Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 7

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

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8

Rename Conservapedia to Christianpedia

I think it is a more appropriate name. That site is no comedy and some of the strings I have read over there are downright scary. They seem to have a real out-to-get mentality and I sense a bit of paranoia as well. Especially the founder, he gives me the creeps. And yes, they project an elitist attitude far worse than anything I have seen here. That whole public school liberalism versus home schooled conservatism. I pray that they don’t really believe that. I think they give Christians and Conservatives a bad name. --Baronmarbot 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Let's say... it's OR, sure. WLU 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a better idea! What about doing that for Uncyclopedia's article on Conservapedia. --wL<speak·check> 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


I read on this in Taxon 56(2) and I think it is very funny. I think we should have a Leftpedia, another Liberalpedia (actually Liberapedia, etc, etc, as well. Berton 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to the edits Andrew made?

It maybe something that should be included in the article, if someone can find them.-- 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean here on wikipedia? That's a bit stalker-esque, and anything we said about them beyond 'he has edited wikipedia' would be OR. WLU 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would be; in other articles about Wikipedia's history, such edits have been linked too.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that would give this article even more of an anti-Conservapedia POV most likely. StaticElectric 04:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed sections

I removed the following sections - the statement about Liberalpedia seems like OR; at minimum, a reference to the website being created in response to CP should be provided. Plus, I don't see it as a particularly noteworthy inclusion as is.

The 'ideological' section seems NPOV and OR-ish as well - it's a stretch to say it's for ideological reasons and the history link that's provided as a reference is not a permanent link to those particular edits. Also, the e-mail is essentially unciteable.

A website called Liberapedia has been created in response to Conservapedia, although the objective is apparently more to supply humor than actual educational content.
Although Conservapedia claims not to block users for idealogical reasons, one user was blocked when he tried to edit the Conservapedia entry for Al Gore, merely adding four "Citation Needed" tags. The tags were deleted within 60 seconds and the user was blocked. (The tags were for statements of "fact" that seem to cast a negative light on Gore.)[[1]] Another user was blocked when he tried to edit the Conservapedia entry for "murder", by adding that soldiers in war are allowed to kill without violating the Sixth Commandment. That user received an e-mail from one of the Conservapedia sysops that said "You're not going to insult our military here!"[[2]]

WLU 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This last section was I think added by a new user, possibly the banned subject in question. VanTucky (talk)

Can't claim to be a Wiki project anymore

Conservapedia now blocks all users who aren't "in good standing" from editing for at least 12-hours a day. That means that only sysops (about 30) and trusted non-sysop characters (less than 10) can edit 24 hours a day, and all other editors are either vandals (90%) or editors legitimately on the site who become discouraged by having their opinions squelched and reverted, and then quit (rolling 10%).

I honestly don't think that Conservapedia can claim to be a wiki anymore. If you suppress all but 30 of your membership, you're not an open project anymore. See the discussion here.

Should the article reflect this somehow?-AmesG 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is original research, and wrong to boot. Wikis routinely have very small groups allowed to edit - the first wiki I was involved in only allow ~10 editors. It depends on their purpose. Anyways, find secondary sources and we can discuss how to incorporate it. WilyD 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
yes - wiki just refers to the software - it really puts not specific limitations on usage (althought our article on wikis seems to suggest that...). --Fredrick day 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So is it not even worth mentioning? It strikes me as anti-wiki philosophy that the only editors not blocked are conservative Christians.-AmesG 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ames, the problem is that wikipedia's core requirements include the need for secondary sources for pretty much anything. If no valid secondary source has reported on it, it can not be included. If we could find an article that covered CP and included the fact then it could be added. Tmtoulouse 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It really isn't. Most wikis have very restrictive editorship/readership - probably "Everybody who works for company X" and things along that line. WilyD 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was afraid of. Downer. And hey Trent :-)-AmesG 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) It is not big enough (yet) to find enough secondary sources on it. Doesn't that mean that you can use less accepted sources? If it calls itself "encyclopedic", does that mean that this wiki should call it an "encyclopedia", just because there is no good secondary source where they have taken the trouble to prove that it does not qualify as an encyclopedia? Corailrouge-eng —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Verifiability is a core principle of wikipedia, no we can not use less accepted sources, if a source doesn't say it, then we don't say. Tmtoulouse 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The site has gotten even worse. I signed up for an account, and made a few changes on a relatively noncontroversial topic – an article titled "Involuntary bankruptcy", which more resembled a (wrong) definition of the term (it stated that the purpose was to force a debtor into liquidation, which is not always so in an involuntary hearing). I attempted to revise the article to correct the wrong statement and to add small segments on the various sections (Chapter 7, 11, and 13) which come into play in bankruptcy cases. Only to learn that the entire article was blocked from editing. I consider myself a conservative Christian and agree with them on some things (though I strongly disagree with them on others, primarly when they get in to conspiracy theory issues), but I guess you have to be a dues-paying member to make edits. Quidam65 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Creationism v Creation Science

No, creation science is not a commonly accepted neologism. In fact, the only regular use of the term comes from creationists themselves. As such, it is in fact blatant POV pushing on your part to suggest that Creation Science stay. Even here on wikipedia, Creation science is defined as creationists' attempts to find scientific support for creationism, and even that definition is generous. At present, there is absolutely no research going on to prove or disprove testable hypothesis concerning any origins found in the Bible.

Finally, in searching Webster's Dictionary, I didn't find creation science, but I did find creationism. If Webster's sees fit to add words such as D'oh! to the dictionary but not creation science, your claim that creation science is a widely accepted neologism looks especially specious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bynoceros (talkcontribs) 13:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Per Wikipedia standards, the term creation science as evidenced by having an extensive article and meeting WP:NEO notability guidelines, is a commonly used and accepted neologism. Just because you don't prefer to use it does not make it trivial or untrue, and the sources support the use of that term, as that is the way Conservapedia describes itself and how others have described it. The definition, and the fraudulent intentions of those usually using the term are correct, but it is still an entrenched and notable term. The reason it is not in Websters is because it is a neologism. You might want to read the definition of that. Again, just because opponents of the culture that uses such a term do not like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But on a different note, if you want to make a change to the article, the burden of proof rests on you to create a consensus for it. Simply making a talk comment does not give you a free reign to revert back to your preferred version. If something is controversial, you need to reach a community consensus before adding it again. VanTucky (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. A term that has been around for forty years cannot be considered a neologism. Moreover, if YOU were to actually read the wikiarticle on creation science, you would see my point: chiefly, that only creationists use the term.

Creation Science is not commonly used by ANYONE EXCEPT CREATIONISTS, and the fact that the wikientry says as much in the first sentence should be a clue.

Finally, in regards to your mind-numbing display of pedantry, I hate to break it to you, but other people in the world are just as bright as you, and dithering on about neologisms when the term in question has been around for at least forty years in the fudamentalist community is the epitome of irony. Creation Science is not a neologism; D'oh as I mentioned in my previous example is, and MW is doing a fantastic job of adding three or four year old words to the dictionary in each subsequent addition.

To summarize: 1) Creation Science, having been around for forty years plus, is not a neologism; 2) the wikiarticle on creation science explicitly states that it is a term used for and by creationists, and; 3) the term itself is an oxymoron. In the paster, there was the term of astrological science, yet today, no thinking person would make the mistake of lumping astrology in with science. Just because you are willing to allow fundamentalists leeway to term their sophistry as anything more than pseudoscience doesn't actually make it correct. I am reverting to perspective of creationism. Call things by their proper names instead of trolling around in defense of intellectual dishonesty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

You need to avoid personal attacks and assume good faith or you will not get far. The term is accepted use at wikipedia and all the sources refer to that term. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability which is here in troves. Tmtoulouse 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be non-creationist sources which use the term? You do not use Wiccan terminology either, for the reason it is only used by Wiccans Corailrouge-eng 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. There are hundreds of religious and cultural terms that are notable, and not used customarily by anyone but members of the subculture in question. But here is a whole load of independent news sources using the term, including the National Center for Science Education. VanTucky (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In The National Center for Science Education entry, "creation science" is quoted. I think that is the best solution then. Corailrouge-eng 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even more irony. If you’ll notice, the first google link is to a book by Nick Matzke in which he destroys the concept that creation science is in fact science. Moreover, said link references creation science as defined in the 1981 Arkansas court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that creationism is not in fact science.

In fact, among the first ten links, six are from creationist/intelligent design sources (e.g. letters to the editor, Answers in Genesis). Three more are either referencing the lunacy of the term creation science or simply quoting creationists. The only instance in which the term is not used either derisively or by creationists comes from a Baptist university in North Carolina, and even then the articles speaks of a professor speaking out against the vacuity of the “DOCTRINE of creation science.”

My point all along has been and is that, by using the term creation science, one is not maintaining an NPOV. In fact, one is decidedly casting creationism in a pro-creationism light, given, and I'm getting to the point of ad nauseum here, that ONLY CREATIONISTS USE THE TERM, AND WHEN NON-CREATIONISTS USE THE TERM THEY ARE EITHER REFERRING TO THE TERM AS USED BY CREATIONIISTS OR USING THE TERM TONGUE IN CHEEK.

Are we going to maintain NPOV or aren't we. If we are, the term is creationism. If we're going to bow down to the fringe group, keep using creation science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Here the deal, the sources in the article refer to it as creation science, we go by what the sources says. WP:VER Supersedes the relatively pedantic debate we are having here. Tmtoulouse 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But, according to WP:VER, they should be " third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"... " Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves " If not, you could insert "axis of evil" or "evil empire" in a lot of wiki's Corailrouge-eng 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The argument for removing it was not that it was not a term that is used in conjunction with Conservapedia, but that using the term anywhere was inappropriate. That has been debunked through strong source material, and there is currently a consensus to use the term. Whether we put it in quotes or not, I don't care. But it's an important and accuracte way of describing the site's approach to science in general, and any other description would be too verbose to be an improvement. VanTucky (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh since when is Wired Magazine a questionable source? Tmtoulouse 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You mean this article? They clearly use quotes for "creation science" in How the next generation of "creation science" is invading America's classrooms, and also further down (search for as "creation science" ). They use the word creationism 4 times on the first page. Corailrouge-eng 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No I mean, this piece which is sourced in the article for the term in question. Tmtoulouse 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. You said it, but I was mistaken and thought you were talking about the google news search in the earlier post. There is mention of "an encyclopedia of creation science ", I agree it is there. Corailrouge-eng 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it appears that we're all on the *same team*, but that, given the fact that I can't see faces or hear tones some things are being interpreted in a hostile way when they probably aren't intended as such. My point was not that creation science is never used, only that it is used by creationists or folks who simply don't know better. Back in the 80's, the Big Bang Theory was still referred to as the Big Bang hypothesis every once in a while by the non-scientific community, even though it had basically decimated the steady state theory by that point. By the same token, creation science is accidentally used by the non-scientific public sporadically (i.e. the Wired article), but nearly all journalists and all scientists use the term creationism when referring to fundamentalists' Christian beliefs concerning the origin of the universe. I am reverting to perspective of creationism, not to be a jerk or an edit fascist (or whatever the appropriate term may be), but to generate attention so that you come to to the talk page and we can hammer this out.

I feel quite strongly that the term should be creationism; that creation science only abets the loonies and, that; creation 'science' is only used as a misnomer or by folks who really believe that the earth was created 7,000 years after the first recorded instance of the Cherokee people. Cheers to all. Sorry about the militance before.

The term creation science has a promotional dimension, too, of course. Corailrouge-eng


An encyclopedia is not the proper venue for proving a point about the appropriateness of a word or phrase. The terminology "creation science" is well-known, documented in the American Heritage dictionary, and is featured as an article here at Wikipedia. It is the term that has been applied by creationists to the career their leaders have chosen.

That the term makes a mockery of real science is irrelevant. The term Christian Science makes a mockery of both science and Christianity, as that religion is neither scientific nor Christian in nature. Yet it is how we refer to that religion, as it is known by that title. We don't go making up new names for it, or using some other term that is grammatically incorrect, just to avoid calling it by a title that we think is ridiculous.

Creationism is a set of beliefs based on the notion that life, the universe, and everything was created. Creation Science is the pursuit of observable evidence for creation. There is really only one rule for us to follow: use proper grammar. When discussing creationist beliefs, the term to use is creationism; and when discussing the effort to prove creationism true, the term to use is Creation Science, since that is the term by which it is known.

The Oracle of Podunk 03:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)



Conservapedia has sanctions as a disctinguishing feature. They are on the commandments page. That is reason enough to leave the section on them in the wiki. I propose to put the section back in place Corailrouge-eng 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Conservapedia threatens anyone who vandalises it with 10 years imprisonment under US Federal Law. This is of course quite bogus, since the statute cited relates to interfering with government or commercial traffic which Conservapedia is not, but also what constitutes vandalism in the eyes of the self-named "Bureaucrats" who police the Conservapedia could well be highly subjective- such as the use of British English. Although there is probably much less peer review, the small size of Conservapedia (20,000+ entries cf. wikipeidia 8.5 million) enables a small number of Mr Schafly's bulldogs to patrol it for ideological rectitude. Streona 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the comparison right?

In the article, it compares Conservapedia's 9 commandments to only two of Wikipedia's five pillars, not even mentioning the rest of the policies and guidelines. Is this a biased comparison? --JDitto 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the policies and guidelines for which project. The 5 pillars are a overall summary of all our policies, and I feel the 9 commandments are the same of Conservapedia. It is correct, but needs to be expanded upon. --wL<speak·check> 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point, it might be a good idea to compare WP:5P with the Conservapedia commandments. At the very least we should refer to WP:V and WP:NOR rather than WP:A, as the latter is no longer policy in its own right. Hut 8.5 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to navigate

Conservapedia is impossible to navigate. When browsing it (i spent an hour frustrated with it this morning... not the most accurate assessment i guess), you will find that every single article is blocked from editing. Later on, my username was banned for the reason of "please chose another name" (don't understand why "itsnotmyfault" is an illegitimate username to begin with). to discuss the block, the site invites me to post an edit to the blocker's (or other admin's) discussion page... a little hard to do when A) every article is protected and B) you're blocked from posting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for discussion of the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia, not Conservapedia itself. Hut 8.5 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI they want all unknown editors to give their real names. I was blocked for the same reason and asked the Sysops. I presume it is so they can check the credentials of all contributors, but their site rules do not mention this, and in fact specify that you have to give your real name only if you wish. (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logical definitions

What is the name of the logical misdirection of which "A Conservative Encyclopedia You Can Trust." is an example - are there conservative encyclopedias which cannot be trusted etc (and some non-US conservative encyclopedias which can)?

Can someone do an archive on this talk page. Jackiespeel 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia page on Conservapedia, not for discussion of Conservapedia itself. StaticElectric 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I was asking for a definition/link (g). IMO most of the discussions about Conservapedia, its USPs and what people here think of it have already been gone through - and the meta-analysis of the various Wikis and their USPs belongs in another place. Jackiespeel 17:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions on Free Speech

A friend of mine recently joined Conservapedia.[3] In it, he posted a section on the user talk page labeled 'Bias,' [4] and challenged its views toward Wikipedia and bias in articles ([5]). Within the hour that he posted this, several notable editors jumped in and added their own opinions, the editors being the owner of the site, Aschlafy, as well as major editors iDuan and Rob Smith. In addition, the user Joaquin Martinez decided to send him a message saying "We're glad you are here to edit articles better than to Talk. OK?," my friend stated that he was trying to learn via discussion, which is his favored way of learning, rather than simply editing articles. However, this immediately sparked a remark from his friend, --şŷŝôρ-₮K, who criticized him for his lack of editing, and questioned his Christian morals. He even made the case that my friend's comment on grammar was racist because Joaquin was apparently Mexican. He left him with two comments: 1)"Know that I will indeed be watching you 2) so don't be surprised, shocked or dismayed not to be able to edit at any time.

My friend and I are outraged at this injustice. It seems that whenever someone comes on with a differing opinion to Conservapedia's views, they are ridiculed and "watched." This is clearly a group of high-up editors banding together to control this wiki. No self-respecting non-biased encyclopedia would do this, so I propose two things:

1) Anybody else that this or something similar has happened to please list your name below. Please include your story, your comments, and any hacking or legal action taken against you because of your activities on Conservapedia.
1. User:Rucha58 05:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (See Above for Story) [No legal action or hacking so far.]
2) A project or task force set up to investigate these injustices.
1. User:Rucha58 05:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While you will find many in agreement with you - it doesn't change the fact that it constitutes original research and anecdotal evidence. Wisdom89 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'm somewhat new to creating articles and the entire wikiproject concept. Do have any suggestions as how to obtain non-original research? User:Rucha58 06:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucha58 (talkcontribs)
You would have to scour the internet for verification using secondary and tertiary sources which explicitly addresses your concerns regarding conservapedia and its suppression/violation of free speech. A primary source, like conservapedia or wikipedia itself would not be sufficient. Hope that helps.. Wisdom89 06:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not have free speech rights on someone else's Web site, Conservapedia or Wikipedia. In particular this entire discussion does not belong here. As StaticElectric points out above "this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia page on Conservapedia, not for discussion of Conservapedia itself."--agr 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are some good points. I probably got carried away with the title, because it's my general view that if a wiki claims to be nonbiased it will have reasonable editing debates, such as we're having here. However, I might be discussing this in the wrong place. I should probably remove this section and take my complaints to a forum which debates this sort of thing. Thanks for your helpful insights. User:Rucha58 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from Conservapedia leaders?

Some of the Conservapedia editors (especially Andy Schlafly) do have a history of incivility: personal attacks, flaming, etc. If criticism shows up in "reputable sources" then would it be eligible for inclusion? The decision would have to be careful since it would probably show up in Andy's "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page/rant on Conservapedia. - Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the appropriate place to put it would be the criticism/reaction section - and the claims would need to be backed by reliable secondary third party sources Wisdom89 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rampant liberal bias"- POV?

Surely this phrase which keeps popping up in the wiki article is POV? "Percieved liberal bias" would be a better wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal bias", so on and so forth

While I appreciate that edits such as this raise the ire of Wikipedia editors, I wonder at the inclusion of the information that "The site had 13,000 registered usernames of which about 7,000 were permanently blocked (about 54%)." This seems designed exclusively as a crowing contrast to the enormity of Wikipedia itself, any thoughts? Mallocks 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it's more of a jibe at the amount of editors they ban for vandalism or for disagreeing with them. Since we have absolutely no context for the blocks, though - maybe a spammer made 7,000 accounts one morning - it seems a bit meaningless to report the fact without a secondary source to put it into some sort of context. --McGeddon 12:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Aren't reasons for users being banned reported in the Conservapedia wiki? Dave420 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been 24 hours since I raised the question and given its extremely dubious encyclopedic merit I'm getting rid of it. Mallocks 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was baned as soon as I registred on Conservapedia the reason given to me was "use your real name", so I appears that they do not alow nice names, although this isn't stated on there site, this could explain there very high number of banned users. --AJenbo 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Further more, the two first sugestion on there site on how to contact an admin to resolve the issue does not work when you are band I found a third after inspecting the site a bit more carfuly, they refered one to send an email to but the mail server just reponds that there is no user by that name, so i'm preaty sure we can atribute the high number of blocked user to a bad/broaken registration process on there site. --AJenbo 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You are probably correct. Their policy is that you must contact the Sysop who blocked you if you disagree with them, but as you are blocked you cannot post to their talk pages, and most Sysops do not list an email address that you can email. I'm not sure how that can be included in the article however as there's no source for that. (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

POV mess

This article reads like it's on Conservapedia itself. I'm not sure what can be done other than a wipe and restart. Is anyone who's not a regular Conservapedia editor working on this article? Simões (talk/contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that adding terms like "liberal deceit" and "pro-gay" to the article is definitely not appropriate. But I noticed another change to the article when I looked at what I was reverting... Someone snuck in a link to Fox News Channel in the see also. Although Fox News was started as an alternative to the perceived liberal bias of CNN, having it alongside GodTube (vs. YouTube and MyChurch (vs. MySpace) just seems wrong. Luatha 03:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is also no substantial, reliable sources confirming that FOX is a perceived conservative alternative to CNN and etc. It's best to leave that out. The POV push by a disruptive editor has been noted at WP:ANI#Requesting a quick look at Conservapedia, and the offending user has been blocked twice already; an outright ban wouldn't be all too bad, in my opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never before seen 'liberal' used to such profound effect as a slur. And this is "debate", the user angrily proclaims in their edit summaries. As I state in the section above I do believe there's room for improvement ("Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project"? Big who cares), but going from one stance to entirely the other isn't it. Mallocks 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to those unfamiliar with American politics - or familiar with it and understandably baffled - in certain circles, "liberal" equates with "bad". It's used by many conservatives (e.g. "liberal media bias" that Fox fans and their associates talk about, "liberal agenda" as a path to socialism, even the term "bleeding heart liberal"). Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are good examples of people who decry things as liberal in this sense. Hillary Clinton in one debate summed it up when she was asked about considering herself a liberal and she said something to the effect of "the term 'liberal' has been used so negatively so often that I'd have to say 'progressive' instead". So whereas in some countries "liberal" might be a good adjective, in US politics, yes, it's almost a slur depending on who's using it. Luatha 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pedantic" and "Pedant"

Maybe we could include some information about the Big Word that some Conservapedia users have learned: "Pedantic". The word has been redefined as "any writing by one that disagrees with me". They don't use it correctly but it's so widespread on the site that it's practically a culture reference. 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry. That was inappropriate. Never mind - I was in a bad mood when I wrote that. 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Conservopedia"?

Sorry but that's been bugging me. I mean I know they spell it "Conservapedia" but it just doesn't look right. Serendipodous 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They take the 'a' from 'conservative' rather than the 'o' from 'encyclopedia'. It could go either way, I guess. —bbatsell ¿? 10:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if this was the case, proper spelling and proper names don't necessarily coincide. :) Luatha 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

About plagiarism

Since this bit was removed and inserted a few times now, it may be an idea to duke it out here.

Maybe I can start this by giving some general info (no third-party sources to my knowledge; just so editors have a rough idea what's going on): Yes, several articles on CP are plagiarized. As a matter of fact, Andrew Schlafly explicitly encourages copy-paste jobs as long as the source is a .gov site (with the exclusion of state sites or something).

The reasoning being: "We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites. Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation." (Andrew Schlafly, July 2, 2007)

(Trivia: Schlafly also has this to say about Wikipedia: "Moreover, is copying OK to 'kickstart' a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying." - don't ask me how the two statements fit together, especially since their government copy-paste jobs are not always marked as such...)

As such, the copying from .gov sites can be horribly obvious on a "good day". Especially during their official "team contests" (the second one ended a few hours ago), where teams get points for creating articles, no matter if they're copy-paste jobs or not.

I actually sometimes took the time to check the New Article log for obvious copy-paste jobs, with quite interesting results: June 23 check (a day on which the sysops suddenly declared that they wanted to break the record for the most new articles per day); first 12 hours of the first team contest day. Even browsing those lists briefly shows how common the copy-paste jobs are.

These cases are legal (I guess... I'm no expert there), but they go against the first commandment ("Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.").

However, it doesn't really end there. Quite a few articles are plagiarized/copied from copyrighted sources. Those cases are often removed on sight, but sometimes, the sysops do the copying, and then the motto seems to be "Don't remove it; edit it so it's not a direct copy anymore". It's cringeworthy, but it happens. In some cases, the sysops (once confronted) ask the source site for permission. Sometimes, they heavily lean on re-use policies to justify the copy-pasting.

Summing up: The edit in question is factual and verifiable by looking around, but I don't know of any Notable/Reliable Source that covers it. I'll leave it to the more policy-experienced editors to figure out what to do with this. I just felt like sharing some insight and maybe start discussion on the "Should we include it? If so, how?" questions. --Sid 3050 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There's such a thing as unbiased information from a .gov (or .gov.[insert coutry]) website? Oh, right...
But seriously, the answer is no, it shouldn't be included unless at least someone wrote about it somewhere remotely notable, and even then, WP:WEIGHT needs to be considered. Just as we can't allow POV pushing in defense of Conservapedia, we can't go out of our way to condemn them. Luatha 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Luatha is correct - unless a published reliable source identified and then wrote about it, there is no way to include the information in the article, despite it being patently obvious by users if they take your advice and navigate the site to find examples. That's just the way it works around here. What you are proposing fails WP:NOR and WP:V. I'm not entirely in agreement about WP:WEIGHT as I feel it does not apply here, but that point is moot. Hope that helps. Wisdom89 06:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I figured (hence the mention of no Reliable Sources), but I didn't propose anything (other than suggesting that the more experienced people puzzle it out), just like I wasn't a member of the back and forth on the article page. Just noticed that there was disagreement on the page, so I felt like noting it on the talk page :) --Sid 3050 12:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a paragraph about this which cited RationalWiki as a source (wikis can't be used as sources, and shouldn't be listed as external links per WP:EL). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikis "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are acceptable under WP:EL, but you're right that we can't cite RationalWiki as a source in this case - the page being cited is just a publicly editable list of amusing observations about Conservapedia, with no editorial control. --McGeddon 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Rational Wiki is not a reliable source, since anyone can edit it. (Yes, this means Wikipedia is not a reliable source either.) --Transfinite (Talk | Contribs) 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you guys examined RationalWiki pages on Conservapedia? True, anyone can edit them, but the admins are very cautious about it. Since they parody the website, surely the must be accurate, and they are experts in detecting CP's mistakes, plagiarism, abuses, cut-and-paste entries, and in general, their stunning incompetence. Unless somebody proves the contrary, I believe this is a reliable source. Dukered 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In general the more controversial the claim the more reliable the source should be, and since we're accusing them of plagiarism I think we need something more reputable to support the claim. Hut 8.5 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur that this does not meet WP:RS and have once again removed the section. this was my view previously and nothing has changed. The specific page linked to is just junk in regards to our policies on sources - check it for yourself. --Fredrick day 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that everything presented so far is either WP:OR or fails WP:RS... which is a real pity, considering that the massive plagiarism is, in my opinion, a significant part of the Conservapedia story. I poked around to try and find a better source, but yeah, all I can find are blog entries and other wikis. D'oh! --Jaysweet 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are bound by the guidelines despite Conservapedia regularly committing this transgression - until I see some RS about it, I won't ever feel comfortable putting it in the article. Give it time, I'm sure there will be a print/paper source available. Until then it fails.Wisdom89 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to offer points defending RationalWiki as a reliable source, they should probably be discussed on the Talk view, not the History view. I also put out a request for wider input on the subject at WP:RS/N. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ? 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
There weren't as many people in favour of the addition as I thought, I must have misread some posts. Still, it can't hurt if more people want to weigh in on an article. --tiny plastic Grey Knight 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the number of people who want to add it without an RS is relatively small. I would like to see this info added, but only if a non-wiki non-blog source can be found (even if it's a news article talking about RationalWiki or something like that). --Jaysweet 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the FBI incident be mentioned here?

Just wondering if it should be mentioned that the staff of Conservapedia reported vandalism to the FBI and after being ridiculed about it being ignored started to ban anyone who mentioned it? Archived talk pages: and RationalWiki article including some deleted bits from the talk pages and a list of those banned for mentioning the FBI since the event: 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That needs corroboration from outside reliable sources - rationalwiki isn't reliable, and conservapedia archives are primary sources and is pretty much original research Wisdom89 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
About what Wisdom89 said that 'conservapedia archives are primary sources and is pretty much original research', what happens then with references 10,11,14,15,19,25,26,29,37,38,39,43,45, and 46 in the article? Equidistant 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The sections of the article that make interpretations based on these references should be deleted as they are original research. The rule is pretty simple - any conclusion or interpretation must be published somewhere else before it can be included here. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then some of these references should be revised. They are pretty much WP:OR, according to many reverts I've seen here. --Equidistant 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are editors allowed to edit Talk Pages?

Just like articles, as they please? -Dukered 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Per WP:TALK#Others' comments, you can't edit other people's comments unless it is in violation of 1.5.1. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Related Articles

Some Related Articles I put (Christian right, Conservatism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Right-wing politics, Neoconservatism, Homeschooling) have been reverted, yet I haven't seen a strong argument to do so. MCgeddon says that it's "broad and borderline-POV ... these should be sourced in the body text of the article (and some already are), rather than bolted lazily on)", while Hut 8.5 repeats the same thing (to claim "consensus" later on Hut?) Wisdom 89 alleges that I'm trying to prove a point, using TW.

On that basis, virtually every article on Wikipedia shouldn't have "Related Articles" or the "See Also" section, since everything should be "covered in the body of text". Sincerely, I'd like to see some reasoning here. Equidistant 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines say that a See also section should not contain "links that are only vaguely related to the topic". The links currently in the See also section are of other conservative/religious versions of popular websites, so they are certainly closely relevant, whereas the links that were added were vague references to much wider topics that were not very helpful as navigational aids. If it can be sourced that these links describe Conservapedia's ideology then they should be included in the main body of the article, with references. What's more, several of these links already appear in the article, something else that is discouraged by WP:SEEALSO. Hut 8.5 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Christian right, Fundamentalist Christianity, Right-wing politics, Neoconservatism? Aren't they related to the article itself, certainly not vaguely? They do not repeat anything, and indeed they describe Conservapedia's ideology, as other sources (and the article itself!) demonstrates. You shouldn't push your own POV about what should or shouldn't be included in the body of text, or how it should be. Equidistant 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Guidelines are not policies, and those topics that Equidistant mentioned are closely related to how Conservapedia thinks and does. I suggest you take a look at WP:COI too. Dukered 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, who are you suggesting needs to read WP:COI? --McGeddon 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If the article is already demonstrating it, then it's a simple matter of rewording those sentences to include links to those articles. If sources are demonstrating it but we aren't quoting them, we should quote them instead of giving a bulleted list of keywords. This is in WP:LAYOUT. --McGeddon 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Example of Bias in Convervapedia

Conservapedia has no article for vagina, penis, erection and masturbation and only 9 lines for the sex article, however the homosexuality article is over 250 lines long and is referenced to 179 documents. Perhaps this kind of bias should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.-- 11:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source has commented on it, then yes. Hut 8.5 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia considers the Enlightenment to be an atheistic hoax.Alloco1 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The homosexuality article is also a anti-gay screed. It seems like it is the point of the site to be anti gay.

The entire 'encyclopedia' is just concentrated idiocy that's point is to be anti-everything that scares them. There is absolutely no mention of hate crimes against homosexuals in that particular article on Conservapedia, for example. Personally, I think Wikipedia should just completely ignore that site. It can do no good to mention it here, it'll just spread the word and give Conservdoesn'tknowhowtospellapedia another reason to badmouth Wikipedia. It's not up to me though, I hardly ever comment anyway.-- (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Hermesscholar

Maybe they are not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage, like how a lot of people are not anti-white, just anti-KKK. Do you have any examples from the article showing they are anti-gay?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:37, 10 December 2007

Wow. I never thought I'd see the act of marriage described as morally equivalent to joining a hate-driven terrorist organization. Thanks for destroying my faith in humanity. --SCJE (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia "Commandments" Threatening Prosecution for Vandalism or Posting of Obscenity

I quote: "Minors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor."

I know we can't take this straight from the page, as that would constitute original research (I suppose Conservapedia has no such rule from what I've seen of its material), but this kind of threat—which they have in the past acted on—is clearly abhorrent and completely contrary to the purposes of the wiki software that these insects stole and shamelessly trashed. Anyway, I'm sure most of the editors here are aware of this little bit, as much as it has been paraded around. That this has been mentioned in countless blogs (or at least one: and been parodied at least on Uncyclopedia and ED (which perhaps ought not be included considering its blacklisted status) should or could count for something. I'm sure some "notable" source will eventually pick up on it if Conservapedia doesn't die in the meantime, but I really think this should be somehow included, seeing as how Wikipedia uses the Wiki software and Conservapedia is fairly notable and all that. Bloodbeard 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a logical and simple reason for that policy. There were some serious issues with images being overwritten with porn purposefully. Dagomar 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but it seems that it has also been used to justify reporting relatively benign vandalism to the FBI—which I think is kind of notable (and appalling). However, I do not work for the press, and I am no one particularly notable. So I shall desist. Bloodbeard 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Until a reliable source mentions this, it shouldn't be in this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it can be mentioned in the article, as many other things are, with references straight from Conservapedia. I know that editors cannot interpret facts without violating NPOV, but the WP:OR rule has been bended here many times. Equidistant 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a point here, there are numerous references in the article that direct you to some conservapedia article, but still, past mistakes do not justify the continued violation of WP:NOR. Wisdom89 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block quote Major policies that the party has recently supported include a neoconservative foreign policy, including War on Terror, liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, strong support for democracy especially in the Middle East, and 'distrust of the United Nations due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the Security Council and in UN humanitarian programs'

That is in conservapedia in the republican party article. I think we all know whether its biased or not


Why is an article on RW not allowed if this article is allowed to stand? Either allow both or allow neither - to do anything else would be hypocritical. Concernedcitizen102 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlassCobra 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why we cannot have an article on Rationalwiki without the childish legal mumbo jumbo. Concernedcitizen102 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article you're pointed at is policy, there is no legal mumbo jumbo. And second of all conservapedia has been written about prolifically in the news, whereas rationalwiki has not been. That makes conservapedia notable, and rationalwiki not, please see WP:N. Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationalwiki was mentioned in the LA Times article on conservapedia. Just because YOU happen to believe it is not notable doesn't make it so. Concernedcitizen102 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, to be more specific, your article did not assert it's notability, i.e. it did nothing to follow the notability guidelines. If you think the article is notable, assert its notability in the article by following the guidelines, and it will (hopefully) not be speedied for that reason, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability guidelines specifically require "significant coverage" - as you say, the LA Times article only "mentions" RationalWiki, which isn't enough sourced detail for us to build an article from. --McGeddon 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There is not sufficient third party coverage dedicated to Rationalwiki. I like the site, but right now it merits, at best, a mention in Conservapedia's article. This isn't a statement about the website, but rather a reflection of how many third party sources are available on the topic.-Wafulz 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So I'm glad you like the site!!!!-AmesG 03:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

subtitle "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

Wisdom89, why did you revert this edit?

The claimed primary goal of the Conservapedia article is to create a "trustworthy encyclopedia." This goal is given such emphasis that they've made it the subtitle or slogan for their site. It appears in the upper-left corner of every page on their site, as part of their logo.

It seems to me that the first-stated goal of the Conservapedia project should be mentioned in Wikipedia's article about it. Don't you agree?

So I added it. But a few hours later you reverted it.

You made no Talk page comment about your deletion, and your edit summary is confusing to me. Your edit summary said, "The less original research we have in this article the better." Why did you call quoting that subtitle WP:OR? Did you think that I came up with the subtitle myself? Did you, perhaps, overlook the "trustworthy encyclopedia" subtitle in the upper-left corner of every page on their site? NCdave 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Conservapedia?

I ask this question because the article says it is "an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project..." True, it is a project, still young (one year this month), but is it an encyclopedia? So far, Conservapedia essentially fails as a reference site. It seems more like a political forum. Just take a good look at it. And *please* don't say that would break the NOR rule, 'cause this is basic. Flor Silvestre 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

em...sorry...but... it WOULD break the NOR rule - if describes itself as an encyclopedia, that's how we describe it. If you can find sources that say those things then we can add them in the relevent sections but not the lead-in. --Fredrick day 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick is absolutely correct. This would undoubtedly breach Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NOR. What you are proposing is precisely what the policy is intended to avoid. The proper way to integrate your observation into the article would be to find a reliable second/third party source, and implant it in a neutral Way: e.g. "John Doe writing for the NY times has commented that conservapedia is more likened to a unilateral political forum than an encyclopedia...etc..etc.." That would be the way to do it. Wisdom89 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OED's definition of "encyclopedia":
Wikipedia aims to have a neutral point of view, but that's certainly not the definition of an encyclopedia, which is simply a compendium of knowledge. —bbatsell ¿? 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Politically biased encyclopedias have appeared before (eg in Communist countries), yet people still called them encyclopedias. Conservapedia is biased and flawed, but is still an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin 15:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As is Wikipedia (biased and flawed)! While Wikipedia may have more content and be more accurate and neutral (allegedly) than Conservapedia, there is no definitive "benchmark" that encyclopaedias have to meet. I think describing Conservapedia as a Christian/conservative-friendly encyclopaedia is fine because that is both how it describes itself and how it appears to be if reading it for more than a couple of minutes. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, it's how reliable sources describe it. --McGeddon 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is biased and flawed, but it works as a comprehensive reference website, i.e., an encyclopedia. Up to a point, it has quality, despite criticism.
On the other hand, there are dictionaries online far better than Conservapedia, which additionally, has plenty of spelling mistakes. If I were a teacher, I'd recommend Wikipedia only as a reference. But never Conservapedia. | DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia is unreliable and should not be used for a reference in that context - it's a starting point to lead you to more reliable sources. --Fredrick day 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

End of the article

This article ends rather weirdly, just stopping at a random point. there needs to be a concluding section, perhaps about CP's future, or its context in the wider world. Perhaps the material to draw on isn't there yet, but the article ending does kind of hang in mid-air. Incidentally, this is not a call to add uncited speculation. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good you mentioned this is not a call for uncited speculation; we'd be reading the usual jargon by now. Flor Silvestre (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship" v. "Accusations of Censorship"

I've put the title back to "Accusations of Censorship". The first title is both not NPOV and is not supported by the sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. What do you understand for "dissenting views are deleted"? Isn't that censorship? And then Dr. Lipton was blocked because he simply contradicted the sysops and Schlafly. What is that? Suppression of dissent? The source doesn't accuse Conservapedia of censorship. It says that they do it.| DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read the source, and what it says definitely fits the description of suppression of dissent. --wL<speak·check> 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This may need to be amended further. Much of it is about vandalism, so shouldn't it be "Vandalism"? (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've perused the article. First of all, the "dissenting view" statement that was erased because it allegedly violated WP:NOR should be reinserted since the article actually reports that verbatim. However, the phrasing may need to be altered to show the reader that it isn't Wikipedia's conclusion - it was the author of the article. Secondly, to my recollection, the article makes no mention of censorship. Ergo, "Accusations of Censorship" and "Censorship are ill advised.Wisdom89 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • True. But we're talking about the same thing, aren't we? Suppression of dissent equals Censorship. In any case, that's what Conservapedian sysops do with every single thing that they consider "liberal deceit". | DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 04:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't disagree with you about that - not one iota - but I'm loathe to use a word that the article itself doesn't even mention. Although, I suppose Suppression of dissent and Censorship DO go hand-in-hand. If that is the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the lesser of two possibly non-NPOV titles? Wisdom89 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wisdom89 - the reference doesn't mention censorship, so using censorship as the section title strikes me as kind of POV. The point the reference does make is that critics worry about "material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seeks to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion" and that "dissenting views are [quickly] deleted". I think this is more like propaganda than censorship, although neither of these words are mentioned in the reference. Perhaps the section title should be Dissenting views are not tolerated. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with something like that, but "Dissenting views are not tolerated" is long. It might make more sense to just remove the section header and include it as part of the previous section. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The section header must stay, because this is an important aspect of how Conservapedia works. The line "A glance at an entry's history -- which shows editing over time -- makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted" from the source, does not limit to the breast cancer article. It speaks in a general way, evidently saying that all dissenting views are, indeed, deleted. But if you want a tamer tone, then the title could be "Dissenting views". Flor Silvestre (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Most searched topics

According to the Conservapedia statistics page, the most often searched topics as of 10/20/2007 are: Homosexuality‎ (1,505,034 views), Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ (516,277), Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ (417,416), Homosexuality and Parasites‎ (387,532), Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ (333,452), Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ (328,632), Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ (322,735), Homosexuality and Syphilis‎ (262,583), and Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ (257,560).

So it appears that a large percentage of Conservapedia's audience is interested in homosexuality. Had topics regarding homosexuality placed only a few of the top page ranks, it might not be considered newsworthy. However, save the main page, articles regarding homosexuality outrank every other conservative issue (such as abortion, the Bible, the Commandments, terrorism, etc...) out there. This might be something to consider writing about. Dinjiin (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Dinjiin

Unless a reliable source reports about it, we can't add the content to the article - I'm afraid it would be original research. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It was mentioned on Boing Boing today ([6]), which is a good enough source to add it to the article. The same source also says that it's probably the result of malicious click bot. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Boing Boing is a blog and shouldn't be used as a source. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Self-published weblogs are fine under WP:SPS if the author has sufficient authority in the field, which Mark Frauenfelder does. --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Freind of a friend? [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numskll (talkcontribs) 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
One would think simply visiting the website and confirming the fact would be enough. Statistics are accessible right off the main page, as easy to verify as can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That constitutes original research. We should not be citing Conservapedia directly. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to add things in to details that are almost certainly pranks (see for example Seth Finkelstein's comments on the matter) when they come from barely reliable (if that) partisan sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In any event, Boing Boing has since acknowledged that this is a probable prank. See there updated version . JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this was "probably the result of click bots" what is the purpose of mentioning it in the section "Creationism, conservatism, and bias"? Perhaps there should be a new section on "Attacks" where it might be relevant (although I imagine they consider any attempt at introducing any facts counter to their particular POV as an attack). With its current wording and placement, I can't think of a reason for including it. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I tacked it onto the end of the paragraph about coordinated vandalism, when it first appeared. A new "Attacks" section with both the click bot story and the RationalWiki paragraph seems like a good idea; I'll make the change. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Censorship lead

The LA Times article includes the sentence "A glance at an entry's history -- which shows editing over time -- makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted." - what are other editors' opinions on how we should use this quote? Is the writer talking about a single article (the breast cancer article that she goes on to discuss), or does she mean "any article"? Is the line sufficiently ambiguous that we can't really conclude anything from it?

The current version of the Wikipedia article uses this quote to conclude that "Conservapedia's sysops quickly delete dissenting views added to its articles on science and medicine.", but this seems like too much of a generalisation (and perhaps credits the Conservapedia sysops with too much omniscience). What do we think? --McGeddon (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The line "Conservapedia's sysops quickly delete dissenting views added to its articles on science and medicine" would be wrong. We know that they delete every dissenting view, no matter the subject. But we don't have a source to put it here, except the LA times article, and given the context, I think it's clear that the reporter speaks in a general way, as User:Flor Silvestre said. | DUKEREDFREE SPEECH 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine. I've deleted "on science and medicine". -- Rick Block (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing a line from the article

I discovered conservapedia last night and basically laughed out loud the whole night nonstop. Anyhow, seeing how the project seems to be serious from it's editors, I hope wikipedia does not get caught up in their accusations and react in anyway. I did find one line in the article here: "Such accusations are not found in Wikipedia's article.[20]" which seems to be a provoked response to Conservapedia. I think it's best to refrain from starting a fight of any sort and to remain objective. The title of this article is 'Conservapedia' not 'Comparisons of Wikipedia and Convervapedia'. So I'm removing that one line, hope no one has a problem with that. Abhishekbh (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex that Conservapedia only exists to serve a narrow agenda, and to even acknowledge their attacks is to lend them undeserved credence. To respond to Wikipedia's "bias" by starting up a biased and censored counter-pedia is laughable and should be treated as such by those of us who believe deeply in Wiki. I learn more in a 15-minute Wikisurfing session than I do watching a month of network TV, and I know that the knowledge I'm absorbing comes from members that represent the entire political spectrum. I challenge anyone to introduce obvious bias into a popular Wikipedia article and see how long it lasts. I challenge anyone to edit bias out of a popular Conservapedia article and see how long it lasts. KyuzoGator (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

The Daily Show reference was removed today. The Daily Show is very notable, is it worth a mention? Perhaps not as a criticism, but as a reaction? I'm trying to find the video and having little luck. WLU (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Try Youtube, 'Wikipedia & Youtube: liberal bias' or something like that. I found it while looking for last laugh 07. Lewis Black talks about it, and it's hilarious. However, Lewis Black isn't exactly the most neutral guy in the world, so you might want to reconsider before putting that link on a website that has such a liberal bias already... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you couldn't find it anymore, here's the link to the video you were talking about: --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


The question has arisen whether " Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." is less correct than " Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological scientific theory defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning." I submit it is more correct; the sentence describes the process of evolution, which is observable, and not the theory, which is not. Further, Wikipedia's article on evolution begins by presenting the observable fact of evolution, and doesn't mention "theory" until the third paragraph. "Process" is correct here. - Nunh-huh 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence specifically mentions empiricism, observation, and measurable evidence (data) - these are hallmarks and basically the definition of the scientific method, which is used to build scientific theories and models. I fail to see why semantics warrants numerous reverts. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not semantics, it's paying attention to making the sentence accurate rather than sticking links in where they don't make sense. - Nunh-huh 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia defines Evolution as a scientific theory as it adheres to the principles of the scientific method. Ergo, it is more appropriate to say that "Wikipedia presents Evolution as a Scientific Theory..." Wisdom89 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've already pointed out [1] the sentence refers to observations, not merely theory, and [2] the Wikipedia article on evolution points out that evolution is a fact, the mechanism of which is explained by the theory of evolution. WIkipedia has a whole article devoted to the distinction of the fact and the theory of evolution. So not only does the link you seek to inject make a grammatical nonsense of the sentence, it's misleading and offers no advantage over the long-standing and present wording. - Nunh-huh 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You're still missing my point. My qualm isn't regarding the distinction between fact and theory - I am well aware of the science of Evolution and quite familiar with the distinction you make. My point is that the sentence, as it currently reads, is describing the THEORY, not the FACT of evolution. It speaks about the tenets of the scientific method, which functions to build paradigms and scientific THEORIES. The term "process" is just a generic throwaway word with little substance and meaning in this context. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't miss your point, I simply disagree with your reading. Since our positions are quite clear, I suggest we wait for other opinions before going further. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the best approach Wisdom89 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you both live with the following:

One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents evolution as a scientific theory lacking support. It asserts that creationists, creation scientists and some secular science journals state that evolution is in conflict with the majority of evidence,[1] whereas Wikipedia presents the mainstream scientific viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explained by the theory of evolution.[2][3] Conservapedia also criticizes the theory of relativity, suggesting that academicians who question the theory suffer for their beliefs.[4]

The point is that Conservapedia claims evolution is only a theory (indeed, "evolution" is a redirect to "theory of evolution") while Wikipedia's article on evolution describes a process that the theory explains. Note I've deleted the reference to Newton, who certainly didn't have anything to say about Wikipedia's article. I actually think it would be best to find a secondary source describing both Conservapedia's and Wikipedia's articles about evolution rather than these summaries which border on WP:OR. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it (it's interesting that Conservapedia has "evolution" redirect to "theory of evolution", and Wikipedia has "theory of evolution" redirect to "evolution"), but there's a repetition that should be eliminated. Instead of "Wikipedia presents the mainstream scientific viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explained by the theory of evolution", perhaps "Wikipedia presents the mainstream viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explainable by scientific theory"? I agree the reference to Newton is irrelevant: in looking over Conservapedia's article on evolution, I note that they mention Newton along with such other notables as Archimedes, Aristotle, and St. Augustine as foes of evolution! Astonishing! - Nunh-huh 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia presents the mainstream viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explainable by scientific theory" - This statement is perfectly acceptable to me as well. My objection merely rested upon "evolution as a biological process" - sounds a little tame, that's all. Didn't really agree with the term "process" for the most part. And yes, the reference to Newton should be nixed. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims should be backed up with evidence


In the Conservapedia article, the claim that Conservapedia has the "stated goal" of being oriented toward right-wing Christian views is not verifiable. Anyone who bothers to visit Conservapedia and look for such a statement will come up empty-handed. It is indeed obvious that this is what Conservapedia is all about, but there is no such mission statement at Conservapedia.

Thus, the correct way to note the site's bias is to say it is "apparent" rather than to say it is a "stated" gaol, when no such statement is made. To say the goal is stated, when it seems not to be, constitutes "original research" on the part of the editor. Where does Conservapedia state such a mission?

My correction was in perfect order. Please revert your revert. --The Oracle of Podunk 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's as much about any goals Schafly may have stated in interviews, although you may be right in that I can't find any relevant quotes in the sources; he does seem to be careful to pitch it as "without left-wing bias" rather than "with right-wing bias". --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh...that's better. Thanks, Wisdom89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oracle of Podunk (talkcontribs) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"six times more liberal than the American public"

Re this change:

The cited sources do confirm that Schlafly and Conservapedia have said this. The derivation of the statistic is indeed unscientific (the words ludicrous and comical might be appropriate, too), but the cited sources do not criticize the statistic, nor do they call it "unscientific." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Oops, you're right, my apologies. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Does conservapedia have guidelines similar to wikipedia? Such as NPOV, OR, etc.? I just took a gander at their homosexuality page (hey everyone's doing it) and it is basically one huge hate crime - it repeatedly references completely discredited theories and individuals, and presents as facts almost all of the most disparaging and scientifically inaccurate anti-gay claims ever made. Other than being plain offensive, it leads me to the conclusion that they must not have any of the guidelines that wikipedia does. What exactly are their rules or guidelines, and should this be in the article here?VatoFirme (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Their official guidelines are their "commandments", as the article already says. On the other hand they clearly have a strong editorial policy enforcing US right wing conservative Christian viewpoints (see Christian right). Although this is plainly true, the article in Wikipedia is bound to Wikipedia's policies of NPOV and OR so it can only say what other sources have said about Conservapedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Useful Conservapedia" articles

The Conservapedia entry for Moustache seems minimalist and that for Pelagianism appears to contain incorrect information - and I would expect the article on Liberalism to mention Gladstone and others under the European section.

Using the "basic counting of articles" "statistical" method I used previously, Conservapedia still has a higher proportion of unsourced articles than Wikipedia. (I am not going to write the comparative statistical article mentioned above: I am just observing.)

I think "examples of blocking policies", "examples of seemingly bizarre presentations of articles" and "fallacy of 6x general American liberal bias statement" have been flagged often enough for minimal further references to the topics.

As there are repeated references on the talk page to NOR - can "the proverbial someone" do the Wikinfo article, and so resolve the issues mentioned rather than "never decreasing circles" here. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
  2. ^ "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
  3. ^ "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
  4. ^ See Conservapedia's article.