Talk:Conservapedia

Socialism

The new section on Socialism seems solely based on a conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper and two citations of Conservapedia itself. Anyone got a better source to cite or should it just be removed? Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've figured out what the first citation was supposed to be and it doesn't even mention Conservapedia, it is something that was cited in the Conservapedia article. So it doesn't support including the section and I'll remove it. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I did wonder if this edit might be controversial, and I probably should have started a discussion first. In defence of this edit, it just presents what is said on Conservapedia. I have never heard of Milton William Cooper and in my judgement he is totally irrelevant here. This article is about Conservapedia, so quoting from it is relevant to an encyclopaedia article. Surely it is fairer (more neutral) to use Conservapedia's own words here than those of a liberal commentator. Dmcq can you define what would be a better source for a case like this?

I'm looking into your second comment. Rwood128 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what I'm doing wrong here. I have been editing for many years but know that I don't know everything. Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a reason to "just present what is said on Conservapedia". WP:WEIGHT is established by what aspects of the subject receive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Wikipedia editor deciding that one particular bit of content on Conservapedia is more worthy of note than others gets into original research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Rhododendrites for clarifying this. I'm afraid that I had a bee in my bonnet. Rwood128 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We could fill an article many times over with the stupidities on Conservapedia except we have to follow policies like that. I just had a look today and their most read article was on vaccines saying how dangerous they are and how the government and big pharma conspire to hurt peoples children. Sometimes I just want some Chinese type autocrat to come along and send them all to a reeducation center. I sympathize about the bee in your bonnet. But those policies are what keep Wikipedia trustworthy rather than just another angry voice on the web. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Dmcq. I heartily agree with what you say about the need to keep high standards on Wikipedia. Foolishly I edited the Obama article on Conservapedia–trying to insist on citations–and got banned for life. Rwood128 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that we need to remember the common sense approach comes before Wikipedia Policy. This is a politically charged subject matter that is so polar that it just simply isn't pragmatic to utilize political commentators as a source for what is supposed to be fact- as then we have the whole business of separating opinion from fact, which is unweilding at best. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for NPOV Review

I nominate this article to be checked for complete compliance with WP:NPOV . This article appears to violate NPOV given that the subject matter and references appear to be highly politically charged. It seems that a lot of the reference citations contain material which is opinion material that has no place in a citation on Wikipedia, or at minimum, needs clear attribution and exact wording to avoid potential misconstruction. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinions very properly have a place in Wikipedia. If you will read the explanation in WP:NPOV. As it says 'Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects.' Perhaps you could expand a bit more on why exactly you think WP:NPOV have been violated? Also on Wikipedia material should be summarized by editors not copied in general. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources actually requires us to use opinionated sources.:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
• "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem I see that violates NPOV is the fact that because there is an apparent feud between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, it becomes that Wikipedians understandably have a conflict of interest in the matter, and therefore things become quite suspect of being anything but "Neutral", especially when "Opinion" is involved that is highly politicized. If we use attribution we avoid the problem to some extent, but we should then make an effort to cite sources that go against that position as well in order to make things truly neutral, when discussing things that have a political element. The problem here, is that I don't see conservapedia's viewpoint represented at all, except to an extent which implies the derogatory. Also, it is quite clear that the opinion column is not considered a reliable source.24.155.244.245 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have the reliable sources necessary then you're wasting time here. Instead see WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. Just waving hands about this or that on the talk page is pretty much WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM which we don't do here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk)I don't think your seeing the point. The problem here is that outside of what would be considered Original Research, the only thing that can be found on the subject is opinion matter on one side or the other on what seems to be extremely and highly controversial root issues that seems rooted in politics and religion. Its notable that most of Conservapedia's articles have a significant minorty viewpoint to support them, but this article currently seems to attempt to promote that there isn't any support whatsoever, which is intellectually dishonest. My point here is that this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources that rely on what is clearly pre-established narrative of the major political parties and/or various religions. I also am taking note here that Atheism can be considered a religion in so far as it promotes a specific viewpoint. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)