Talk:Conservapedia

Newsvine

• By the way, Newsvine is a notable source. Please 96.239.153.176, do not try to apply your Commandments everywhere you go, as they are marked by deliberate deceptiveness. --Crapunzel (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am actually unsure about Newsvine as a reliable source, is it not a blog? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article it's a news-gathering site, but I can see how bloggish it looks. Might need further discussion. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, it does aggregate stuff from the AP and other sources but I think there is "user generated" content as well. Is this not the case? And if so is the cited reference "user generated"? Those are my questions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The piece concerned cites only RationalWiki, so we can't go back to the original source and stick to Reliable source policy. Also, it's said to be a news gathering site, but there's no overall editorial policy; instead people vote on good and bad items - like Digg. So the reliability depends on the original source. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends on the author as well, if it user generated content by someone not known to be part of the larger media/press what-have-you, then yes the original source is what matters. If it is an organization or person who is writes for established press it doesn't matter as much. If it was an AP reporter that wrote it the fact that it sources RW doesn't matter, if it is written by "random user x" then the fact that RW is the source matters. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The author has not given his real name, and the only info on his userpage is a quote from Bertrand Russell. I think that if he was a full time journalist rather than any old bloke he'd say so, just to beef up his credentials. This is looking more and more like a blogger. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My impression as well, and as such I don't think it can be used as a source, what it comes down to then is whether or not RW can be used as a source for the claim. The answer is probably not, for the purposes of this article RW can be used as a source about what it claims to say "RationalWiki has stated that x,y,z." So you are then left with whether such a statement would violate wp:undue. I decline to push on these issues per my wp:coi. Rather merely trying to frame what discussion should take place in from my view. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki would fail WP:RS (at least I assume so; I read somewhere that wikis, blogs and message boards aren't reliable, but it's not mentioned on that page). So really we have "Netvine says that RationalWiki says that Conservapedia said something", which doesn't look all that great. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We could bypass the newsvine source, and source it to RW, saying "RationalWiki has criticized CP for X" in that case it doesn't faily wp:rs because we are sourcing what a sources says to itself. However, the question is does it matter that rationalwiki "has criticized CP for x." Thats the wp:undue clause. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(back to the margin) Well this link is being used to say that people are being blocked for questioning the value or content of the PNAS letter, which probably isn't that big a deal in the greater scheme of things. However it's the only part of the article that says CP blocks editors who ask awkward questions, even though it's a fairly common practice there. Should we find a source for that generality, rather than this instance? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How important is it that people are blocked for asking awkward questions? What is an "awkward" question, anyway? From the CPadmins' point of view, of course, they're blocking users for disrespect or disruptiveness or what have you. As I see it, it's quite enough to note that admins' blocking priveleges are unquestioned and frequently employed. I'm sure there's a source about that somewhere. Fishal (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Newsvine is not a blog. It's a "a community-powered news website which draws original content from its users and syndicated content from mainstream sources," and "[it] acts as a social news platform for the community which has grown around it." Moreover, Newsvine was named the Top News Site of 2006 and one of the 50 Best Websites of 2007 by Time magazine. Therefore, it qualifies as a source. The article in question reflects an incontrovertible truth: that Conservapedia censors and bans whoever opposes its beliefs and opinions. --Crapunzel (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not going to press the issue. I will wait to see if other editors have an opinion, for now I don't mind leaving it in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the site is somewhere in the grey area between a blog and a website. However, its recognition as a top news site by Time magazine would seem to satisfy the reliability requirements and the spirit of the WP source rules. Idag (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that Reliable source policy considers whether a site is among the "Best out there" editorially? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the policy concerning blogs, its purpose is to keep out a blog that I may rant on in my spare time. However, if something may or may not be a blog, its national recognition as a viable news source, would certainly satisfy the concerns of those policies. Idag (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that Wikipedia shouldn't source any sites that lack good fact-checking/editorial process. Newsvine doesn't appear to have any of that. Thus I request excluding the claim sourced by Newsvine. I mean, the author won't give out his credentials, and it seems that Newsvine allows its authors to say whatever the hill they want, fact or questionable.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of those claims have been rejected by the Time article. Please read it before posting further rhetoric. Idag (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean this article from 2007? I also found another one from 2006. Neither suggest that Newsvine has any good editorial oversight of its blogs, although they do state that Newsvine wires stories from AP/other reliable news agencies. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just did a quick search, none of the free websites have that article, though Lexis does have it. It came up on Lexis after I did a search for Newsvine and top. I would assume other premium media search engines have it as well. I would also point out that you have not once argued that the information is incorrect, but have merely tried to get the source kicked out on a technicality. Again, this is not a court and we have a specific policy prohibiting WP:Wikilawyering, if the information is verifiable and correct, the spirit of the rules is controlling.Idag (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC hypothesis

User Honeymane has asked to provide a reference that the ABC hypothesis has been scientifically rejected hasn't been debunked (I obviously need more sleep). Meanwhile there is no reference that it actually has been. The closest I've seen is the NCI workshop, however they concluded there was no ABC link, they did not reject the hypothesis nor did they question its biological plausibility.

More to the point, the reference used here refers to the Harvard study and the NCI workshop. Please take the time to review the parent article on this subject prior to asserting something that is unsupported even by the reference used here. I'll be away over the long weekend, I should be back Monday. Take your time. - RoyBoy 04:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for evidence that it (the hypotheosis) is regarded as anything other then a debunked theory by anyone who isn't a pro-life activist. I'm looking at these, and all I'm seeing is that no one seems to regard the link as factual, even in your Harvard study, they themselves point out that while a link can be drawn from their results, they caution that the test pool isn't nearly large enough to conclude that the link isn't being caused by other factors outside the control of the study, while other studies have come up with similar results. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment is accurate insofar as no causal link being found; that however does not support your erroneous conclusion it has been debunked. In particular a Daling study found a significant result. It is hardly rejected/debunked by science. I have already gone through and won a Mediation on "rejected", and I fail to see how Harvard being appropriately cautious on their results indicating an association has debunked anything.

Do you understand what debunk means? I'm forced to ask this question as it appears you do not. No scientist / study has shown the ABC hypothesis to be flawed / wrong / or entirely mitigated by a confounding factor(s) and/or response bias. This is required to consider it debunked; not selected studies with weak / mixed or nil results. A number of scientists and organizations (most notably the NCI) have rejected an ABC causative link; other have not, such as WHO, which is a far superior ref to Maloney's quick assessment. This subject requires slightly more effort than you have put into it. I'll add the WHO ref to the article now. - RoyBoy 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Debunk maybe too strong of a word, however, as I've said again and again, show me proof that we should alter the phasing of the sentience in such a manner that would suggest that such a link does 'exist'; even the WHO study you link to says:

Two major studies have been carried out using this methodology, and neither found an increased risk of breast cancer associated with first trimester abortion.

Therefore, results from epidemiological studies are reassuring in that they show no consistent effect of first trimester induced abortion upon a woman’s risk of breast cancer later in life.

I'm not seeing anything that says they've found a concert link between having an abortion and breast cancer; thus far the evidence points to no real link existing, or, that such a link, should it be discovered, is likely insignificant. You altered the wording of the sentience from scientifically rejected (as it does appear a good number of Doctors do reject that, and the ones who have conducted studies failed to discover the sort of link the hypothesis is proposing. Skepticism suggests that they're not conducting studies or such, because it is somehow beyond the realm of scientific investigation, which of course it's not; studies have been conducted and no link has been found yet, and the majority of the scientific community feels that the hypothesis is more or less incorrect. I want you to show me that this theory is being looked at at skeptically, and not, as I've said before, a hypothesis where the weight of the evidence points to the hypothesis being wrong. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate you conceeding on debunk. In the interim the mention has been changed to "scientific consensus rejects", which is far better than "scientifically rejected", that unfortunately blatantly confirmed a liberal slant on Wikipedia that Conserpedia tries to substantiate.

Now I need to convince you, and likely others that the ABC mention here is still inaccurate. Yes, the WHO fact page overall message is ABC is not a concern for women... at the same time you need to recognize that specifying "first trimester" means that there may be a significant effect on second trimester abortions.

Don't confuse consensus with the evidence when it comes to weight. The weight of the evidence points to a possible association with some sub-groups of women. Specifically the Melbye study with the largest dataset and lauded in the media as disproving ABC. Indeed no overall asssociation found (after statistical adjustments that are questionable)... more importantly there is a steady increase of ~3% per week of gestation. In other words, evidence from the largest ABC study ever does not entirely point to the hypothesis being wrong. It is that very Melbye finding that forces the WHO assessment to specify "first trimester". Furthermore Melbye conceeded that the finding was "in line with the hypothesis of Russo and Russo", who first proposed in 1982 an ABC hypothesis to explain previous weak ABC findings. - RoyBoy 00:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Once we have passed the hurdle of evidence, we will discuss whether the NCI workshop can be considered an authoritative gauge of the scientific consensus. Given Daling's stand, and that the workshop does not reference the studies they considered/rejected and for what reasons, I would contend it cannot be considered authoritative on science. Without these references there is no way to verify their findings, and verification is crucial for Wikipedia. Or at least it should be, right? - RoyBoy 00:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of if "skepticism" is the appropriate term, based on WHO and the actual evidence I believe it is the most accurate term. Particularly on the whether ABC is "somehow beyond the realm of scientific investigation"... indeed you are correct to conclude it can be investigated; but that does not mean the answers will be clear nor correctly interpreted. Scientists have worried epidemiology does have limits resulting from various biases in data and people.

One editorial reached an interesting conclusion: "Because bias impedes our vision and is subject to sound inquiry, we are far from reaching a scientific "limit". Indeed, after this excursion into the issue of abortion, bias, and breast cancer, it seems our future has as much to do with human behavior as with human biology." [1]

Some take this to mean behavior of people used in studies. But it can be taken in a broader context to mean the scientists involved as well, be they pro-life or pro-choice, and want their "wish bias" confirmed in their study. - RoyBoy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

has come to

Theserialcomma, the intent of "has come to reject" isn't meant to imply the "scientific consensus ever accepted it to begin with", but rather in the past results were inconsistent and at times positive. In that context the consensus wasn't / couldn't be a firm rejection. Correct? - RoyBoy 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello RoyBoy. The reason I objected to and reverted the phrase 'has come to reject' was due to the underlying grammatical implication of the 'present perfect' tense, which (in my opinion) has created a bit of syntactic ambiguity in the sentence. As you said, it isn't meant to imply that 'scientific consensus ever accepted it to begin with;' however, that is how I personally read it, hence the ambiguity. If you want to clarify what you meant by 'has come to reject' with another sentence, I think that would be fine. But 'has come to reject' as it was, just read ambiguously to me. Feel free to add it back with the phrase or sentence clarified. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. - RoyBoy 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC drafting

Currently

Another point of view Conservapedia is known to support which the scientific consensus rejects is the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis abortion-breast cancer link.

Draft 1

Another point of view Conservapedia supports is an abortion-breast cancer link. While smaller studies during the 1960-90's indicated a weak association, larger more recent studies have lead the scientific consensus to conclude there is no abortion-breast cancer association for first trimester abortion.

Draft 2

Another point of view Conservapedia supports is an abortion-breast cancer link. While the majority of smaller interview based studies during the 1960s–90s had inconsistent positive associations possibly resulting from response bias, larger more recent record based studies have lead the scientific consensus to conclude there is no abortion-breast cancer association for first trimester abortion.

Are there any comments / concerns with draft 2? I will wait another week and if this is acceptable I will add it to the article. Of course, I will expand and format all the ref's. - RoyBoy 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the place to discuss the finer points of the arguments about abortion and breast cancer. It's sufficient to say that Conservapedia depicts as fact what scientists have not accepted as fact. - Nunh-huh 12:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Succinctly put, and is less necessary because of my tweaks to the current version. However, the significance of changing "abortion-breast cancer hypothesis" to "abortion-breast cancer link" would be utterly lost on the casual reader. The finer points are about the consensus. If this article is to mention consensus, it should do so with context. It is accurate to say a casual link has been rejected, it is not accurate to say the hypothesis has been rejected. The current version conflates them and makes the "reject consensus" appear unanimous. How about draft 3? - RoyBoy 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft 3

Another point of view Conservapedia supports is an abortion-breast cancer link. While there are positive results from smaller studies, larger more recent studies have lead the scientific consensus to conclude there is no abortion-breast cancer association for first trimester abortion.

Still much more detail than is needed here. Why, for example, characterize the "supporting" studies as smaller, rather than less well designed? "Conservapedia asserts there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, while the scientific consensus is that there is no such proven association for first trimester abortion." - Nunh-huh 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I would agree with "no such proven association for first trimester abortion", but the majority would appropriately object to even the implication of a proven "blank" in the second trimester.

While it is true Record studies are a better starting point "design" than Interview studies; it is not possible to know if X Record study was better executed/analyzed than Y Interview study. Saying "smaller" is factual and indicates the weight those studies are given by scientists. There are good and bad examples of both. I like your draft, very focused. - RoyBoy 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft 4

Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.

While I dislike the Maloney ref for ABC science, it is a solid Conservapedia ref. - RoyBoy 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft 4, while still overly detailed, is pretty much unobjectionable (well, except for the fact that it needs commas to set off "based on selective evidence", and some missing 'that's: It should read: "Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.". ). - Nunh-huh 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflected changes in draft 4, will add to article now. Many thanks. - RoyBoy 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have a few friendly criticisms. I know it has been said that it's hard to tell something good about it when all sources say something bad, but this article gives a certain "Conservapedia sucks" feel. From my POV Conservapedia really is worth nothing, but that is not the point. An example of such a sentence is "Consequently, editors who began to ask too many questions about the issue and about specific links 'not allowed in Conservapedia', were censored and permanently blocked", which is not even cited by a reliable source. The tone of this particular sentence, like a few others really doesn't reflect the NPOV policy very well.

What is pro Conservapedia in this article is in fact negative criticism towards Wikipedia, and not actually something good said about CP. Thankfully I saw this page on CP today: [2], which might help balancing the article a bit. Good luck! Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Something occurred to me last night, but its "pro-Conservapedia" aspect is debatable: as far as I'm aware, Conservapedia is the first encyclopedic wiki with a stated political motive (not including general motives such as freedom of speech). Since then Liberapedia and Metapedia have come along, but what came before? Might be worth putting in if it's true, and if there's a reliable source. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph starts with: "Reception of the site has been generally negative, particularly in the form of accusations of bias and inaccuracy.[8][9][10]" Using only three editorials from non-US, left-leaning sites as justification for claiming generally negative reception for a US-focused, right-wing site hardly seems sufficient. If there are going to be blanket statements on a subject, the sourced material needs to be up to the task. Barring a reasonably large poll conducted by a reputable source, I doubt there is anything capable of justifying this statement. As it stands, it is simply a non-NPOV opinion with brief, anecdotal backup from only one side.

PNAS reply

Also regardin the Lenski dialog: CP sent a letter to PNAS, requesting a review of Lenski's results. a transcript can be found at Wikisource [3]. I think this is also worth mentioning. Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PNAS have since replied,[4] but so far only CP and RW have mentioned it. 12:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Totnesmartin (talk)

Myers has just written it up on his blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/andy_schlafly_writes_another_l.php

--82.18.14.143 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, but hasn't escaped the blogosphere yet. Needs moar. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but while blogs are generally shunned as unreliable, if they are from an expert in the relevant field, they might be usable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler picture

Anyone else find it completely hilarious that their article on evolution features a picture of Hitler?--Sysys (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Truly, a trustworthy encyclopedia! Totnesmartin (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing as it discredits their arguments. The topic is getting hot on their talk page, I would have added my 2 cents and pointed out that Hitler clearly did not understand evolution as he thought that elitist selection worked, and therefore it is an attempt to discredit a theory by using a evil man who misunderstood the concept. Unfortunately they blocked me for having the user name (ev01ve), after I posted the article "Mutation and Mathematics" on the talk page :-(. Perhaps we should adopt the same fanciful thinking and post an article saying that because someone evil failed to understand evolution, it is therefore correct!! But then where would our scientific integrity be?--twopir (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At Conservapedia, scientific integrity has left the building. If it's not in the bible, it's not true. And even some bits of the bible are suspect. BUT having said that, this section is turning into a discussion of CP rather than a discussion of WP's article on it, so let's stop. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, the Conservapedia talk page discussion on that evolution article made my day. Since they've posted a picture of Hitler next to a scientific theory, should we include that in this article or would it be too POV/original research? We would only be summarizing something that Conservapedia did, but I'll admit that's probably borderline POV. What do you guys think? Idag (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Conservapedia now has roughly the authority of a seldom-read blog (which is, none), so it is unlikely we will be reading of their latest antics in a significant secondary source. So since we can't use our own observations, their latest follies will have to go unmentioned in our article, as amusing as they are. - Nunh-huh 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Placing an inappropriate picture on one article doesn't cut it as noteworthy - for all we know it could be gone by the time Schlafly clocks off tonight. The Lenski dialogue is the biggie for CP this year, and even that barely registered outside the blogs. I think there won't be another event that gets in the article until next year sometime.Totnesmartin (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to keep to improvement-related conversation here, unless you want them to cite this convo as proof of some vendetta. Seems likely a few of them would watch this page, and certainly Schlafly has edited this page (User_talk:Aschlafly). – Toon^(talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a wiki almost entirely dedicated to discussing conservapedia, perhaps people who want to do that could go there rather than here? These discussions are fun but this isn't the place. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama as a Muslim

I think that the fact that Barack Obama is listed under "Muslims" (and an explicit statement of Obama's supposed Muslim beliefs) was placed on the talk page by Schlafly would be a good example of the site's political ideology. I'm confused with the formatting issues involved in citing this, else I would do it myself. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We generally ask for third-party references for adding material like this. Hut 8.5 06:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the article, Andrew Schlafly's talk page comments are considered acceptable sources, so I don't see why this would be different. CopaceticThought (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he say that it's an example of the site's ideology, or is this your own conclusion? WilyD 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd say to use Schlafly quotes minimally. There is a real danger of getting carried away with instances of "Check out what this crazy guy said." There is already a wiki dedicated to doing that, and this is not it. If, if, if we are to use his quotes at all, then use them to illustrate or illuminate points made by outside sources, not to draw new conclusions. Fishal (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but can we remove the facts from the article that use Conservapedia talk pages or actual pages as citations? CopaceticThought (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)