Talk:Conservapedia

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)

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)

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)

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: [3] 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: [4] 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: [5] 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)