Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 10

"Differences with Wikipedia"?

I question if the "Editorial differences with Wikipedia" even bothers to cover in depth the diffs between CP and WP, since it's mostly about CP's editorial viewpoints and policies. Is it because of WP:NSR? I suggest either:

• Give WP's side to such issues as evolution or relativity that CP has taken a rather radical POV;
• Or retitle the section "Editorial viewpoints and policies".

Any suggestions? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because of 1. original research and 2. articles shouldn't be a dialog of "we say they say".-Wafulz (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for now I'll just retitle it as "Editorial viewpoints and policies" until any objections come up. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

CP does maintain its own list of how it claims to be different from WP. [1] However good old Rationalwiki has debunked a lot of them.[2]--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lenski dialog

Lenksi dialog is present at Wikisource.[3] I have introduced a link into the article. diego_pmc (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a nice follow-up. here - a letter to PNAS outlining Andrew Schlafly's problems with the Lenski paper. He's allegedly sending it Monday 28th. TheresaWilson (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

need to include more of their claims

I think Conservipedia is a hoot. And it's fine to note that. But you should also note a bit more on their (at least believed issues) with wikipedia.

For instance, Conservipedia maintains control with registration. Wikipedia has a little cabal of admins and such. Conservipedia has a Shlafly running it. Wikipedia has a guy who hangs out for liberal weekends with Tony Blair and the like.

Of course Conservipedia is far "worse". But Wikipedia is screwed up alos. They both show some of the danges in on-line web encycplodeas and how they are manipulated for POV content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is mention that some of the articles on CP may be by parodists intending to make the site look stupid(er), but the point is They're still there. Much of the content could be seen as parody, especially articles relating to sex(uality), atheism, and "liberalness". TheresaWilson (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia's take on this article

From the latest "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=487444 Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", item 4:

Wikipedia promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."[4] When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, Wikipedia simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.

As the editor who nominated this for GA I feel ashamed - unless it's just a POV from CP's "alternative reality" with creationism and all that. The above quote repeats itself on items 7 and 71. Other "issues" with this entry (some of which have been fixed already) were addressed in 22, 38, 43, 48, and 87.

See also the previous archived discussion regarding the matter.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; it's just silly trolling from a somewhat silly site. This article is perfectly neutral and addresses positives and negatives well. —Giggy 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy is correct - besides, the entry at Conservapedia is wholly outdated, and usually remains so for lengths at a time. The article wouldn't have passed GA status had there been major issues/concerns. There is always room for fleshing out, but at the moment, NPOV is achieved through balance as I see it. Conservapedia receives a brunt of criticism, so it is only natural that the article would focus on such aspects. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be interested in why Andrewlp feels "ashamed" because of what Conservapedia says. It's usually a good bet that the facts are the opposite of what Conservapedia says they are! - Nunh-huh 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because CP claims this article to be in some ways defamatory, and I have frequently contributed to this article for several months. I understand why the "Bias in Wikipedia" page (which I'll abbreviate as "EoBiW" or "EOBIW") is often internally dumb - some of the complaints often are denialism or lame "excuses for conservative failures" (as William Kristol once put it). But it's also important to be open-minded and realize that EOBIW can help with WP:CSB by making us aware that there's a whole bunch of neglected farmland across WP.

One example from EOBIW that's truly correct is one about how dumb B.S. vandalism about Mary Ann Glendon didn't get removed until CP said so...despite our supposedly strict "biographies of living persons" policy!

Still I also regret not properly checking which sources I attributed to the "factual inaccracies" thing.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, doesn't reality often have a "liberal bias", as Stephen Colbert pointed out in the "truthiness" word?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia claims this is a smear entry. That should only induce shame if it's true. It's not. "Conservapedia has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies" is in fact a rather mild, and absolutely true, formulation. If anything, it's euphemism, not smear. By the way, I don't think "truthiness" relates to liberalism, but rather to accuracy, and I additionally think that to the extent we need help on editorial policies, we should be looking to people more serious than Colbert or Schlafly. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Thus I removed the 2nd "dubious" tag.

Schlafly argued on the talk page of EOBIW:

The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. [Editors] seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki.

Anyways here is my analysis of the sources give to support how CP is allegedly "inaccurate":

• A fact of one's own by Conor Clarke of The Guardian: Claims that CP "creat[es] the appearance of a reasonable factual disagreement were no such disagreement actually exists" among other things. Thus is a proper citation.
• Weird, wild wiki by anonymous staff of Metro: Actually more of a "we report, you decide" type of article till the end where it quotes a British science academy official who seems to find scientific misinformation on CP. A bit less direct but anyone with good expertise in science will understand what's going on.
• Wikipedia for the right wing by Brock Read of the Chronicle of Higher Ed just quotes a sentence from Clarke's article. Repetitive, so might as well remove it.
• And finally, Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard’s line of urine by Evan Mahoney of Splat! - As disgusting as the title sounds, this is the most direct source of "factual inaccuracy" i've found so far.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My favourite crazy quote, from Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia, is "We [Conservapedia] do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts". There is no explanation of what makes a "fact" conservative. I guess the concept of "conservative facts" is pretty much the whole premise of Conservapedia. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have room for a new favorite? Two people were killed in a church shooting by a man who left a note stating that he did it because of his "hatred of the liberal movement" and of "liberals in general, as well as gays". The initial write-up in Conservapedia: "A gunman opposed to Christianity has killed two adults and wounded seven others in a Knoxville, Tennessee, Unitarian church Sunday morning." When Schlafley was eventually persuaded he had jumped the gun on motive, he took out the "opposed to Christianity" but, predictably, left out the anti-liberal and anti-gay motivation. [4]. - Nunh-huh 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I personally now think it's rather silly to try debating "factual inaccuracies" with CP editors who consider the Bible and YEC as fact and real, established science as wrong. And Schlafly also called the sources "biased" and asserted that any site run on the MediaWiki software is always prone to errors. But the Seigenthaler incident, a result of [unintentionally?] lazy oversight is one thing. So are inaccuracies that run under our radar. Conservapedia's willful, deliberate censorship of real science (such as expelling Dr. Peter Lipson over the abortion/breast cancer editorial dispute) is a far cry different from Wikipedia's "errors". So I guess now: Case Closed. We can't just change our articles just because another website says so!--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A new update: Schlafly writes regarding "factual inaccuracies": "Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia."http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=494160&oldid=494159

Engineering and technology good articles

In this talk page, "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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment." Someone should ask for a reassessment (not me, due to laziness). Although (in my opinion) this is a good article (good but not great), it is certainly not an "Engineering and technology" article. Unless I am mistaken about what it means to be an engineering article, it should be recategorized. --Armaetin (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a "technology" article as it is a website. Note other similar articles such as Wikipedia are categorised under Engineering and technology. The article has been listed as a good article because it meets the good article criteria. If you want to ask for a reassessment you can do so here, though you will have to come up with specific reasons why it doesn't meet the criteria any more. Hut 8.5 10:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun fact: Schlafly graduated from Princeton with degrees in Engineering AND computer science [5]- fits the "Engineering & Tech" section huh?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Despite Conservapedia retaining copyright in its contributions, it has no qualms about playing fast & loose with "Fair use" for its own imports. One sysop's upload log (not permalink 'cause I don't think you can?). The "Fair use" tag has been justified on the grounds that CP is an educational site (don't think it is). (Yes I am biased) TheresaWilson (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious, is this/your comment's intent simply observational? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. Yes, I suppose it is, but it's worthy of mention within the article also I think? They pirate copy pictures from Museum sites worldwide in a manner which would (I think) be frowned on at (e,g.) Wikipedia while attempting to retain the moral high ground. TheresaWilson (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Just wanted to be sure that all of you know about RationalWiki, as they also spend a great deal of time and effort watching and critiquing Conservapedia. They make no attempt at all to be neutral or talk about sources, but they can be quite entertaining. Oneforlogic (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we're aware of it - it's been the subject of conversation here many times in the past, usually about whether there should be an external link to their site. Consensus has determined that there should be, and it is already mentioned in the article. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I did find the mentions in the article and some of the archives. It doesn't look to me like there is a consensus on the EL, but I agree that there should be one, so I'm certainly leaving it. The redirect from "go"ing to "RationalWiki" leads to a section where RW is not actually mentioned, though, so I'll try to fix the redirect to point to the same section my "article" wikilink points to. Oneforlogic (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oneforlogic (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Science

Somehow the section on "Religion and science" has become a muddle; in the first paragraph the second sentence is a complete non sequitur. If someone can find the last coherent version, we should restore it; otherwise it needs a lot of editing. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence? It elaborates on how CP supports YEC given how it criticizes evolution.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

At present, the first two sentences are: "Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view. An example of such article content differences is the subject of evolution, which Conservapedia presents as a scientific theory lacking support."

The second sentence refers to "such differences", though no differences whatsoever have been mentioned at that point. I think the article once referred to the different ways Wikipedia and Conservapedia treated evolution, but it no longer seems to do so. We need to delineate a difference before referring to it, or lose "such differences". - Nunh-huh 06:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote it to eliminate "differences" and to just say that CP follows the standard creationist rhetoric that "evolution's just a theory, there've been times when we pwned 'science'". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Site as a comment on the United States?

As sites the like of Conservapedia are the sole monopoly of the United States, it can surely be said that the "backwardness" Conservapedia is but one example of is pretty much the property of the United States. Should the article reflect this? Meaning, that systemic ignorance is rampant, embraced and fostered, in the United States as a defining identity? Nowhere else is ignorance adopted so willingly, so should the article reflect this? Just wondering. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source stating that Conservapedia is part of an anti-intellectual trend is US conservatism, and then (and only then) it can go in. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty bold assumption that sites like this are the sole monopoly of the United States is a bit far fetched. (Ha, have you not heard of Microsoft?) Seriously though, while it may seem to us that the States is more inclined to this kind of thing, I don't think we could ever make such a broad POV-assertion as yours. - Toon⁰⁵ 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay. Can you find a more reliable source than the site itself? This particular page reflects what the original poster was saying to a tee. Conservapedia is a reliable (of it's views as everything is checked and one can't edit without an account) and published source. May I also draw your attention to Extremist and Fringe Sources in [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Once reason, logic and, in the case of this particular article, human decency are added to the mix the points made are both fair and unbiased. Kae1is (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia, and its difference from Conservapedia is that we know the difference between the truth and an opinion. We don't assert things as fact that are our opinion, only what has been reported by respected reliable sources. And Conservapedia can't be used to make assertions about the whole of the United States, the whole of Britain, what would "only" happen there or whatever - that's Original Research - with no actual research. It's pure assumption. And I'm certainly not an american or conservative sycophant - I'm British, and very liberal - I just realise that assertions such as those made above are the very sort of thing you would find on CP. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

The article on Andrew Schlafly is going to be redirected here shortly, editors on this article are encouraged to mine what worthwhile tidbits there might be to include in this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we come to the consensus early last summer that we just simply could not write a good biography of Andrew Schlafly due to the lack of comprehensive coverage of his life beyond CP? I also doubt that we should cover every single failed House of Representatives candidate either. According to the guideline for politicians:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Schlafly certainly doesn't meet notability. He's just a two-bit lawyer with a small blog run by right-wing religious zealots. --Crapunzel (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the notability concern - let's not slander or disparage anybody. Focus on the content of subjects only. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Slander? --Crapunzel (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia

In the interest of fair comment and unbiased reporting this ought to be included. Maybe in the second paragraph round criticism of Wikipedia. Kae1is (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of Schafly should probably be removed. Or at least a better one should be included. The Wikipedia article doesn't contain a picture of Jimbo. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the one provided by Schlafly. If you have a better one that is GFDL compatible, by all means upload it. Jimbo and Schlafly's respective roles in Wikipedia and Conservapedia are not analogous: Jimbo was a founder, but Wikipedia is now controlled/owned by the Wikimedia foundation, with Jimbo having little to do with its content; Schlafly is the owner of Conservapedia and its servers, rules Conservapedia with an iron fist, determines its rules, and rigorously censors its content to be certain it meets his personal expectations. Jimbo has his own article. Schlafly doesn't, anymore. - Nunh-huh 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Schlafly released it to the public domain, so it's certainly usable, and exactly what do you mean by "better"? If you mean by more flattering, we aren't in the business of glorification or aesthetics for their own sake. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The first section says reaction to conservapedia has been 'overwhelmingly negative', however, 3 articles which criticise conservapedia does not constitute an overall overwhelmingly negative reaction; neither do any of the articles refer to any data which suggests the reaction to the site is so. I've modfied this comment.NZUlysses (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to find any positive reaction to conservapedia. I browsed the top 60 Google hits. This is the most positive one I found, and it offers no praise at all, merely an absence of criticism. I'd say about 1/4 of the hits are neutral (like a tag search on Wordpress) but most are negative. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call, you're not incorrect! However, correct me if I'm wrong, but to keep the 'overwhelmingly negative' claim on here you'd need to cite an article which does such a survey itself, otherwise it's original research and against wikipedia rules for inclusion. NZUlysses (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The following links indicate that there is almost no positive reaction: [6], [7]. These are from the first 10 Google links. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are good, and each has info relevant to this article. But both can be considered overviews or surveys of the negative reactions and criticisms of Conservapedia. Neither really goes into whether anyone actually does approve of it. For a controversial topic like this, "overwhelmingly negative" is probably just too strong a phrase. Can I suggest something less forceful, like "the site has provoked a large amount of criticism"? Fishal (talk)

That might be reasonable if there were any reason to assume that someone other than Conservapedia's acolytes had published positive reviews of Conservapedia and had commended it for its accuracy and reliability. However, we have no reason to assume that; the web has been scoured searching for reliable sources espousing such positive reactions and they seem not to exist. So your suggested change misstates the facts by implying that there's a positive reaction offsetting the criticism; there doesn't seem to be such a reaction, and so "overwhelmingly negative" is more accurate (and helpful to the reader) than "provoked criticism" is. - Nunh-huh 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scouring the Web and reporting that you find no positive reviews still amounts to Original Research, unfair though that may be. Saying that CP generates criticism and mockery is hardly misleading, even if you don't use words like "overwhelming". Fishal (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Accurately reflecting the proportion of positive and negative commentary is in fact fundamental to the writing of any article, which must adhere to a NPOV by not emphasizing viewpoints unduly. That's not original research, it's an intrinsic and inviolable principle of Wikipedia. When the response found is universally negative, it's improper to report it simply as "criticized"- Nunh-huh 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, do what you want. I feel that for an article like this, that sets out to describe a "sworn enemy" of Wikipedia in a neutral fashion, careful tact and strict adherence to Reliable Sources are even more important than in a regular article. Fishal (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

original synthesis is out, I'm afraid - we can't add up the google hits to say it's being received negatively, even though it's blatantly obvious. We need a citation for that statement, otherwise anybody could quote mine favourable sites to say what they want about CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't quote mine sites that don't exist! That's precisely the point. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Totnesmartin. By counting the number of negative Google hits, or noticing the absence of positive hits, is nothing more than drawing your own conclusions, which easily fits the mold for synthesis as linked above. I fear that the only "neutral" way of phrasing the lead would be something along the lines of "Conservapedia has provoked criticism.." Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationalwiki does not warrant mention in this article

and there is even less reason to link to them. This article is about Conservapedia. Rationalwiki is simply a non-notable, unimportant site even in the context of an article about Conservapedia - at most, mentioning Rationalwiki in an article about Conservapedia is on the same level as mentioning and linking to Wikipedia Review in an article about Wikipedia. They are an attack site and a completely non-notable one at that. I also see at least two links to Rationalwiki and citations to blogs as well that also fail to meet WP:RS and are cited to support assertions against Conservapedia and give undue weight to criticism of the project. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The LA times article discussion of the relationship between rationalwiki and conservapedia seems to disprove your statement that there should be no mention of it in the article. The link to the site is a consensus established after a long discussion, which has now been archived, and should not be changed without additional discussion and a new consensus. Certainly not unilaterally by a user that has a personal grudge against RationalWiki. Finally, a source is not invalidated because it refers to RationalWiki. If you wish to dispute the validity of a source lets review the actual source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI since Rationalwiki is your site. As for the sources I object to, here is just one: [8]. It's a blog. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Which aspect of of COI do you feel I am violating? I will take a look at the source now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your just quoting policy at me and not explaining how any of it is relevant. It amounts to a personal attack, I recommend that you you wp:assume good faith.Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try to assume WP:GOODFAITH and explain the WP:COI policy without necessarily assuming you are deliberately violating it. Rationalwiki is your site, therefore under WP:COI it could give the appearance of conflict of interest for you to re-add a link to Rationalwiki as you did here: [9]. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand wikipedia policy just as well if not better than you do. The reason it is not a violation is that the removal of the link was a unilateral decision by a user with a grudge, that went against long established consensus. Anyway, back to the actual substantive issue at hand. I agree that the newsvine source fails wp:rs and have removed the sentence that used it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on the principal of stare decisis, it operates on the principal of WP:BOLD. But thanks for removing the biased statement sourced to a blog. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is this unilaterally-acting person with a grudge you speak of? I would suggest you read WP:NPA before making such an accusation. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Openly state who you are, and your conflicts with RW and I will drop the issue entirely. WP:BOLD is not an excuse to unilaterally revert consensus. The heart of wikipedia is consensus. That is about as basic a core policy here as you can get. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? At least one user (me) objects to providing RW with a link or undue weight in this article. Therefore no consensus exists. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached at the time the LA time article came out, and has been discussed multiple times through out the archives (your not the first ex-rw user to come here and attempt to remove it). Feel free to browse the archive or await other input from people watching this page. You have been reverted twice, that should suggest that your edit is probably not a consensus edit. Let us await what others have to say. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus never remains established if an objection to it surfaces. Stare decisis on Wikipedia went out when the GNAA and brandt articles got a long overdue deletion. What is an "ex-rw user"? 96.239.153.176 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Parse the letters and the answer will come. Anyway, you have raised an objection to an established consensus and now we await feedback from other users. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing though, it appears there never was any such consensus to allow a link to RW. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That was as an "external link" which your right, the consensus that was reached at the time that the LA times article came out is that RW does not qualify for an external link, however, an in line link was appropriate. You will have to go further back to find that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question: what is the difference between an inline link and an external link? 96.239.153.176 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)External links are links that are placed under the section header "External Links" these are links to sites/articles/whatever that editors feel offer a good "for more information go here" sort of thing or for links to the subject of an article if it is about a website (like in this case). An in-line link is simply linking to a website that is mentioned an in article at the time that it is mentioned. Such as is the case for rationalwiki. In this case it is not being offered up as a "for more information go here" link as it would be in the EL section but more "we are talking about a website, here it is" link. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. So you're saying whether an external link is an external link depends on what the definition of "is" is? 96.239.153.176 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he is saying it's an issue of "weight". An EL carries more weight, and the implicit recommendation to go there for more information. The in-line link merely provides the reader with a link to a website when it comes up in the text of an article. Huw Powell (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• comment - i think the link to rationalwiki should remain, as it's relevant and warrants mention. please do not remove it without consensus Theserialcomma (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that rationalwiki should remain. I would note that the activities of the anon objecting to rationalwiki are limited entirely to objecting to rationalwiki. I would also point out that our past decisions (stare decisis) do control on Wikipedia to a large extent. The reason for that is simple: we will not rehash every single debate every time a new anon comes by and thinks everyone should do as he says. If we did that, nothing would ever get done. The old debates regarding this issue have been archived and you are free to peruse them. If you had bothered to read them, you would see that your arguments have already been addressed so stop WP:Wikilawyering. Idag (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was not Conservative

The article read "Wales, a fan of conservative writer Ayn Rand....." Rand was right wing but NOT Conservative. I've removed the word conservative but the sentence feels a bit...empty. hm..

The source cited describes her as "Conservative". Hut 8.5 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter; it's not pertinent to the article anyway, and it's gone now. - Nunh-huh 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof of liberal bias

The Wikipedia article states a position of neutrality for itself, however this article of Conservapedia is extremely negative, and locked from edit. kindofa cheap shot. Wikipedia should be better than this. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you help out by finding us one or two sources that meet wp:rs that talk positively about it. When everyone only has negative things to say about something, it is hard to say something positive. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And the article is only semi-protected. If you want to contribute, feel free to create an WP:ACCOUNT. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean semiprotected from editing? No, right now the page is only semiprotected from page moves. IP editing has been permitted most of the time, except for a short time during summer 2007. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of Conservapedia

It might be relevant to decant some points from the talk pages to the Wikinfo Criticism of Conservapedia page [10] (and create pages covering the other sides of the argument). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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." [11]

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: [12], 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. My suggestion is changing the first part of the sentence to: "There has been some negative reception, ..." This keeps the sourced content, correctly states its importance, and does not attempt to discount possible positive reception, which would be non-POV. --131.151.187.195 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that gives a different opinion of Conservapedia, please add it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate issue to the matter at hand. Before I could even begin to address it, we would need to define "reliable source". I don't consider the opinion articles currently sourced "reliable sources", and neither would most here, if the articles were in favor of Conservapedia. If the definition is to be "Opinions stated under paid contract", I doubt I could find much. Negativism sells better. Even if I were to find a similar article in favor of the site, it would simply be discounted as a minority opinion. However, a possible lack (I'm not going to waste my time searching for the reason stated above) of paid opinion articles in favor of Conservapedia has nothing to do with the issue. The sentence is currently an unqualified blanket statement and needs to have sufficient sources (as I noted, unlikely to be found) or be rephrased so as to not discount something without evidence. Its current form is effectively saying "Three opinion articles from sources ideologically opposed to Conservapedia dislike it, therefore most people dislike it." In logical terms, it's a hasty generalization. --131.151.187.195 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement that those sources support describes "reception" of Conservapedia. As such, opinion pieces are reliable sources. The statement is not generalization because, as a whole, reception of Conservapedia is negative. If you believe that this is erroneous, please provide sources supporting your view, and we will discuss this further. However, we are not going to do your research for you. Idag (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 131, and Idag, I think you missed her/his point. Three opinion pieces do in fact verify that there has been a negative reaction. But 131 is right in saying that they do not verify the statement that reception has been "generally negative." Drawing broad conclusions from specific instances is an "original synthesis" or whatever the correct "WP:OR" term is. What we would need there, technically speaking, would be a reliable source (131's standard of something written by professionals rather than volunteers might be a starting point) that states, "Reaction has been generally negative." Until such a source is found, the statement should indeed be less "blanket-y" and worded like, "Conservapedia has generated a large number of negative responses" [insert links to opinion pieces criticizing CP]. Fishal (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of hair-splitting ("large number" and "generally" are nearly synonymous), but sure, why not. Idag (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hairsplitting, maybe, but I feel like an article like this (an openly anti-Wikipedia group with some frankly weird beliefs) needs extra attention to neutrality. We have to be extra careful not to let our own impressions color what we can back up with sources. "Generally" implies a(n unverified) majority; "large number" IMO simply implies a (verifiable) quantity . Fishal (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)