Talk:Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎"Conservapedia Commandments" and their usage.: rem all of this, as was done previously. not a forum. we all know who is right here, we don't need to argue over it
Line 185: Line 185:
What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs '''more''' of a conservative, Christian, American bias) [[User:Library Seraph|Library Seraph]] ([[User talk:Library Seraph|talk]]) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs '''more''' of a conservative, Christian, American bias) [[User:Library Seraph|Library Seraph]] ([[User talk:Library Seraph|talk]]) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
:This isn't the place to ask such questions; '''however''', to find out, I'd recommend looking at the edit history of the respective [[Kansas evolution hearings | article]], finding all the anonymous editors who have contributed to it, and check the location of the ip addresses using the appropriate [http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?Getlocation tools]. '''Finally''', he lives in New Jersey, and thus those edits coming from New Jersey are likeliest to be him!--[[User:Star trooper man|Leon]] ([[User talk:Star trooper man|talk]]) 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
:This isn't the place to ask such questions; '''however''', to find out, I'd recommend looking at the edit history of the respective [[Kansas evolution hearings | article]], finding all the anonymous editors who have contributed to it, and check the location of the ip addresses using the appropriate [http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?Getlocation tools]. '''Finally''', he lives in New Jersey, and thus those edits coming from New Jersey are likeliest to be him!--[[User:Star trooper man|Leon]] ([[User talk:Star trooper man|talk]]) 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

== "Conservapedia Commandments" and their usage. ==

Should the article clarify that the "Conservapedia Commandments" are not in effect at all, given [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=739633&oldid=739627 an administrator's admission] that administrators can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it? --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
:Not until an independent source says so I'm afraid. It says so in the [[WP:PRIMARY|Wikipedia commandments]]. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] ([[User talk:Totnesmartin|talk]]) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
::An administrator on the site says they ignore the commandments, which the article here on WP says the site adheres to. I would say that if someone of authority on the page says they ignore what Wikipedia says they adhere to, then the site Wikipedia uses for a source for the information for one way should also offer equal weight to the same site for the other way. In other words, why does WP reference CP to say they have commandments for how to edit, but not reference CP to say they refuse to uphold those same commandments? --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
:::To a point I actually agree. I suppose the "commandments" are "official" in some sense, but I think that we can consider removing that reference. I am not an expert on the practical application of WP policy, but I'm aware that we're not supposed to cite primary sources in this fashion. IMHO, this article cites CP itself too often, '''what does everyone else think on this?'''--[[User:Star trooper man|Leon]] ([[User talk:Star trooper man|talk]]) 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Given that most of the commandments are almost never followed (at least the ones verifiability, citation, and opinion stated as fact) Wikipedia should not state that they are, only that they claim to adhere to them. Not sure hoe best to put this in the article. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] ([[User talk:R. fiend|talk]]) 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::But in all cases that is OR, and thus I'm not convinced we should include them at all.--[[User:Star trooper man|Leon]] ([[User talk:Star trooper man|talk]]) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I would take issue with the ''false premise / false flag'' statement of the original post here. Setting policy below the CP Commandments, has nothing to do, and cannot logically be interpreted as, placing an Admin above those Commandments. The fact that this whole section was started by an Administrator of a known vandal site (according to the [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 Los Angeles Times]) gives one pause... --[[User:TK-CP|TK-CP]] ([[User talk:TK-CP|talk]]) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:The LA Times? But TK, according to Conservapedia, the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_Times LA Times] is a liberal publication; and according to CP's article entitled ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal liberal]'', "a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing". How fascinating that you seem to forget your own position on liberalism when it suits you and your agenda, either that or a CP article is inaccurate - which we all know will ''never'' happen. [[User:GrandLearner|GrandLearner]] ([[User talk:GrandLearner|talk]]) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::I hardly see where arguing personalities or politics is germain or logical here. Either a bonifide media outlet said what it did, or it didn't. Since the journalist who wrote the story is highly respected, I assume the usual verifications took place. Even if all that wasn't so, it hardly excuses Administrators from a site dedicated to the denigration of another to use Wikipedia for their own ends, without disclosing to Wikipedia users and editors their agenda and connections. --[[User:TK-CP|TK-CP]] ([[User talk:TK-CP|talk]]) 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You want to talk about people using WP for their own ends and to push their own agendas? Well, suffices to say [[User:Ed_Poor|CP admins]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#User:Ed_Poor_-_POV_and_COI aren't] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ed_Poor_%282%29 entirely] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor above] that themselves, now are they? Shall we dig deeper, such as CP's ''difference with Wikipedia'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia #15] that editors will not be blocked for their activities on other sites, only to be permanently banned from CP because they opposed Ed Poor's RFA? [[User:GrandLearner|GrandLearner]] ([[User talk:GrandLearner|talk]]) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] ([[User talk:R. fiend|talk]]) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:And back to the discussion. Possibly the best move is to either entirely remove the section concerning the Conservapedia Commandments, or state that the Conservapedia Commandments are notional editing guidelines. It shouldn't be necessary to add anything more than that, notional seems to adequately describe the current situation without necessarily violating the OR rules.--[[User:Stunteddwarf|SakuraNoSeirei]] ([[User talk:Stunteddwarf|talk]]) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:How about: '''Editorial viewpoints and policies''', para 1, sent 2 "Primarily, a set of policies known as the ''Conservapedia Commandments'' provides notional editorial procedures and guidelines which were designed to deal with such issues as bias and accurracy."?--[[User:Stunteddwarf|SakuraNoSeirei]] ([[User talk:Stunteddwarf|talk]]) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::But the commandments aren't notional; they're not used at all. One user recently at the site brought up the fact that a sysop there was not following the guidelines, to which TK stated unequivocally that the commandments are not followed. Why even mention them if an administrator for the site says they're not going to be followed? Strip them out entirely and avoid the issue altogether. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::(Late reply to above point, shoehorned in). Notional (as an adjective) can mean ''not evident in reality, hypothetical, imaginary, speculative'' or ''theoretical''. At least one of those can be applied to the Conservapedia Commandments and their actual use by Admins.--[[User:Stunteddwarf|SakuraNoSeirei]] ([[User talk:Stunteddwarf|talk]]) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:::"TK" stated no such thing, and only the most reckless stretching could turn what I said about Admins setting policy, into what you are now claiming. They are what they were made to be, the over-arching site guidelines. --[[User:TK-CP|TK-CP]] ([[User talk:TK-CP|talk]]) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::In response to a user pointing out that a sysop, Ed Poor, was violating one of the Conservapedia Commandments, you responded to this user with, "Administrators like Ed Poor and myself make the policy of CP, Matthew, as does Mr. Schlafly." The user made a very clear and concise case for the violation of the rules, and you overrode the rules by saying that Ed Poor's edits became policy. In effect, you did say, unequivocally, that the commandments simply are not in use. If they are in use, shall we expect that you, Ed, Andy and others will no longer post anything untrue, like your arguments that Fidel Castro is dead? Or cite what you use, when you plagiarized the Merry Christmas Neon image and burned anyone and everything which pointed out you plagiarized it? Or lacking in gossip, like how CP stated it was Hollywood Values that caused Brittany Murphy's death, not legally prescribed drugs that had a bad mix? Or getting rid of the personal opinion pieces of Andy stating that relativity can't be falsified, or that black holes are a liberal distraction, or that Fidel Castro is dead (this was so funny, I had to use it twice)? Or how you do more than 90% non-edits? If you claim the Conservapedia Commandments are the site guidelines, why are they simply never applied? Or as you said, what the administrators do becomes the policy, which renders the CC's void and should be removed from this article, as per the discussion. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 06:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::While your goal is apparently to turn Wikipedia into some sort of public tribunal about Conservapedia, that is against the rules here, and your comments lack logic in the extreme. You have the right to believe what you will, but to try and make what you say fact is without logic. I suggest if you have questions about CP that you email me, or another Administrator, and ask. That is what Admins at Wikipedia often do, so to say that using email is somehow irregular is not so. --[[User:TK-CP|TK-CP]] ([[User talk:TK-CP|talk]]) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::My goal is to make Wikipedia factual. The Conservapedia Commandments are not a set of guidelines used at Conservapedia, per your own argument that admins, not the CC, make the policies. Therefore, they should be stripped out of the article here to make the article better for users who read it. If you have an issue with this, can you spot any verifiable, third party link that shows that the CC are the guidelines that Conservapedia uses? If not, your admission on CP nullifies the CC link on CP, I'd say, and there's no further discussion needed that the CCs are not guidelines in use on CP. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 04:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you are an Administrator at a known vandal site, recognized by third parties as being such. Nothing was admitted by me, either on CP or anywhere else, except in your own mind. The Commandments guide every Conservapedia user, including Admins. Since you cannot provide any third party link to show the Commandments aren't our primary rules, I have reversed your removal (without cause) of the Commandment portion of the story. Your own good ideas are just that, but hardly "proof" of any kind. As a vandal site administrator, I would think you, of all people, should be precluded from editing pages about your targets. Perhaps some Wikipedia Admin will also agree. --[[User:TK-CP|TK-CP]] ([[User talk:TK-CP|talk]]) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

: Given that the wording in the article is that the Commandments "guide" the project, I don't see any conflict here. The comment should stay in. If readers want to have this changed then they need to get a reliable source to actively comment on the lack of following of the Commandments. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::I also agree that this statement should remain, although mentioning the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines Conservapedia Guidelines] as a compliment to the Commandments might be helpful. The guidelines state "Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed." Seems air tight to me. [[User:Keegscee|Keegscee]] ([[User talk:Keegscee|talk]]) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::I added the part about the guidelines. Feel free to revert/disagree. [[User:Keegscee|Keegscee]] ([[User talk:Keegscee|talk]]) 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::::I took out the part about the CC and the CG, since adding the CG is uncited. If one can use Conservapedia to source what they use for guidelines, then one should also use CP for TK's claim that the administrators set the policies, not the Conservapedia Commandments. The Commandments are explained later in the article, but to say they are the guidelines for the site is not factual, and should not be included in such a manner on this page. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:TK: I am not an administrator at a known vandal site. You edited a page about a site you are administrating. You stated specifically, when someone pointed out that another sysop on CP violated the Conservapedia Commandments, that the admins make the policies, thereby ignoring the CC. The page should reflect the factual nature of the CC, that they are not used. Further editing by you to this page for your POV will result in filing a complaint with your participation on this page. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

: There's been similar disputes before, you know. And Arbitration Commitee [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Editors_of_ED|had this to say]]: "Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here." A common-sense rule, really, and one can imagine similar principle should govern all "vandal sites", not just ED... and also non-vandal sites like Conservapedia. Mind the local rules - there are ''vast'' differences in policies between wikis. --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Seeing as this discussion is about the Conservapedia Commandments and the alleged flaunting of them by CP's admins, perhaps TK, who has been defending the commandments would care to comment on his wilful breaking of Commandment 1 "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. '''Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work'''." As has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt (by other administrators on CP, such as Philip Rayment) you copied the UCLA article from Wikipedia. However, the best flaunting of the rule was when you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=TK&page=File%3AA+Merry+Christmas+neon.jpg&year=&month=-1 uploaded] "A Merry Christmas Neon", claiming it was self-made, when clearly it [http://www.neonclick.de/images/merry%20christmas%20neon%20sign.jpg was not]. You reaction, when people pointed this blatant plagiarism out to you was to block them, revert their comments and eventually [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=TK&page=File+talk%3AA+Merry+Christmas+neon.jpg&year=&month=-1 deleted] the talk page, citing "Deliberate creation of false article; lying." and thus proving that Conservapedia administrators are not above ignoring their own commandments.
:::Oh and don't buy into TK "vandal sites" crap. That just his talk for "people who point out my lies". --[[User:Psygremlin|Psygremlin]] ([[User talk:Psygremlin|talk]]) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Thank you, wwwwolf. I am a sysop (not by choice) at RationalWiki. But I don't make policy there, don't have bureaucratic rights, and do little more than simply edit at the site. I have nothing to do with ED or any other wiki sites other than WP and RW. TK, however, is a member of RW and CP, and is an administrator, by his own signature on CP, at Conservapedia, thus his reversion on this page seems to fly in the face of the WP:COI guidelines here. I have been clear that I simply want this article to reflect facts, not the point-of-view Conservapedia wants to convey. If I were interested in pointing out flaws or issues with CP, as others have mentioned, the page would be far too long and would have too many POV entries.
::::As stated in this thread before, the article mentions the CC already. But to say they are the guidelines for posting at CP is just unfactual. If one uses CP as a source for one thing, it must also use CP as a source for the opposite. And if TK argues that admins make the policies, then that should reflect the facts of the project. It doesn't destroy the article, nor make the CC's go away in the article. --[[User:IrrationalAtheist|IrrationalAtheist]] ([[User talk:IrrationalAtheist|talk]]) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


== Original research ==
== Original research ==

Revision as of 01:17, 8 January 2010

Good articleConservapedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
March 4, 2007Deletion reviewRelisted
April 9, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
April 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 15, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 15, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 15, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

Comedy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have had the same idea, the problem being that writing about what you find amusing about Conservapedia's bigoted articles would constitute original research, and so would not be appropriate for inclusion here. What's needed is a reliable source (a third-party account) detailing the general hilarity that ensues upon reading said articles. And you're unlikely to find such a source, because almost no one has written about Conservapedia other than at its founding; it's not on anyone's radar screen. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now on everyone's radar, as Stephen Colbert just targeted it. Expect a plethora of third party references of its entertainment value within the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.142.14 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it was on one of those Cracked lists a few months ago, but that's worth a passing mention at most, if even worth putting in at all. Meanwhile, the usual comedy/satire sites are available, and there's a whole website out there dedicated to laughing at CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish i could say yes.. see the "evolution" and "liberal" articles on their website.. have a good laugh. <tommy> (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there's a third party account of humourous conservapedia articles on rationalwiki. i could write one as well ;) 92.12.95.57 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article on Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news But please, find some more, and stop this nonsense! It should be clearly stated on wikipedia, that conservapedia is a joke! 95.176.155.96 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need, stating something is a 'joke' in any way is blatant bias, despite my personal convictions. Jacotto (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They will make a joke out of themselves, no need to state it in the article; besides, doing so, would not be appropriate. Tommy talk 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia is a horrible website. They do not try to inform their readers of the truth, rather the ignorance of right wing fanaticals who want nothing more than to destroy America. If is ran by a bunch of whiny republicans who people are just getting sick and tired of hearing from. Why can't they move on and try to help America succeed instead of trying to hold us back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.83.134 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with anything on Conservapedia but i don't think we should treat it as a joke. These people seriously believe this stuff. Let's not make this paragraph on Conservapedia about Wikipedia true "Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia[14] with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia"
However this is one of the most stupid things i have ever read on the internet "Alma mater normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. [28] However, at Wikipedia, the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. [29] Sean Hannity attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashorrobin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant lies

Maybe we should list the ones that Conservapedia tries to pass off as the truth?

Listing the lies on Conservapedia would be the same as mirroring the site. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it lists Dick Cheney as "American Patriot" and talks about "The Obama Administration's hate for American values" on the front page. --Craigboy (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've got a reliable third-party source attesting to the importance of these, no, we shouldn't.--Leon (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of lies being in an encyclopedia?--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On their 2-sentence page on Rosa Luxemburg, they claim that she was a terrorist. Rosa Luxemburg was not a terrorist. She was a revolutionary. A terrorist is someone who tries to elicit fear in either the government or the civilian population by killing civilians. A revolutionary is someone who tries to replace a government and/or arouse a civilian population to join them (part of Luxemburg's idea of revolutionary spontaneity. I have tried to get in and edit the facts in, but I don't see any option that says EDIT THIS PAGE. Commissarusa (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conservapedia is absolutely hilarious. The entire premise of it is hypocritical. They're combating a perceived "liberal bias" by implementing a bigoted Christian supremacist distortion of truths to advance an agenda. Their articles on Dick Cheney, evolution, God, liberal, Sarah Palin, and others are incredibly funny. Also, the one on the Crusades is basically a defense of them and doesn't mention one negative aspect. It's a good site to go to if you want some laughs. I posted a mere question about their use of a very obscure and unknown source instead of a dictionary to define "atheism" (which they define as the "denial" of the existence of god) and they permanently banned my account within seconds for "liberal trolling". Wikipediarules2221 23:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do enjoy this type of discussion and couldn't agree more and am guilty myself a bit, the purpose of a talk page is not a forum. A8UDI 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a list of the page and the lies ~Barack Obama- "as President, Obama ridiculed disabled people who compete in the Special Olympics" ~"Liberals and uncharitableness" page on the Obama page ~Global warming - "The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy". ~Liberal - "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."

~ And they very short article on homosexuality and a very long one on ex-homosexuals. I'll add more later --Craigboy (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is interesting and all but any mention of it in the article will definately violate NPOV, and not only that but I doubt there are any reliable sources for it, and anyway the talk page is a place for disscussion about the article itself not for discussing the topic of the article. Also if we were to spend half of the article addressing the faults of Conservapedia, wouldn't that make us just as bad as they are? I Feel Tired (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it will violate NPOV entirely, and it's not about "getting back at them". There's just some things on there that are entirely ridiculous, and the article should mention these ridiculous statements. And them covering up information and facts. --Craigboy (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not useful for our article. Any of us can go through Conservapedia and note its various inaccuracies and distortions, but that's the very definition of original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. If a reliable notable source publishes a list of Conservapedia's inaccuracies/distortions/stupidities, we can use that list, but we can't generate that list ourselves. - Nunh-huh 06:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't criticize conservapedia here, we should make a wiki and criticize it there. I give up75 (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am far more concerned about conservapedia's gross misinformation on scientific topics. Read their entry on Einstein or Sagan for an example. -compunerd007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compunerd007 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

It is common practice on wikipedia for articles to have a criticism section. This article only has one sentence that is well sourced. There is no reason to continue to remove that sentence. Since it is well sourced, I can't agree with the claim that such 'comments' give credence to any claims made by conservapedia. Who cares what claims they make. Thats no reason to alter content here. Beach drifter (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that the action of removal flies directly in the face of consensus for this article. Secondly, the references adequately provide support for the statement. Removing cited material should avoided unless there is a clear NPOV violation, and if necessary always discussed on the talk page. If it continues I suggest someone reports to WP:AN3. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conservapedia interpretations

Any comments on

"The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race."

And their views on Joseph McCarthy. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a forum about Conservapedia, so this isn't the right place to make comments about those things. If, however, you had a secondary, reliable, independent source (like a news article or something) discussing their interpretations or concerns with those entries, or any others, we could discuss here whether they should be incorporated into the article... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kahn is right, this isn't a forum for discussion. But I'm afraid I can't resist. That's hilarious, and is exactly a quote from the page Dalek as it now stands. A less 'liberal' BBC would of course be emphasizing the positive aspects of a conservative life form that is bent of universal domination, the repression of individual thought and the destruction of every other species. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You all realize that a single-purpose troll account named "MrDavros" wrote that, right? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it has remained in the article for more than three years! Either a) kudos to MrDavros for sneaking a ridiculous statement into Conservapedia without it being detected or b) the statement really does reflect the opinions of Conservapedia. Having seen some of their other opinions, neither would surprise me.
Fun as this is, we should really stop as this is not really contributing to the improvement of the (Wikipedia) article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is - looking for 'bizarre articles (as distinct from 'articles of a distinctive viewpoint) on Conservapedia is fun.' Can 'the proverbial someone' set up a page for quoting them? This would resolve the 'quoting CP thread' issue.

Strangely, given CP's views on Wikipedia, the Dalek article has now been amended.

Otherwise, as a general statement about websites/groups adopting a particular viewpoint 'by their words and by their needs shall ye know them.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or they just missed something about a TV show they don't watch. If you want to laugh at CP, please do it at RationalWiki, which was set up for that purpose, rather than here. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that someone at Conservapedia is watching us though. However, as Totnesmartin says, we should stop this now. I resolve not to post to this discussion any more. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'At a guess' the overlap of 'science fiction readers/viewers' and 'Conservapedia contributors/ intended readership' is likely to be significantly below the average for any wikis (g). 'The areas of non-interest' can also define a wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of My Suggestions

As someone who works as a translator, I added a section proposing that someone look into Conversvapedia's efforts to re-translate scripture with the goal of producing a "conservative Bible." I wondered what Andrew Schlafley's credentials in this area were and what those of his contributors might be. Have any reputable Biblical scholars or historians commented on this ? It seems perfectly appropriate to ask since the Jefferson Bible and King James Only Movement both enjoy their respective articles.

My comments are no longer viewable on the front discussion page, and neither are the contributions of "Nunh-huh" and "Daniel Leivick". I do not want to assume contentious editing or bad faith on anyone's part(s), but I do want to know where my comments went to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages at Wikipedia are periodically archived. If you look at this edit, you will see that those comments were moved to Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 13. Comments are moved after 7 days in order to keep the length of the talk page managable; that they are moved has nothing to do with their content. No one has suggested your editing was contentious or in bad faith. - Nunh-huh 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then; I was only concerned because (as of my last viewing of this page) the addition was missing, while the rest of the page was largely the same.

When I mentioned bad faith and contention in my prior post, I meant that I was NOT assuming that either were reasons for the change; that something like what did occur could have been the reason.

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about Wikipedia at my talk page, if you like; I would suggest you consider getting a user-name, as it is more private than your IP address and generally gets more respect from Wikipedia denizens. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Factual Edits"

What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs more of a conservative, Christian, American bias) Library Seraph (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to ask such questions; however, to find out, I'd recommend looking at the edit history of the respective article, finding all the anonymous editors who have contributed to it, and check the location of the ip addresses using the appropriate tools. Finally, he lives in New Jersey, and thus those edits coming from New Jersey are likeliest to be him!--Leon (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hello everyone (if that is your real name),

I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.

If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia&oldid=336514942"