Talk:Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Conservapedia 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


See also[edit]

Bold edit? I don't see why my addition of Metapedia to the see also section is bold or confusing: it's another online, free wiki encyclopedia written from a right-wing perspective running MediaWiki software. This is exactly the sort of link that belongs in a "see also" section. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems relevent to me. A right-wing wiki that also has an English language edition, following to Metapedia, would show the differences between different strands of right-wing thought. Bevo74 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the See Also pointing back here from Metapedia, also posted by Koavf.
(A) If the goal is to convey info about the scope and diversity of right wing groups, then both of these articles might point to a main article that tackles that subject head-on. Maybe Right-wing politics, maybe there's a better one. But doing it obliquely via See Also and leaving it to the reader to connect dots is not the way to go.
(B) We don't itemize every mediawiki on the wikipedia page of each of them, so the fact it runs mediawiki software is irrelevant.
(C) Also, these articles are not about mediawiki software, which is another reason this factoid is irrelevant.
(D) I see there is at least one RS that describes one or the other as "right wing". So? What else do the RSs say they have in common, to such an extent they need special mention whereas other online encylopedias and other mediawiki software users do NOT get special mention?
Answers via what the RSs say, please.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy on each point. Just because they are both right wing encyclopaedias doesn't mean they have much in common, at this rate the see also would turn it into a list of all sorts of peculiar web sites. WP:SEEALSO has the criteria "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number", I don't see the link as satisfying either of the first two criteria and would encourage the breaking of the third. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I concur pretty much with NewsAndEventsGuy. I'm no fan of either wiki, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to implicitly present Conservapedia as comparable to actual neo-Nazis - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Links[edit]

I removed a source from the section Conservative Bible Project: the content weren't dealing with the sentence (possibly out-dated or an invalid link). It is said that:

The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid.[1][3]

I checked the site and there are, however, only 25 notes on that page (the link itself directs to Matt. 1:1). At Matt. 7:1 (which the link describtion might suggest), there are only 34 notes. So far, the link isn't really related to the sentence.

The second source links to the wikipage of New International Version of Bible. There are no fragments available there (Joh. 7:53–8:11 suggested by the source). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).