Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Conservapedia real?[edit]

Speculation exists that Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia can't be taken at face value. If you read the P_Rayment page above, Rayment and other users have brought "parodist" (e.g. TK) activities to Schlafly's attention, only to be dismissed. That Schlafly would be so violently opposed to moderate conservatives expressing their opinions but is so nonchalant about the idea that most of his site's inner circle is actually "liberal" parodists seems a little...too much to be true. (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This comes up often, but the only "evidence" is our disbelief that he really can't see what's in fron of him. Still, none so blind as those who will not see. Oh, and this page isn't a forum. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see this as being relevant to the article. meinsla talk 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Has this opinion been given anywhere that could be referred to? TheresaWilson (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search for "conservapedia" and "parody" brings up a few blogs, but I doubt that any of them can be considered notable. Additionally, Conservapedia's entry on parody includes the following:
A number of liberals think it amusing to insult and mock conservatives by posting absurd, over-the-top parody at Conservapedia, typically to paint conservatives as racist, unintelligent, or otherwise absurd. Given that this behavior is extremely harmful to Conservapedia's editors and readers alike, not to mention highly offensive, there is a zero-tolerance policy toward parody.
Can it be possible that EVERY contributing editor is a parodist? Or have the Communists smuggled misinformation into the articles in order to make Conservapedia look bad? (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

Is there any particular reason why there isn't an article about Schlafly? I'll happily create one, but my suspicion is that there isn't one because there shouldn't be, and I won't waste my time if that is the case. --Leon (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason there shouldn't be is notability. I think Schafly is quite notable enough. I'm also sure he would love to see his article explained in a DYK hook. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't, see [1] Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Is he really notable for anything other than Conservapedia? Simply being the son of a prominent figure really doesn't qualify. The merge referenced above by Dougweller seems justified. --BRPierce (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - for all the reasons stated above, there should be no direct page for him.Dinkytown 13:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's been done. The article is now merely a redirect to this one, per the talk page discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of mercy can we take his picture off of this article? -- (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Think it was supposed to be amusing. TheresaWilson (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article[edit]

Vanity Fair has a new article on Conservapedia. It's a bit of a hatchet job, but can we use it here? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly neutral, but it is a mainstream published source. So yes. I think that after going back and forth at this talk page, the editors have concluded that there are very few neutral or positive sources about Conservapedia - it's mostly hatchet jobs. Fishal (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a more accurate way of putting it would be that very few sources have positive things to say about it because they aren't able to find anything positive to say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair conclusion. Fishal (talk)
I disagree that so many articles about Conservapedia are “hatchet jobs”. When an organization or project is such a clusterfuck and a joke as Conservapedia is, it’s tough for anybody to say anything else.
Agree 100% with Beeblebrox. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-American Conservapedia Articles[edit]

I was wondering if, under Criticism, there could be a mention of Conservapedia's disdain for articles relating to non-American subjects. I can provide a reference for one such case, where their article for Up the Chastity Belt was deleted on the grounds that it was "trash", and another reference where articles for various Supermarionation series were dubbed as "time-wasting". I shan't add anything, though, until I know that it's OK with everyone else here. Crablogger 12:02 GMT, 28 April 2009

One has only to see the recent altercation re: Canada's status as Colony or Dominion, to have further proof, However this is all subjective & requires references from third parties, otherwise it's just opinion. (Not a forum?) TheresaWilson (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia on Conservapedia[edit]

Uncyclopedia's viewpoint is to be found here [2] Jackiespeel (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, but unfortunately, we can't use it as a source. As Uncyclopedia is a parody site, it can't really be cited as a third-party source. Crablogger 05:59 GMT, 30 April 2009

Mentioned for amusement value. As CP has been #accused# of being a parody site as well as having articles "creatively edited" (and see the original entries for falafel and Milton Keynes) the real parody site can be useful/amusing. How does Vladimir Zhirinovsky match CP's definition of a liberal? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Amusement value, yes, but that alone does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia. That would be like mentioning Don Quixote in an article about the Knights Templar, or referencing All Grown Up! as part of an article on Puberty. By all means mention that Conservapedia has been seen as a parody site by some, but please don't use Uncyclopedia as a source for it. Crablogger 05:48 GMT, 1 May 2009


Concerning Conservapedia's elitist attitude towards its own users, as well as it's overzealous dislike for anything it considers liberal, could such behaviour actually be classified as cyber-bullying? Crablogger (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we consider it. Has a reliable source mentioned "cyber-bullying" in relation to Conservapedia? If not, the subject has no relevance to this article. - Nunh-huh 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"There is concern... Conservapedia's alleged science"[edit]

"There is concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate." The word alleged is inherently NPOV, and Stephanie Simon did not use it in the referenced article. I would suggest a change to something like "...Conservapedia's presentation of scientific information...", but there is a bigger problem: Simon herself makes that statement without citing any sources. I have looked on the web for a similar statement from an educator or scientist and have so far not found one, though I would be surprised if someone has not made that point. If nobody knows of any, should we just attribute that statement to Simon? Peter Chastain (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Personally, I would say yes, but attempting to discuss a particular source for an article could be construed as POV. This sort of thing has cropped up before. Take the article The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World. There have been calls to highlight the lack of historical sources used in the making of the book the article is about, but that has been blocked as that itself is POV. I forget which protocol of Wikipedia that falls under, but I do know that highlighting the setbacks of cited sources is right out. Crablogger (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We can attribute a statement said by Simon to Simon and probably should. We are not using outside info, but giving proper attribution. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia is accurate." PiCo (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
See Science and Scientific method. While at first glance, calling Conservapedia’s science-related discussion “alleged science” seems to smack of POV, it’s actually quite accurate and perfectly appropriate. They’re anything but scientific. Does what we’re saying paraphrase what our source says fairly well? I think so. And we don’t need to go looking for sources-for-sources. — NRen2k5(TALK), 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New section?[edit]

I propose adding "notable articles (their definition of liberal will spin your head for a loop) & pointing out that the site is lacking in credible citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • As long as which articles are notable is established by coverage in sources and not our own observations. We don't want to resort to the same biased editing practices that they use over there. (pretty much all of their articles make my head spin) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A way to test for bias is this: look at wikipedia's and conservapedia's articles on Bush and Obama, and in each of these four articles, count the number of sentences that are favorable/neutral/unfavorable for that person (MVH, August 7 2009).

They're making an ass of themselves, why not just enjoy watching them implode from their own false beliefs? Tdinatale (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia blocking policy[edit]

One of Conservapedia's sysops has blocked just about everyone on the site. It is down to something like 8 active contributors now. We should find some reliable sources that reference this, and add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Total Krackhead (talkcontribs) 22:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what "reliable sources" say. It's actually 59 active users in the past seven days (as of right this minute). Beastiepaws (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
How many of those 59 were blocked in the last 7 days, if its 59 and 45 were blocked and 3 had there contributions removed then its really more like 11 contributing members. Someone might also add the fact that CP has roughly 3 times as many IP addresses blocked.- (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It's possible some of them have been blocked in the past seven days, but unless you have a better source of information than the stats page, it's just speculation. Beastiepaws (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on , there doesn't seem to have been any sudden burst of blocking.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: ip addresses being blocked, I thought Andy had declared all anonymous ip editing verboten a long time ago... Anyway, are there still any reliable sources actually paying attention to CP? I thought they got bored and wandered off to talk about Michelle Obama's shorts a while ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no anonymous IP editing, but *lots* of IP blocks. Beastiepaws (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pages[edit]

I read on another site that subjects like Furry Fandom have been deleted from the site.

Why is that? Werewolffan98 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't allow anything Andy thinks is "pop culture" or too weird. They might allow an article that clearly attacked furries as sexually warped freaks however. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i know that not all of us furries are into yiff. Werewolffan98 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY again[edit]

I've just removed some stuff about CP's "obama is a muslim" stuff. True, it does say that, but we've already established that we can't use Conservapedia as a source for this article due to the WP:PRIMARY, otherwise the article would turn into RationalWiki's "what is going on" page rather than a good encyclopedia article. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I need a clarification. The policy doesn't outright ban primary sources, but says "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
I strive not to interpret, but has this policy been deemed too controversial to use?
Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not so much controversial, but that people were adding their favourite bits from CP to the article, and it was starting to turn into a list of "look what they've done now." So we decided to enforce the spirit of the policy - that is, CP's entries only get an individual mention if a reliable source mentions them. Sorry if I trod on your toes yesterday though, I realise you meant well. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate taking time to explain. Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Category question[edit]

Does CP belong under "Controversial Topics"? What's the controversy? The amount of positive feedback on it has been extremely small, the amount negative large; the only controversy is amongst Wikipedians on what goes into the article!--Leon (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial topics is a category that only impacts talk pages. It describes exactly pages like this, where there is frequent controversy over what should or should not be in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry.--Leon (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Any good?[edit] --Leon (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I currently don't have access to a computer with sound. What did they say? JoshuaZ (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That particular one was very derisory (of Schlafly). This one is a little fairer. I'm not sure they're worthy citations though. See what you think!--Leon (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Andrew doesn't come across very well in either of them. I'm not sure there's any material in them that is worth noting. I'm amused by Andrew's comment comparing insertions into the Bible he doesn't like as to vandalism on a wiki. There may be some quotes in the second one that may be useful. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's Article on Wikipedia[edit]

I know we are not suppose to treat this area like a forum, but guys have a look @ this article: It's even more ridiculous than most of its articles. Apparently all of us here are a bunch of "teenagers and unemployeed persons", LOL.Children of the dragon (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bible Project[edit]

I appreciate the most recent edit's comment that the Conservapedia Bible Project probably doesn't warrant much comment yet, but PZ Myers posted about it on his Blog if people are looking for sources to include it. Quietmarc (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also: Harper's, Sadly, No! a Catholic blogger and the Huffington Post. TheresaWilson (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the section because I thought it was significant. I recently found about this in Conservapedia's news section. I was shocked to find out that a Wiki would be involved in making a new Bible translation, especially since they don't have any manuscripts to translate from as far as I know. What they are doing is not very encyclopediatic in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's conservapedia, what did you expect? Amamamp (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it's becoming significant anyway - about once a year CP does something so coprochiropteran that everyone looks up and goes, what???. This is one of those occasions. I think it's citable enough to go in the article Totnesmartin (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
...And there's today's best neologism! (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
90% talk talk talk Total Krackhead (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More news about conservapedia's Bible project just came out on the news section of conservapedia on the right side of its main page. I think it's definitely significant to include in the article since conservapedia is making a big deal about its project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already on par with the Lenski Dialogue in terms of notability. We'd be doing a disservice not to include it. (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have a section on it that is better sourced and is likely extensive enough for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On the October 7, 2009 episode of the Colbert Report Stephen Colbert asked the people to edit the Conservapedia bible project to include himself. You can bet that perhaps thousands of people will try. I did. I was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article includes the sentence "(Both passages are missing from many early manuscripts; most Biblical scholars see the adulteress story as a later addition,[75] and many see the "forgive them" line in the same way.[76])" that seems like something a CP editor would sneak in, to the best of my knowledge it is at best a debate among biblical schollars, not the conclusion of most. Anyone who knows more willing to take a look? --Opcnup (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but as far as I'm aware there's more of an argument for the adulteress story being a later addition than the line in Luke being a later addition. The claim that "most" Biblical scholars think that the adulteress story is a later addition seems highly questionable. I'd be curious as to what the cited souce actually says. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the King James Version or the Douay Bible will still be better (anyone know the Orthodox and other equivalents?): and would the various books included in some versions of the bible but not others (eg the Book of Odes (Bible)) or which are currently considered apocrypha? Otherwise the project is likely to remain as 'mere tweaking of words.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the article in The Grauniad on the subject be worth adding? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it have additional information that seems relevant? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article is at [3]. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume any reference to reading the Grauniad is an automatic disqualifier for editing Conservapedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's Request[edit]

On the October 7, 2009 episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert has requested fans add his name to the Conservative Bible Project by making him a biblical figure. IE "Stephen Colbert parted the Red Sea." I tried logging on to as soon as he made this request, but conservapedia's server has been down. I'm assuming it has been overloaded due to Stephens request. pfrankie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrankie (talkcontribs) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be here. tommytalk2me 01:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the elephant already a religious figure? Oh wait, wrong religion! My bad! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy has been using fan of Colbert as a snarl word lately. In fact, all recent vandalism is being attributed to Colbert. We at RW are actually off the hook for awhile. -RW's Thanatos. (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in the Tennessean[edit]

Ok. There seems to be some disagreement about including the sentence I've sourced to the Tennessean about the general impact that the Conservative Bible Project may have on Conservative Christians attitude towards Conservapedia. Is it well-sourced enough to be included? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well-sourced is different than verifiable. A staff writer's prediction about the reactions of an enormous and amorphous group is not a verifiable fact. The fact that said staff writer made that prediction is a fact, but it's not notable unless the staff writer is an expert at something other than writing newspaper articles. "Christians will react this way" is not encyclopedic. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic. We have a reporter in a reliable source who has made a prediction after talking to a variety of conservative Christians (from the article multiple pastors and ministers some prominent) as well as major Biblical scholars. Given that, the reporter has made a prediction of a likely possibility. If it were pure speculation the editors wouldn't put it in the newspaper. That's the whole point of reliable sources- editorial oversight. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Based on what, his sample size of 3?!? Try to find any other Wikipedia article with staff-reporter speculation stated as fact. In fact, try to find any other WP article with any prediction stated as fact, rather than attributed to a source. Once we note that predictions must be attributed in the text, does "Staff reporter _______ predicts . . ." really look encyclopedic? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
That argument might have some validity except that he didn't make a prediction. He noted a possible risk. Note the difference between "X will happen" and "there is a possibility that X will happen". JoshuaZ (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's not a prediction, it's a vacuous statement. There is a possibility that almost anything will happen. There is a possibility it will inspire conservative Christians to learn ancient Greek or convert to Islam or eat lizards for breakfast. Is it *likely*? How would he know that? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Because he talked to conservative Christians and they had a negative response. That's generally how reporters do this sort of thing. He would talk to a variety of people, make the general statement and then give an example quote backing it up. That's not at all non-standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
He talked to 3 people, not counting Schlafly. None were explicitly called conservative. The one who works at a conservative college Schlafly (insanely, but still) calls liberal. The other two were not called conservative.
I'm not syaing he's necessarily wrong. I'm saying it's not encyclopedic to quote a prediction from a staff reporter who talked to three people. I reiterate that I do not think we can find other articles in Wikipedia that do so. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That's incorrect. He talked to at least three people. Reporters almost never include in an article all the people they talked to for an article. Moreover, although you are correct that Maury Davis is not described as conservative explicitly in the text it strongly implies that he is. Moreover, the Church with which he is associated with, the Cornerstone Church, comes across as religiously conservative when you look at their website. (See for example [4][5]. I don't see why you are second-guessing the reporter here. We generally attribute within text when a claim is controversial. Are you asserting that the reporter's reporting is controversial or in doubt for some reason? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment. We explicitly attribute historical or scientific claims when controversial. Predictions about political behavior require attribution because they are inherently more opinion-based.
The rest of your arguments strike me as reaching. He probably talked to other people he doesn't mention? The pastor in question is probably a conservative, based on his website? I think Wikipedia should stick to VERIFIABLE FACTS.
The reason I want to be careful about this is that CP thinks anyone left of Jerry Falwell is a communist feminist black separatist. If we stick to the facts, WP shields itself from certain accusations of bias. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It isn't overreaching to say that a reporter likely engaged in exactly what reporters normally do. Moreover, looking at the Church in question is a very minor point but it seems clear that the Pastor would be described as conservative by most definitions. While you are correct that Wikipedia sticks to verifiable facts, nowhere have I asserted in mainspace that the pastor is conservative. It was to make a point about the sort of research the reporter had done (and as a response to your claim about a lack of conservatives interviewed). Also, you again use the word prediction when there isn't a prediction but rather a statement of a possibility. Moreover, while political claims are on average more controversial than scientific claims, that's a statement about on average not for individual statements. (For example, the statement "string theory is likely true" would be much more controversial than the statement "Democrats are more likely than Republicans to favor personal autonomy for social issues." In this case, I don't see much of a reason to think that the statement is at all controversial. Incidentally, your motivation is problematic: the proper thing to do is as always to be completely neutral. We should edit as is optimal under policies whether or not the subject we are editing has a positive or negative opinion of Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a controversial subject is a good reason to be extra careful about being neutral.
I don't think you and I are going to reach a consensus about this. Anybody else want to weigh in? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be neither. It could, indeed, be merely a statement that refutes the notion that the Conservative Bible Project enjoys widespread support amongst Christian conservatives. Granted, that notion is not explicitly supported by the article and probably never could be correctly supported by the article, but such a notion could be seen as having implicit support through silence on the question of reaction by Christian conservatives. Thus, my wondering question below. If a project is called "the Conservative _________", the question of whether conservatives actually support it is a worthwhile one to answer. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The proper way to refute the assumption that the project enjoys widespread support is to quote from people who are actually notable conservative leaders themselves. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder: Is there another source to state the same thing? That is, could we find sources that state that conservative Christians are opposed to (or otherwise disappointed in) the Conservative Bible Project? Intuitively, I think such sources are out there, but I haven't yet found specific quotes in reliable sources to indicate this. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Another CBP comment[edit]

I´ve never heard om him (Joseph Farah), but it seems he´s written some books.

He seems to agree with the others mentioned in the article, so I´m unsure if it adds anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add something, but there was nothing that wasn't in the article already, and just putting "Joseph Farah says so too" has a "nyer nyer" tone to it. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Joseph Farah is a pretty prominent. His condemning this seems more notable than the other condemnation from the right wing. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So many words[edit]

See [6] - a selection of variously interesting terms. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

After editing some history articles on Conservepedia to correct glaring inaccuracies (including grammatically correcting some sentences that seemed to have been written with a 3rd grade reading level), my account was blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "provocative language" ? I guess saying that Muslims aren't bloodthirsty killers or using proper English was too controversial... I can't believe I wasted my time editing articles in that cesspool... Intranetusa (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is for discussing ways to improve the Wikipedia article about Conservapedia, not for general discussion of Conservapedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a tendency to 'Look-at-this page'ism and 'observe their banning policies in action' with Conservapedia (along with examples of vandalism 'and other decorative writings'.)

Suggestion - direct comments on CP be added to[7]. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanding statistics[edit]

There's a little bit about statistics in the article, but I think it would be informative to tell readers that aside from the main page and internal essays, the top viewed articles on Conservapedia are currently:[8]

  1. Atheism 4,818,985
  2. Homosexuality 3,423,862
  3. Barack Hussein Obama 1,246,553
  4. Wikipedia 828,243
  5. Sarah Palin 720,364
  6. Adolf Hitler 685,569
  7. Liberal 626,105
  8. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia 606,005

I think this says a great deal about the site, and I'm curious if there are other secondary sources that discuss the psychology behind active editors on these topics. For example, considering the relatively low numbers of atheists and homosexuals in society, and their almost nonexistent threat to society on every level, why would Conservapedia users be so concerned about these lackluster topics when there are so many other pressing issues on their agenda that fail to get attention? Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As interesting as that might be it sounds a little like it might violate NPOV, and I don't think we could find many reliable sources on the psychology behind the active editors of Conservapedia. So I don't think we'll be able to include it. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the information about the top topics can go in (as a sidebar or chart) as we are already using the same source for other info. As for the editors, I'm sure we can find something more about the demographics. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
There's already so many NPOV issues in this article that adding the information suggested above wouldn't be so far out of line. You can at least leave it here in the talk page. The psychology of an anonymous body of editors is tough to source reliably in any manner Awayforawhile (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There are other problems with this idea: Conservapedia's page views are sometimes subject to clickbots that artificially skew page view rankings, and there's a tendency for CP to delete and recreate articles to reset page views (for reasons such as "favourite of the easily amused liberal morons." Finally we're trying to keep primary sources out of the article as much as possible. TL;DR - please don't use the site's own stats, they can be manipulated. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unable to create new Conservapedia Accounts?[edit]

Is it also worth mentioning that it currently seems impossible to create a new account on Conservapedia? Seeing as only members can edit Conservapedia articles - and many of their articles are protected even to members - that would seem fairly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Conservapedia no longer allows the creation of new accounts

Not really. They turn it off daily from (approx) midnight - 7AM (EST) & whenever they're getting a high vandal count. TheresaWilson (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject for further research/inclusion[edit]

As a French teacher and translator, I have to wonder just how the founders are checking the credentials of the people who will be translating the content for "The Conservative Bible" from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Does the founder himself hold any degrees or certifications in these tongues ?

I tried to look into this myself, but Convervapedia was down. Moreover, will the translators be signing their work ?

Another interesting subject for research: where is Schlafly drawing his theological justification for editing down the Bible from ? I was of the understanding that a passage from Revelations forbade the addition or subtraction of any material from scripture.

As far as I know, they are not translating from Hebrew, Aramaic or any other language other than English. I'm pretty sure they are using the King James translation for the most part and referring to some Greek translations when it suits them. --Leivick (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "translation" is a gross misnomer; they're rewriting, then justifying it (sometimes) by resorting to textual criticism. None of them has sufficient command of any of the original languages to be considered an actual translator. The "founder" certainly has no degrees in any of those tongues: he's a lawyer. The rewriters don't actually sign their work, but one can consult the page history to see who changed what. Conservapedia is often inaccessible because of inadequate server power after it gets publicity, and it may be some time before it becomes accessible. And yes, Revelation 22:18-19 in the KJV: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." are words that ought to give the rewriters pause. But perhaps after they "translate" it it won't seem like such an obstacle. - Nunh-huh 05:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: most of the traffic is trying to get to Conservapedia's mainpage, and not getting through. But if you know where you want to go, you may be able to have the page served to you. For our original questioner, try rather than the front page. - Nunh-huh 06:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen colbert interview[edit]

Is anyone else watching this now? (chuckles) Does anyone think this should be mentioned in here? *shrugs* A8UDI 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty much devoid of substantive content. Occasionally funny, but not much that would be usable in an article. - Nunh-huh 05:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. A8UDI 05:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions how Colbert got his viewers to edit him into the Bible project. Maybe we can mention that these changes were deleted in the end and cite the interview as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Hardly noteworthy. --John (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they got on colbert at all is newsworthy, you could also mention that andy said that there is no evidence that wiklipedia has ever helped a student, that should be in this article in the section about why CP exists. --Opcnup (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  • If that information is included, it has to be in the context that it is a claim by Andy. Just writing "Conservapedia has been established in part because Wikipedia has been found unhelpful to students" or something like that is insufficient, but attributing it to Andy in the main text could possibly work, so the reader can consider the source. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

young earth creationist[edit]

There needs is no citation that Conservapedia is written from a young earth creationist. The article linked by the cite doesn't say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the site, many articles use that POV. As far as the reference, I'll get back to you on that A8UDI 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blatant lies[edit]

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. (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

  • 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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


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)

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)

Conservapedia interpretations[edit]

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)

  • 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)
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)
You all realize that a single-purpose troll account named "MrDavros" wrote that, right? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)

'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)

Removal of My Suggestions[edit]

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 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Factual Edits"[edit]

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)

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)

"Conservapedia Commandments" and their usage.[edit]

Should the article clarify that the "Conservapedia Commandments" are not in effect at all, given an administrator's admission that administrators can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it? --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not until an independent source says so I'm afraid. It says so in the Wikipedia commandments. 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? --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?--Leon (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. -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.--Leon (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 Los Angeles Times) gives one pause... --TK-CP (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times? But TK, according to Conservapedia, the LA Times is a liberal publication; and according to CP's article entitled 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. 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. --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 CP admins aren't entirely above that themselves, now are they? Shall we dig deeper, such as CP's difference with 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? GrandLearner (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. -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.--SakuraNoSeirei (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."?--SakuraNoSeirei (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. --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.--SakuraNoSeirei (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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that this statement should remain, although mentioning the 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. Keegscee (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the part about the guidelines. Feel free to revert/disagree. 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. --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. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There's been similar disputes before, you know. And Arbitration Commitee 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. --wwwwolf (barks/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 uploaded "A Merry Christmas Neon", claiming it was self-made, when clearly it was not. You reaction, when people pointed this blatant plagiarism out to you was to block them, revert their comments and eventually 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". --Psygremlin (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's amazing how quickly TK deleted the Christmas image once you linked it. TK, if this blatant theft of material isn't an example of the commandments meaning nothing to the admins of your site, why not discuss it instead of trying to whitewash it an pretend it didn't happen? GrandLearner (talk) 03:51, 8 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. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the reason why I referenced the Request for Arbitration was a bit unclear: The case was about an editor who was allegedly harassed on ED, and the Arbitration Commitee had to decide whether or not it was okay for people to act as editors on both ED and Wikipedia. The final decision was, as pointed out, that being an editor on ED is not an issue. In other words, being a member of vandal site is not an offence here as long as you remember to behave by Wikipedia's policies. No one gets banned here by that fact alone. The case had other ramifications that have changed later (e.g. whether or not it was okay to link to "attack sites" from Wikipedia), but this finding hasn't changed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)