Talk:Conservapedia

Religion and Science

Somehow the section on "Religion and science" has become a muddle; in the first paragraph the second sentence is a complete non sequitur. If someone can find the last coherent version, we should restore it; otherwise it needs a lot of editing. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence? It elaborates on how CP supports YEC given how it criticizes evolution.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

At present, the first two sentences are: "Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view. An example of such article content differences is the subject of evolution, which Conservapedia presents as a scientific theory lacking support."

The second sentence refers to "such differences", though no differences whatsoever have been mentioned at that point. I think the article once referred to the different ways Wikipedia and Conservapedia treated evolution, but it no longer seems to do so. We need to delineate a difference before referring to it, or lose "such differences". - Nunh-huh 06:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote it to eliminate "differences" and to just say that CP follows the standard creationist rhetoric that "evolution's just a theory, there've been times when we pwned 'science'". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

The article on Andrew Schlafly is going to be redirected here shortly, editors on this article are encouraged to mine what worthwhile tidbits there might be to include in this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we come to the consensus early last summer that we just simply could not write a good biography of Andrew Schlafly due to the lack of comprehensive coverage of his life beyond CP? I also doubt that we should cover every single failed House of Representatives candidate either. According to the guideline for politicians:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Schlafly certainly doesn't meet notability. He's just a two-bit lawyer with a small blog run by right-wing religious zealots. --Crapunzel (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the notability concern - let's not slander or disparage anybody. Focus on the content of subjects only. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Slander? --Crapunzel (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Site as a comment on the United States?

As sites the like of Conservapedia are the sole monopoly of the United States, it can surely be said that the "backwardness" Conservapedia is but one example of is pretty much the property of the United States. Should the article reflect this? Meaning, that systemic ignorance is rampant, embraced and fostered, in the United States as a defining identity? Nowhere else is ignorance adopted so willingly, so should the article reflect this? Just wondering. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source stating that Conservapedia is part of an anti-intellectual trend is US conservatism, and then (and only then) it can go in. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty bold assumption that sites like this are the sole monopoly of the United States is a bit far fetched. (Ha, have you not heard of Microsoft?) Seriously though, while it may seem to us that the States is more inclined to this kind of thing, I don't think we could ever make such a broad POV-assertion as yours. - Toon⁰⁵ 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay. Can you find a more reliable source than the site itself? This particular page reflects what the original poster was saying to a tee. Conservapedia is a reliable (of it's views as everything is checked and one can't edit without an account) and published source. May I also draw your attention to Extremist and Fringe Sources in [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Once reason, logic and, in the case of this particular article, human decency are added to the mix the points made are both fair and unbiased. Kae1is (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia, and its difference from Conservapedia is that we know the difference between the truth and an opinion. We don't assert things as fact that are our opinion, only what has been reported by respected reliable sources. And Conservapedia can't be used to make assertions about the whole of the United States, the whole of Britain, what would "only" happen there or whatever - that's Original Research - with no actual research. It's pure assumption. And I'm certainly not an american or conservative sycophant - I'm British, and very liberal - I just realise that assertions such as those made above are the very sort of thing you would find on CP. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia

In the interest of fair comment and unbiased reporting this ought to be included. Maybe in the second paragraph round criticism of Wikipedia. Kae1is (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of Schafly should probably be removed. Or at least a better one should be included. The Wikipedia article doesn't contain a picture of Jimbo. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the one provided by Schlafly. If you have a better one that is GFDL compatible, by all means upload it. Jimbo and Schlafly's respective roles in Wikipedia and Conservapedia are not analogous: Jimbo was a founder, but Wikipedia is now controlled/owned by the Wikimedia foundation, with Jimbo having little to do with its content; Schlafly is the owner of Conservapedia and its servers, rules Conservapedia with an iron fist, determines its rules, and rigorously censors its content to be certain it meets his personal expectations. Jimbo has his own article. Schlafly doesn't, anymore. - Nunh-huh 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Schlafly released it to the public domain, so it's certainly usable, and exactly what do you mean by "better"? If you mean by more flattering, we aren't in the business of glorification or aesthetics for their own sake. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The first section says reaction to conservapedia has been 'overwhelmingly negative', however, 3 articles which criticise conservapedia does not constitute an overall overwhelmingly negative reaction; neither do any of the articles refer to any data which suggests the reaction to the site is so. I've modfied this comment.NZUlysses (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to find any positive reaction to conservapedia. I browsed the top 60 Google hits. This is the most positive one I found, and it offers no praise at all, merely an absence of criticism. I'd say about 1/4 of the hits are neutral (like a tag search on Wordpress) but most are negative. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call, you're not incorrect! However, correct me if I'm wrong, but to keep the 'overwhelmingly negative' claim on here you'd need to cite an article which does such a survey itself, otherwise it's original research and against wikipedia rules for inclusion. NZUlysses (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The following links indicate that there is almost no positive reaction: [1], [2]. These are from the first 10 Google links. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are good, and each has info relevant to this article. But both can be considered overviews or surveys of the negative reactions and criticisms of Conservapedia. Neither really goes into whether anyone actually does approve of it. For a controversial topic like this, "overwhelmingly negative" is probably just too strong a phrase. Can I suggest something less forceful, like "the site has provoked a large amount of criticism"? Fishal (talk)

That might be reasonable if there were any reason to assume that someone other than Conservapedia's acolytes had published positive reviews of Conservapedia and had commended it for its accuracy and reliability. However, we have no reason to assume that; the web has been scoured searching for reliable sources espousing such positive reactions and they seem not to exist. So your suggested change misstates the facts by implying that there's a positive reaction offsetting the criticism; there doesn't seem to be such a reaction, and so "overwhelmingly negative" is more accurate (and helpful to the reader) than "provoked criticism" is. - Nunh-huh 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scouring the Web and reporting that you find no positive reviews still amounts to Original Research, unfair though that may be. Saying that CP generates criticism and mockery is hardly misleading, even if you don't use words like "overwhelming". Fishal (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Accurately reflecting the proportion of positive and negative commentary is in fact fundamental to the writing of any article, which must adhere to a NPOV by not emphasizing viewpoints unduly. That's not original research, it's an intrinsic and inviolable principle of Wikipedia. When the response found is universally negative, it's improper to report it simply as "criticized"- Nunh-huh 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, do what you want. I feel that for an article like this, that sets out to describe a "sworn enemy" of Wikipedia in a neutral fashion, careful tact and strict adherence to Reliable Sources are even more important than in a regular article. Fishal (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

original synthesis is out, I'm afraid - we can't add up the google hits to say it's being received negatively, even though it's blatantly obvious. We need a citation for that statement, otherwise anybody could quote mine favourable sites to say what they want about CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't quote mine sites that don't exist! That's precisely the point. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Totnesmartin. By counting the number of negative Google hits, or noticing the absence of positive hits, is nothing more than drawing your own conclusions, which easily fits the mold for synthesis as linked above. I fear that the only "neutral" way of phrasing the lead would be something along the lines of "Conservapedia has provoked criticism.." Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationalwiki does not warrant mention in this article

and there is even less reason to link to them. This article is about Conservapedia. Rationalwiki is simply a non-notable, unimportant site even in the context of an article about Conservapedia - at most, mentioning Rationalwiki in an article about Conservapedia is on the same level as mentioning and linking to Wikipedia Review in an article about Wikipedia. They are an attack site and a completely non-notable one at that. I also see at least two links to Rationalwiki and citations to blogs as well that also fail to meet WP:RS and are cited to support assertions against Conservapedia and give undue weight to criticism of the project. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The LA times article discussion of the relationship between rationalwiki and conservapedia seems to disprove your statement that there should be no mention of it in the article. The link to the site is a consensus established after a long discussion, which has now been archived, and should not be changed without additional discussion and a new consensus. Certainly not unilaterally by a user that has a personal grudge against RationalWiki. Finally, a source is not invalidated because it refers to RationalWiki. If you wish to dispute the validity of a source lets review the actual source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI since Rationalwiki is your site. As for the sources I object to, here is just one: [3]. It's a blog. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Which aspect of of COI do you feel I am violating? I will take a look at the source now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your just quoting policy at me and not explaining how any of it is relevant. It amounts to a personal attack, I recommend that you you wp:assume good faith.Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try to assume WP:GOODFAITH and explain the WP:COI policy without necessarily assuming you are deliberately violating it. Rationalwiki is your site, therefore under WP:COI it could give the appearance of conflict of interest for you to re-add a link to Rationalwiki as you did here: [4]. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand wikipedia policy just as well if not better than you do. The reason it is not a violation is that the removal of the link was a unilateral decision by a user with a grudge, that went against long established consensus. Anyway, back to the actual substantive issue at hand. I agree that the newsvine source fails wp:rs and have removed the sentence that used it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on the principal of stare decisis, it operates on the principal of WP:BOLD. But thanks for removing the biased statement sourced to a blog. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)