Talk:Conservapedia

Comedy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Others have had the same idea, the problem being that writing about what you find amusing about Conservapedia's bigoted articles would constitute original research, and so would not be appropriate for inclusion here. What's needed is a reliable source (a third-party account) detailing the general hilarity that ensues upon reading said articles. And you're unlikely to find such a source, because almost no one has written about Conservapedia other than at its founding; it's not on anyone's radar screen. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is now on everyone's radar, as Stephen Colbert just targeted it. Expect a plethora of third party references of its entertainment value within the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.142.14 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) it was on one of those Cracked lists a few months ago, but that's worth a passing mention at most, if even worth putting in at all. Meanwhile, the usual comedy/satire sites are available, and there's a whole website out there dedicated to laughing at CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I wish i could say yes.. see the "evolution" and "liberal" articles on their website.. have a good laugh. <tommy> (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) there's a third party account of humourous conservapedia articles on rationalwiki. i could write one as well ;) 92.12.95.57 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I found an article on Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news But please, find some more, and stop this nonsense! It should be clearly stated on wikipedia, that conservapedia is a joke! 95.176.155.96 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC) No need, stating something is a 'joke' in any way is blatant bias, despite my personal convictions. Jacotto (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) They will make a joke out of themselves, no need to state it in the article; besides, doing so, would not be appropriate. Tommy talk 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Conservapedia is a horrible website. They do not try to inform their readers of the truth, rather the ignorance of right wing fanaticals who want nothing more than to destroy America. If is ran by a bunch of whiny republicans who people are just getting sick and tired of hearing from. Why can't they move on and try to help America succeed instead of trying to hold us back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.83.134 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't agree with anything on Conservapedia but i don't think we should treat it as a joke. These people seriously believe this stuff. Let's not make this paragraph on Conservapedia about Wikipedia true "Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia[14] with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia" However this is one of the most stupid things i have ever read on the internet "Alma mater normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. [28] However, at Wikipedia, the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. [29] Sean Hannity attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashorrobin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) {outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research

Hello everyone (if that is your real name),

I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.

If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another unrelated incident of original research

Regarding this edit by Ttiotsw (talk · contribs): (rv, for us to compare the two policies is WP:OR. Find a WP:RS that says this.) How many comparison pages on Wikipedia might be deleted under such an interpretation of WP:OR? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:OR also fails WP:COI. As an editor on WP then you have a clear WP:COI to compare the policies on a system that you are an editor of with the competitor system. Again, let someone else comment about this commonality of policy. Then you can add that in and ref that 3rd party. That so other stuff exists isn't never usually a good reason to justify edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the forum shopping. I tend to do it when I feel confused about the intent of a policy, especially if the policy appears to have ramifications that cover far more than one article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points I think should be resolved

It appears as if there are several editors here who seem to have a conflict of interest who are editing. I don't mean any prejudice to TK-CP, but as he claims to be an administrator of Conservapedia, I don't think it is wise for him to actively edit this article. Similarly, there are a couple of editors who have identified on Wikipedia that they are members of RationalWiki, which is a site that is generally opposed to Conservapedia. I do not think these editors should actively edit this article either. I do not mean any prejudice to these editors as well.

As far as any allegations concerning Conservapedia, if it is not reliably sourced, it must be removed from the article and if it violates BLP, the revision should be requested deleted. Sourcing from either Conservapedia or RationalWiki is not reliable for this article.

My own personal opinion is I do not find any administrator on Conservapedia, aside from Andrew Schlafly, (or his or her actions) to be notable yet. This includes TK of Conservapedia.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.

Lulaq (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that CP & RW editors should not edit the article - that would leave very few people to do so, given the obscurity of the subject matter. However, when RW or CP editors do work on this article, they should do so in accordance with WP guidelines, verifying all points from a reliable secondary source, as noted above. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article about Conservapedia isn't the place to pursue vendettas. It's for verifiable NPOV info about CP, & its talk page is for discussion of the article content only. Anyone editing the article who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at another wiki with an ax to grind against Conservapedia, or who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at Conservapedia should, in all fairness, disclose their positions up front, so other Wikipedia editors, sysops and the public can view their edits in context of their affiliation. That is why I disclosed my Conservapedia connection up-front, and have not actively edited the article, other than to reverse a change made by a Sysop from another site actively opposed to CP's existence.

Editors here at Wikipedia should not be pursued on their talk pages to answer for actions taken someplace other than on Wikipedia, and those are the rules of Wikipedia. --TK-CP (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, yet you pursue vendettas. Arguing that someone's position elsewhere "at a vandal site" is also pursuing vendettas. You haven't disclosed your CP connection any more than others here have disclosed their affiliations elsewhere.

No one at RW wants to see CP go away; it's full of laughs and facepalmery. But for Wikipedia, the goal is to be factual and not present opinion or false pretenses in any article. I opened the discussion with evidence to support my case. You attacked anyone from RW and said they had a personal axe to grind, but never defended your position. The unsourced and untrue portion has already been stripped out of the article. If you want WP to state that the CCs are the true guidelines of CP, there must be a verifiable, unbiased source stating so (which would also mean that the CCs, not the admins' whims, should be the true guidelines).

Since you were the one who declared that the admins, not the CCs, set the policy at CP, it would be inappropriate for you to try to state otherwise here, or try to change the article. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If talk pages are meant to discuss article content only (as it indeed happens to be the policy here), what does it matter who discusses the facts, and what does it matter what they do in their spare time? Either the facts people want to introduce to the articles fit Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, or it doesn't - who adds that information is completely irrelevant. This is incidentally why the conflict of interest policy doesn't prohibit editing in COI situations; if material is acceptable for inclusion, then it is acceptable for inclusion even if the editor who adds it has a conflict of interest. COI policy also says "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" - that is, if you're genuinely working to improve Wikipedia, your outside interests are of no consequence, but if your outside interests are stronger, then you darn well should disclose that fact. So people aren't required to reveal their affiliations unless they're clearly advancing their own interests and not Wikipedia's. Also, assuming good faith is policy too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people have 'pet interests' - and will develop the articles in those areas; and some people with strong viewpoints that could amount to COI #in particular areas# can be neutral elsewhere - or 'able and willing' to develop the articles in question without overly pressing their viewpoint.

Conservapedia is in 'the category of topics' which arouses strong viewpoints for and (several angles of) against - and the talk pages of which are likely to develop into discussion forums on the merits or otherwise of the subject and other editors, proponents and straw persons involved or assumed to be involved in the discussion, and 'a chorus of so what' among passers-by. Jackiespeel (Talk) 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages shouldn't develop into discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the subject: they are discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the article content. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Project section

I don't see why this section is included in an article on Conservapedia, instead of being in an article of its own (possibly with a "see also" link). Only toward the end of the section is the slightest (and it is slight, as of today) connection between the two mentioned (and it may be a mistake: "Conservapedia Bible"). It seems that somebody desperately wanted to say something about the CBP, but didn't have a better place to put it, so dumped it here. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be because the project is part of Conservapedia? It's all being done on-site, it's not a separate project. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The CPB, in my opinion, is not important enough to have an article of its own. Having it as a section in the Conservapedia article is the perfect place. Keegscee (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When CBP was first publicised, someone made an article about it. Someone slapped it with CSD A7. I merged it to this article because it's part of Conservapedia and edited by Conservapedia users; discussing it is appropriate in this article because that particular sub-project has gotten some media attention. Even so, it's a bit hard to explain why it would desperately need to be split into an article of its own in its current state. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make more sense where it is. If it gets larger we can split it off but right now it is well within reasonable section size. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about Conservapedia's Theory of Relativity criticisms

I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this. If it is not, let me know. It’s about conservapedia’s criticisms against Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I’m familiar with objections against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I’ve never seen objections against Relativity, so this is pretty new for me. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't the right place, which would probably be the Wikipedia science reference desk or Rationalwiki's WIGO talk page, so feel free to ask there for more complete explanations. But to answer your question: no, none of their objections to relativity are valid; some are based on a naïve and invincably ignorant confusion of "relativity" and "relativism", and they are the decidedly idiosyncratic products of Andy Schlafley's brain, whose own brother has tried to convince him—without success—of their stupidity, and how foolish espousing them makes him seem. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked my question to Rationalwiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Relativity denial is rarer than other pseudoscience movements, but it does exist. I cannot provide a reference other than reading sci.physics for a long time, but a number of people seem to have an axe to grind either against the theory itself, or against Albert Einstein as a person. The former seems to stem from a desire to vindicate Newton's laws or absolute coordinates, which are befouled by the new physics. The latter phenomenon I do not understand. Note that Conservapedia seems to provide examples of each.

You will notice upon inspection of the CP article on relativity that the authors make value judgments based on divergence from Newtonian physics, which is apparently assumed to be the "right" or "true" case. For example, alleged counterexample no. 5 is simply the fact that relativity makes a different prediction, which is therefore regarded as illogical.

For this reason I feel that CP's stance on relativity/Einstein deserves its own distinct paragraph, as it is one of several major areas of scientific dispute on that site along with creationism. Indeed, it may be to be one of the main reasons for Conservapedia, as Schlafly seems to take a keen interest in this subject and his list of grievances with Wikipedia includes a vague complaint about insufficient rigor in mathematical physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.203.7 (talk • contribs)

While I would love to see some of Andy's assertions (like the one about Jesus' healing at a distance disproving relativity, which is the current #9 point and which was even in the initial version written by Andy) highlighted in the article here, the general principle is that such stuff needs reliable sources that say so before it can move beyond the side note it currently is. You find those and we can talk. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, perhaps the correct solution is for interested people to write a separate article on relativity denial as a movement, of which Conservapedia is one small facet. Specific details regarding Conservapedia's arguments may have little value here, but would be relevant there. We would then keep the relativity issue confined to a sentence or two here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.249.43 (talk • contribs)

To write an article on the relativity denial movement, you would still need reliable sources. (I genuinely don't even know if there is such a movement. All I ever saw were random individuals claiming to have disproved it, so maybe I missed something? Thus I wouldn't know if such an article would meet the Notability and what-else-not rules.) Including CP in such an article would still be problematic because no reliable source covers its relativity-denial (from what I can recall right now) and because CP itself is not a reliable source.

Even here in the article about CP, this stance is only mentioned in passing in the larger context of its religion/science views (and I think people already complained that the article links too much to CP and not enough to outside sources or something?). On an article not about CP, you would most definitely need a reliable source to back your inclusion of CP material, especially because CP is not a major player in any sense (their three major media events were its creation, the Lenski mess and the Conservative Bible Project). They don't even have any real influence in their flagship fields, so what influence do they have there? What serious relativity-denier would say "Indeed! When Jesus healed the guy at a distance, he disproved relativity!"? They're only part of the movement by making the same basic claim, but that's it.

But kudos for thinking outside the box! And as a disclaimer: I'm no sysop, senior editor or even active contributor here, so my posts aren't exactly Word Of God, and it's entirely possible that any minute now, some senior/sysop will come in and say "No, you're wrong, Sid." --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link that lists some websites out there that are critical of Relativity. I hope this can be of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how - they're about relativity, not conservapedia. remember this talk page isn't a forum about Conservapedia, but a page for discussing how to improve the article, and this whole relativity thread isn't doing that. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Schafly

Does anyone else think that Andrew Schafly warrants a seperate page because I believe he is noteworthy enough to warrant one. Typing in his name will redirect here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He used to I think, but since this is the only notable thing he has ever done I guess we just moved all his information to here. I Feel Tired (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

When he does something different from CP (or it becomes a lot more important than it is now) then it'll be worth having an article on him. In the meantime there are several informative articles in regards to Andrew Schlafly highly ranked on a search engine near you. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This search engine wouldn't begin with "g", would it? -R. fiend (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen! Fribbler (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"far right"

Conservapedia is far-right, stop removing that comment. Communists are far-left; I doubt any of them would object to being called that, so what's the big deal? If conservapedia isn't far right, nothing is.