently they hate me but love my spelling.SpencerCollins (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Their view on the theory of relativity

If you look here: [6] from what I can see, all editors disagree with the founder of Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly. Despite this, it still hasn't been changed. I reckon it deserves a mention in the article, under the theory of relativity section. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for that.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus what it says is what it says, opinions of its editors doesn't matter unless they make the news. I'm sure you wouldn't think much of it if someone started quoting editors here who disagree with policies or articles as being representative of the site as a whole. Dmcq (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more of an observation of how Conservapedia is run. All editors disagree, yet the owner doesn't allow the page to be fixed. Maybe it deserves a mention under differences between it and Wikipedia. Would the sources that say Conservapedia isn't as free/democratic as Wikipedia be appropriate even though it doesn't mention this particular incident? I think we can still give this as an example. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be right, but more to the point I just had a look through our article and I can't see anything about the very tight control in Conservapedia over the content or the way people trying to fix it get kicked out double quick. It would be nice to have a source on that. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to mention their treatment on relativity, you need to provide a third party source, for example a newspaper, that has commented upon it. Otherwise it is original research. You also must show that of the numerous ways in which Conservapedia differs from mainstream understanding, that this specific difference is worthy of attention. TFD (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Cox was tweeting with incredulity about Conservapedian relativity a while ago ... that's really about it - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! No, I'm wrong! The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo. I think that's enough to at least mention it - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actual coverage of Conservapedia

[7] Not that there's much for this article there - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Self description

There has been some edit warring to remove the self description of Conservapedia from the lead or demote it after decriptions from others. The self description has been uoted by other people about Conservapedia before describing it and I believe it is correct to set the scene by saying what an organisation says about themselves before describing what others say. The self description is introduced by 'According to the site's operators' which clearly shows it is their own description rather than how others describe them. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with this article in general is that Conservapedia used to be of interest to third parties but largely isn't any more - so that when people come to this article there's no WP:RS-worthy sources that can tell people what it's actually like. Citizendium has the same problem. It's one of the ragged edges of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, where a rule that works well for actually famous things breaks a bit when dealing with the borderline obscure. Needed: third-party sources that write summary articles along "where are they now?" lines - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What an organization says about themselves is of minimal importance if they do not actually follow it. To give their mission statement such prominence in the article is to lend a tone of credibility to it that is not deserved. To not immediately follow up said mission statement with a disclaimer is irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS: self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. (emph added) If there is a press release to cite, then that should be used. Plucking random copy out of an open wiki isn't reliable sourcing, even for (especially for) self description. aprock (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Galestar. Too much emphasis on the organization's own propaganda rather than an analysis of same—a determination of whether the mission statement sentiment is actually followed. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What Binksternet said. --John (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

An organizations statement about itself may be used as an expression of opinion about itself and that is exactly how the statement is used. It is a very important part of the description of the organization. That opinion of itself is the important fact. We are not saying it is true and it is pretty obvious from what follows that it doesn't reflect reality. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the important facts and suppressing a major part of the article like that is just wrong. We are not producing the bowdlerized encyclopaedia for people who can't understand the difference between reporting an opinion and stating a fact, one where we try and protect people from Conservapedia because it is bad and we know better. What we do is report the stuff and make it clear that it is their opinion. Can we try not to be a 'liberal' version of Conservapedia please? Dmcq (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reinstated the quote with a citation to the Australian instead to counter the bit about primary source. I believe primary is okay for this and it is obvious enough but a secondary source is better. Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't start an article about a convicted felon off with their pleas of innocence. Their plea may be contained in the article, but not as the second sentence. The article should "set the scene" as you said by stating what is actually *true* about the organizations actions, not what their propaganda says their actions are. Galestar (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push your opinions in and follow the sources. This is not an article about a convicted felon. They are not felons and they are not convicted. The article is not an article about a crime. Could you get whatever chip it is you have off your shoulder and just consider that your approach is bad for Wikipedia. We are not in the business of rubbishing people like Conservapedia or the American elections. The precise reason you are against them is probably because they do what you try to do. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the bit you said about disputing what they say as only the true to the facts part is disputed with any weight, I guess one could include informative by extension but that has not been a major criticism that I have seen. It is far better to be specific in criticism using sources rather than do generalized stuff which just reflects one's own opinions. Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little saddened to see repeated attempt to insert content sourced to the open wiki. Again, a press release or content on a non-open part of Conservapedia would be fine. Content sourced to open-wikis is not reliable even of other sources quote it. aprock (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all a top level self opinion of an organization is okay by Wikipedia, it does not involve original research, and secondly it is now cited to the Australian. Dmcq (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dmcq. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF describes about using an organisations description of itself if there hadn't been a secondary source expanding on it like here. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's good guideline, but now it's attributable to a secondary source which addresses the concerns of the opposition about being sourced to an open wiki.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't trump WP:RS. By definition, an open wiki cannot be reliable as any number of editors can change the content. Again, if there is a reliable source which includes this content, that's fine. Content sourced (or indirectly sourced) to an open wiki is not reliably sourced. aprock (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And why is the current source, in your opinion, not a reliable source.JOJ ^Hutton 14:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The current source for the information is the open wiki. The fact that another source quotes the open wiki doesn't change the source of the content. aprock (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The current source for the information is The Australian. Is that not a reliable source and why? The fact that you don't agree with the reliable source doesn't change Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. JOJ ^Hutton 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting a source doesn't change the source of the quote. Emma Jane's op-ed in The Australian clearly quotes the open wiki, and indicates that she finds Conservapedia to be unreliable, including with respect to itself:

excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The site looks and e-smells like the original, user-generated encyclopedia. But closer inspection reveals a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a theoretical period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences. "Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones," Conservapedia writes trustworthily in its entry on itself. "Wikipedia articles may contain trivia, gossip, profanity, and even pornographic/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged." Hurrah! I mean, boo. I mean I have absolutely no idea what I mean which is likely to make me an ideal Conservapedia contributor. The site's bizarre word regurgitations make Wikipedia look positively scholarly (which is really saying something given the number of times vandals have inserted potty talk such as "poo bum dicky wee wee" into otherwise quite reasonable articles about Chinese monk fist boxing).

Including the content quoted from the open-wiki while excluding the author's view of the content is just a gross misuse of sources. aprock (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Aprock and the multiple others who have stated that this open-source project is not a reliable source, even when quoted by another organisation. --John (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid wikipedia policies don't agree with that assessment. Per WP:V Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Just because some editors don't like what the source says, does not mean that the source is not verifiable and reliable. The source is quoting the open wiki, which is transcribed here as exactly what the article implies. The article says "According to the site's operators..." which expresses exactly what the reliable source says. It does not say it as a fact, but as the opinion of the sites operators.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How very patronising. It seems most people disagree with you that this material belongs here, in spite of your being able to quote from a policy. --John (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully consensus is formed through discussions on policy and not a vote of editors.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see such an experienced editor using such poor policy rationales. The source is clearly an opinion piece, and only reliable for the authors view. The quote is clearly sourced to an unreliable open wiki. aprock (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy is not to present a disputed statement as fact. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Not sure where that attack was coming from, but I'll ignore it, for now. How is the source from The Australian not reliable? The quote is sourced to an open wiki, but the Reliable Source quotes from it, so Wikipedia articles can use information from the RS, to confirm what the open wiki says. And with that reasoning, about half of every source used at Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia would be unreliable since they also quote Wikipedia articles too. And how else would you be able to quote what a wiki says without using a reliable secondary source?

And this article doesn't say its a fact, it says According to the site's operators...--JOJ ^Hutton 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation of fact. You are clearly unaware of, disregarding and/or misusing WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSOPINION, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:SELFPUB. aprock (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? I am clearly unaware of, disregarding and/or misusing WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSOPINION, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:SELFPUB? Really how so? Linking policy and guidelines is not the same as explaining how they are applied, or in this case how am disregarding them. Please provide any evidence of me disregarding these guidelines and I will gladly clarify myself, or correct my logic.

Also read WP:NPA which says Comment on content, not on the contributor. The previous statement I'm surprised to see such an experienced editor using such poor policy rationales. was a comment directed at me, and not the content. I usually take these things very seriously in discussions because comments/attacks on editors are usually an indirect way to discredit the opposition through non-content topics. Similar to a smear ad in politics. Not that that is what you were trying to do, but I ask that you keep the comments on the topic and not on the editors editing history so there won't be any misunderstandings.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy issues were explained to you multiple times above. You're an experienced editor, but if you really need help which policies are being referred to in which edits above, please say so and I'll connect the dots for you. aprock (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the stuff you quote. RSOPINION says " Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."., which is exactly what is done her in "According to the site's operators". USERGENERATED says "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users" - you can check the history of the page and see that was written by a conservapedia administrator and Aschlafly has contributed to it, and SELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". I can't see why you put in RS/QUOTE as it refers to material about living people and in fact it says to cite the original source.

That would apply if the stuff was only in the primary source but in fact there is a secondary source which quotes it as their opinion of themselves and that's how it was put in here. You seem to have the idea we should double guess reliable sources, sometimes questioning them is okay but there really is no question that this was an accurate quote from the original site and was used in a reasonable fashion. If Wikipedia said 'Xyz says green cheese with marmmite is a marvellous taste sensation that is not the same as asserting that it really is a marvellous taste sensation. It is a statement about XCyz. The same with this statement, it says what the site's operators assert, it does not say that what they assert is a fact.

As it is removing that bit makes a mess of the lead in my opinion. It goes straight into criticising the sites stance without saying what it says it was trying to do. I'm sorry if someone thinks a short statement like that is an ad, it is simply setting the scene for what follows. One paragrph saying how it was set up and why is not too much in the lead. We should not just go in for rubbishing things without putting in even a short explanation what is being rubbished. This is getting like the Aquatic ape hypothesis article where there was a load of citations saying that it was wrong without ever saying anything about what it was about. Thankfully that article has been fixed now but can we please try and avoid that silliness here? Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also surprised to see an experienced editor using such poor policy rationales, Jojhutton. If you really think that is a personal attack, feel free to report me. It isn't, of course, and it is you who are trying to distract from the weakness of your argument by distracting us with this red herring. --John (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And how is the argument weak? And report? Not worth my time.\, but I would appreciate a bit more civility. Thank you.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you really still asserting that a reliable secondary source is not a valid source if it quotes something that is not in a reliable source? I think rather a large part of Wikipedia would disappear if that were so! Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dmcq: you appear to be having trouble parsing policy:

response to policy questions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RSOPINION says " Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."., which is exactly what is done her in "According to the site's operators".: Yes, WP:RSOPINION says that you might use The Australian op-ed as a source for Emma Jane's views. You can't use it as a source for anything else. USERGENERATED says "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users" - you can check the history of the page and see that was written by a conservapedia administrator and Aschlafly has contributed to it Really? Which credentialed member of the sites' editorial staff made the edits? Does Conservapedia have credentialed staff? Is my user account on that site "credentialed"? Are you really going to argue that a log entry in the edit history of the page qualifies as "labeled"? SELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" WP:SELFPUB lists a set of five provisos, of which the open wiki quote violates at least one. I can't see why you put in RS/QUOTE as it refers to material about living people and in fact it says to cite the original source. WP:RS/QUOTE applies to all quotes and especially quotations from living persons. Since the content is quoting some editor at the open wiki, that is the source which should be cited, not the op-ed piece.

I hope that clears things up for you. aprock (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes clear we need to take that to WP:RSN as otherwise you'll keep up with this sort of thing. Okay I will put a query there and put a reference here. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay I have set up WP:RSN#Secondary source quote. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So, er, what actually makes sense to do?

Speaking in terms of what actually makes sense without added WP:OMGWTFBBQ, it's not unreasonable that their self-description belongs somewhere. I've put it in the relevant section of the main body of the article, in a section it arguably belongs in. And that seems to be where it's stuck with the lock. Can we live with this? - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that section should probably be developed a bit more if possible okay but no I believe something like that should be in the lead. It is just silly to start dissing something without a short description first and the lead should introduce and summarize the article. As I said above I view what has happened as akin to what happened to Aquatic ape hypothesis before it was fixed, see [8] for an old version which suppressed any information about the hypothesis itself beyond what one could infer from the title. Some people seem to believe that we should shield our readers from the possibility of being corrupted by wrong thought if we describe anything which is iffy. I view that as a form of censorship and bowdlerizing. I really can't see where they come from when we describe all sorts of depravity in detail and yet we have this sort of problem giving a decent description of anything weird or strange like conservapedia. It isn't as though anything was being pushed or there was excessive detail or any other undue weight. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable point. Considering the Australian opinion piece we're citing directly questions it, could that be reasonably mentioned next to it? Do we have any other coverage (even opinion, if in actually-read sources) addressing its view of itself compared to what other people think when they see it? Given it's basically a delusional claim at best ... Again, I'm thinking in terms of what makes sense, with the selection of supporting WP:WTF to come after that - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources refuting the fact that they do not follow their mission statement. There are no sources indicating they do. I have always included sources for this - this is not my opinion or original research as you constantly claim. When an organization lies about itself, we should denote it as a lie.Galestar (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"although this is questioned by some ^[1][2][3][4]"? (I'm a big fan of understatement with clear references.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:V myself. Use the sources to verify information.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent, but doesn't quite answer the question in this subsection: what makes sense without talking like an SMS message? - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very bad practice to engage in 'he said she said' type stuff. It is far better to have a straightforward factual statement about them and how they see themselves without sticking in extra qualifiers over that it is their opinion rather than stating it as a fact. We then state the evidence about what they do. He said she said stuff just makes Wikipedia unreadable. The lead is supposed o be a summary of the article and it is quite important to make a lead readable rather than being some battle royale of people with an axe to grind sticking qualifiers after every statement. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And it would be poor precedent to say that using an open wiki article to cite what the open wiki says about itself, is against policy. The more I think about it, all we would need was the open wiki article. But now there is a reliable source, so the "open wiki" argument is moot.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been no support for the policy argument about removing the quote at WP:RSN#Secondary source quote. so the real question is whether it is a reasonable thing to put in the lead. I think it is the right thing to put in a short self description before launching into saying what everybody else thinks of the site. AT the moment all that is there is that it was set up to oppose Wikipedia and that it has a conservative christian outlook, that doesn't say what they think it is for. SO I propose putting back the quote unless someone has a better suggestion for how to go about this. Dmcq (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. The Australian opinion column simply says the site says they stay "true to the facts", the Australian terms and conditions explicitly denies responsibility for whether that is accurate or not. So Conservapedia's statement is a self-published statement about itself. Under our policy such statements are OK provided they are not "unduly self-serving" and are not an "exceptional claim". I think we'd all agree that the Pope's powers of infallibility are something of an exceptional claim (with apologies to the Catholics among us). This is no different. In any case, the statement is not in fact a self-description. It is a description of style and not a statement of mission. But I'm getting ahead of myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole argument misses the point. If we are looking for a self-description of the site's purpose in life, let's stop looking at the current spin version of their alleged self-description and instead put much greater weight on their first statements. For example, the most accurate self-description I found on that site in 60 seconds of looking was: "Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!" If we're going to report on their self-descriptions lets build a time line showing how the spin self description has evolved over time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That 'first' statement isn't at all easy to find, it is not an obvious page to look up about Conservapedia and I didn't see a link to it on the main page. The Conservapedia:About page might also be okay though, it is directly referenced from the main page. That page strike me a very self serving advertisment rather than a self description like the Conservapedia page but I guess I'd have to accept it as a reasonable source for ABOUTSELF as well. The point about the Conservapedia page is that a secondary source thought it worth pointing out the quote that has been discussed here. I wish people would stop going on about WP:ABOUTSELF not being applicable when the point was discussed at length at the reliable sources noticeboard. I fail to see how the Conservapedia page about itself is a description of style or what mission has to do about the whole business. ABOUTSELF says nothing about anything like a mission, what has mission got to do with describing itself and why is a description of itself a matter of style? Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

At the noticeboard I

1. Noted our general policy excludes ABOUT-SELF statements

2. Admitted that exceptions exist for qualifying statements

3. Opined that the self-published claim that the website "strives....to stay true to the facts" is disqualified because it is "unduly self-serving" and is an "exceptional claim"

Are you going to rebut that or just wish I would stop saying it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DMCQ.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it should go in the intro, and it appears NewsAndEventsGuy has found the WP:TLAs allowing us to do what's actually sensible. Putting it in the intro unadorned will actively mislead the reader, because the claim they make is really ludicrously false. Leave it lower down, where the site's claim about itself is relevant to the section - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The noticeboard did not overall support that WP:ABOUTSELF which is part of the WP:V policy was invalid in this case or overridden by some guideline or anything like that. If there is a desire to go to the noticeboard to check this yet again I will but I would hope that people ask their question properly there and accept the answer rather than indulging in IDONTHEARTHAT afterwards here.

Do people really think that a short paragraph outlining the about self point of view qualified in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is somehow a wrong thing to do? I am talking about the main purpose of Wikipedia which is to be an encyclopaedia. How many people will pay any atention to something which just start laying into a topic saying it is rubbish without actually decribing what it is laying into? If I started an article about Russia saying 'Russia is a brutal repressive regime..." I would very rightly get censured. We might as well be writing for Conservapedia with that sort of attitude. What on earth is going through peoples' minds when they want to do something like that? Conservapedia would be quite right in its description of Wikipedia if we do that sort of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum or battleground for people wanting to lay into their enemies. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No what you want to do is state "Russia says 'There is no corruption'". What I want to do is say "Russia says 'There is no corruption', but these sources have pointed out instances of clear corruption[1][2][3][4][etc I can find more if you want]". You are making a false analogy. Galestar (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And you would both be citing the exact same sources, with and without truncation! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps NewsAndEventsGuy could explain about tstyles and mission as asked? Or was that just more obfustication? Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a diff that shows which question you think I did not answer..... "tstyles"? I don't know if that was a typo or wikispeak I don't know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to remove Conservapedia from my watchlist so go ahead and do what you want as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Make this article seem more neutral?

Because criticism of Conservapedia is included in the section about its views, this article seems more biased than neutral. Maybe it would help to move all criticism of Conservapedia to the Reception section? (by criticism, I mean things like "Scientific American criticized Conservapedia's attitude towards the Theory of Relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to 100 fallacy-versus-fact "Science Index", describing Conservapedia as 'the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, [which] implies that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot.'") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitsingh3141 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Does site SELF-DESCRIBE as being written from so-called Young Earth Creation perspective?

It is true that Young Earth Creationism is covered on the site; however in the ABOUT pages and the like the owners/mods of the site do NOT self-describe the site in that manner. To illustrate does anyone anyone really think that our site Wikipedia is written from a Dark Ages perspective? We do have many interrelated articles on that subject after all. I have no problem with text saying Young Earth Creationism is extensively covered on the site or that the mods have declared it as one of their favorite topics. But they stop short of self-describing the site as being written from that perspective. If you claim otherwise please provide a specific DIFF or VERSION link to the Conservapedia site you rely on for that claim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about self-description, but YEC is most of what CP User:Conservative links on the front page. If you looked at it you'd think it was a YEC site - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just not accurate. I just visited the front page, there is one link on YEC. The vast majority of the links are political. Creationism in generation, a supertopic of YEC, is listed as a popular topic on the main page. These are the only references at all on the main page to YEC. I think it is immense undue weight to single out this topic in the lede -- especially since criticism are evolution and Darwinism are more prominently mentioned. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Including Young Earth Creationism in the lede as it's structured right now is inaccurate because they explicitly describe themselves as having a conservative and Chrisitan perspective -- nowhere is YEC mentioned in this context. I disagree that it should be included in the lede because it gives the topic undue weight. As the site is a Wiki and YEC is just a topic, there are registered editors who may fulfill the bias requirement and not agree with YEC. And there are numerous articles that the site publishes including YEC, evolution, intelligent design, and Darwinism among the many that could be listed. If we go down the road of including "popular" topics (and I don't even see any rationale behind calling YEC a popular topic), where's the cutoff and how is it measured? --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't accept self-description as gospel truth; what we care about are how reliable sources describe a subject. Francoist Spain claimed it wasn't right-wing, though most scholarly sources reviewing its ideology place it on the right. North Korea describes itself as democratic, though most reliable sources claim otherwise. The best we can do is mention how the sources describe Conservapedia, and also note any difference of opinion Conservapedia itself may have with that characterization. If the characterization of Conservapedia as YEC isn't particularly salient, then the information should be placed somewhere other than the lead. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not particularly care whether we talk about YEC or not; and I do not care whether the lede includes discussion of the sites self-description. That said we do have content guideline that allows inclusion of self-description types of statements. See WP:SELFSOURCE. In any sentence where we assert X self-describes as Y we need to provide a ref that establishes that fact. I have looked and failed to find any Conservapedia page that self-describes the site as being written from a YEC perspective. Therefore we either need to:

• Omit discussion of YEC
• move mention of YEC out of the sentence about the sites self-description

I do not care either way. If we continue to talk about the sites self-description we need (A) a link to support it and (B)comply with our own guideline WP:SELFSOURCE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think in general the lede could use some reworking, for example the ideology section is really just cherry picking. (The wiki does include a "Popular articles" section, but it's probably too large as is to be appropriate for a lede and there's no indicator what constitutes popular -- page views, edits, preference of the editor, etc.) But I do think it's inaccurate to attribute something to the wiki which isn't substantiated. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 15:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter how a site self-describes. I imagine however that Conservapedia's self-description as Christian embraces YEC. However the sources in the lead do not mention YEC. I would agree to include it if it is sourced. TFD (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, NewsAndEventsGuy, you just broke WP:3RR. Don't do that - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You need 4 to go over. I only have 3. Feel free to put YEC in some other sentence or give us a source to support putting it in the self-description one. Please dont just make stuff up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)