Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Blocked Domains?

I've noticed that I'm unable to access Conservapedia from my work domain (on breaks, of course). Does anyone know if Conservapedia has a policy of blocking certain domains or classes of domains (say, just to pick a random example, ".gov") entirely even from reading the site? That would be noteworthy, if true. And no, the block isn't coming from this end. If our system doesn't block access to any sites. It just puts of a warning splash page that your activity will be logged if you access anything they feel might be inappropriate.Prebys (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if Conservapedia blocks certain IPs from reading the site (editing is a whole different issue, of course), but I think this would be OR without a proper source, plus it'd be virtually impossible to get an impression of how many IPs Conservapedia prevents from accessing it (if any). --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was checking to see if anyone had any additional information on this. I was unable to find any discussion of it anywhere.Prebys (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

CP doesn't block any domain from reading it, and I doubt if anyone in a position to do it knows how. We do block (as does Wikipedia) domains and ranges from known, continual vandals. I would also point out that as someone who has been in the SES, it has been United States Government policy that employees should not access non-work related sites, even on breaks, for over 12 years. --TK-CP (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not a blanket policy on .gov domains. The official computing policy of the site in question explicitly allows "limited incidental use consistent with the computing policy on prohibited activities", where prohibited activities are the 3 P's (porn, profit, politics) or anything that consumes significant resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebys (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, this was somewhat work related. I had heard about that "political aspects of relativity" stuff and was considering whether I could work it into a public outreach talk, but the stuff about Obama is just too bizarre and the stuff about Dicke, while really funny, is a little too obscure to be of general interest.Prebys (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to view CP from the domain of my old work. Ace McWicked (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should then speak to your system administrator, not CP. If you care to pass on their phone number, I would be glad to help them. --TK-CP (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I said my old work - not my current so no need to make phone calls and it happened at a time when lots of other people, on other servers worldwide, complained of the same thing. Not that it matters now (or then for that matter) - was just commenting. Ace McWicked (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From my own personal experience Conservapedia, and TK in particular, certainly has a position of blocking without warning and on a whim. I say this because his claim that they are only in effect against "known, continuous vandals."65.94.96.61 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Should it be noted just how draconian the "rule" enforcement there is? Like alleged blocking of entire providers/domains as described here or, for example blocking for 5 years presumably because the admin thinks that "Arguecat" is a lewd name? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says so, and we can. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relativity

I don't think this story about Conservapedia's handling of Relativity has been covered in the article before, but it does seem to be hitting mainstream sources now. The link I give here is to the mainstream science magazine New Scientist. --TS 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the party, I think. :) The material was worked into the "Conflict with scientific views" section, where it's (currently) reference 42. But yes, it broke into the mainstream after some famous dude or so twittered it, I think. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre, of Bad Science. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased

The article should not be so conservative on what it says and how it says it. The way the article brushes over what conservapedia is really like, is like saying Hitler had a dissagreement with a few jews on the Hitler page.--27.33.104.83 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging from your recent edit, I can safely say that we won't go that way, sorry. Please keep in mind that we have to stick to what the sources say. Plus style issues, NPOV, encyclopedic wording, etc. So while I completely agree with your edit and your proposal, we're both bound by the various rules of this place. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but you still have to take the high ground. I've spent some time editing articles on fringe topics, and there's a Catch-22 that once something gets absurd enough, no credible person is going to go to any great lengths on analysis. For example, everyone with a science background knows that cars that run on water violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it was actually kind of hard to find a proper reference for it - precisely because it's so obvious. Likewise, when Conservapedia uses terms like "liberal gasbag Chris Matthews" on their front page, it's unlikely that, say, a university professor is going to drop what he or she is doing to write a scholarly article about its bias. Indeed they will probably assume, as many do, that it's a parody site. The best thing this article can do is lead by example. A reasonable person who compares the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia to the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia will reach the reasonable conclusion with respect to bias. If not, no amount of argument - no matter how well documented - is going to convince them.Prebys (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsection needed for their front-page political links

One very noteworthy aspect of Conservapedia is the very long list of Right Wing POV news links on the site's front page. The propaganda mission of the project is clear on from its front page, with it's constantly updated set of "spun" news snippets and links to conservative websites, etc. This aspect of Conservapedia merits coverage in this article.

Also of possible note is the mainpage-promoted link to "Bias in Wikipedia," which is permalinked in the "Popular Articles at Conservapedia" section of their front page. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss how their main page contains news items that are spun-up and serve as propaganda, we're going to need to have some good, reliable sources that have reviewed and stated this; if it merits coverage, then such sources should already be available. We can't establish such a basis ourselves, as that would be original research.

As for Conservapedia's article regarding bias in Wikipedia, we already make a slight mention of it in the section "History and overview". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of their advocacy mission, see THIS LINK for their September 2010 weekly article "Fox News and homosexuality":

"Is Fox News too liberal for you? You are going to love Conservapedia's new article: Fox News and homosexuality

"Read Conservapedia's updated Fox News and homosexuality article and discover why conservatives and conservative organizations are complaining about how Fox News is covering the homosexuality issue. Conservapedia did some additional research and the revised Fox News and homosexuality article now contains some additional information that is quite significant.

"After you read the article, call the Fox News Channel at 1-888-369-4762 and register your complaints. In addition, in light of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" event, write Glenn Beck at glennbeck@foxnews.com and tell him that some investigation and commentary needs to be done on this matter and the results of his investigation can certainly be discussed on his radio show. Consider writing Sean Hannity at hannity@foxnews.com and Mike Huckabee at huckmail@foxnews.com as well."

This sort of advocacy is endemic to the Conservapedia project. This phenomenon needs to be noted in a neutral manner in the Conservapedia article here. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral involves reliable sources noting it rather than us just noticing it. Have we got that? Dmcq (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

The article starts with "what they called the liberal bias of Wikipedia"..has even Wikipedia been subjected to the stereotype of liberal too? I mean, that sounds kind of NPOV to me. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is correct as written. That is, Andy Schlafly started Conservapedia to counter what he saw as the liberal bias in Wikipedia, and this said bias is referenced repeatedly - with absolutely no supporting evidence - throughout the Conservapedia editing guidelines. I know of no "scholarly" analysis that has identified a particular bias one way or the other in Wikipedia.Prebys (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

An editor has been sticking 'fundamentalist' into the introduction and says 'that is what they are'. That isn't a good enough reason in Wikipedia, it requires citations for descriptions. Dmcq (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) "That isn't a good enough reason in Wikipedia" Theres millions of things not referenced on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.104.83 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a few mentions:

• Conservapedia Seeks to Eliminate 'Liberal Bias' from Bible (Christian Post, apparently not in current article): "The fundamentalists behind the 'conservative, family-friendly' version of Wikipedia have launched an effort to eliminate what they see to be liberal bias within modern day Bible translations."
• The Lord's Encyclopedia (Spiegel Online, apparently not in current article): "Conservapedia is essentially the Christian fundamentalists' answer to Wikipedia."
• Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia (Heise Online, ref#6): "Offenbar haben Internetnutzer die christlich-fundamentalistische Online-Enzyklopädie heimgesucht und Beiträge verunstaltet oder parodiert." (Loose translation: "Obviously, Internet users have caused distress for the Christian-fundamentalist online encyclopedia and vandalized or parodied entries.")
• Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right (IT Wire, ref #22): "Wikipedia is 'anti-American', 'anti-Christian' and 'anti-capitalism' according to US fundamentalist Christians who have set up their own online reference site, Conservapedia, to protect themselves from the evils of the world."

So there are sourcing that back the description. But I guess the more important question here is weight. I quickly went through all references of the article, doing full-text searches for "fundamental", and this is pretty much all that came up (okay, plus one result, but that was just a side mention I didn't count). I guess it's somewhat more representative to stick with the non-fundamentalist version, but I'm inexperienced with what goes into the first paragraph and what doesn't, so I'll leave this judgment call to the others. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I mainly removed it because it just seemed an inappropriate description to me but sources are sources. I view a fundamentalist as someone who follows the teaching of their religion very zealously rather than someone who goes around changing the book and tenets of their religion to conform to something else. I'd have thought 'fundamental Conservative' would be more appropriate then 'fundamental Christian' and the Bible took second or third or a further down place. I must have a look at the parable of the Good Samaritan and see if it has been turned into a story of some liberal communist yet or does it teach us the benefits of taking out ones own health-care insurance? Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(off topic) See here. "The Good Samaritan may represent the Christian. Even when religious leaders, like the priest or Levite who passed by the hurt man, while not acknowledge a soul in despair, the Christian will. He rescues the heathan man from death on the side of the road. The Jews hated the Samaritans; they were half-breeds, a mix of Jews and Gentiles. This makes the irony greater that the Jew, robbed and beaten, was aided by a Samaritan, much like the Christians today are persecuted by God-denying heathans." ( [sic]s all round, of course)

So... there's that. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very blind I think, a more reasonable interpretation would be that the Good Samaritan might not be a Christian, they might be a 'heathen' or (God forbid) an atheist. It reads very peculiarly too the end comparing aid from a Samaritan to persecution. Yes they do have problems with that parable. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I should point out, as the article does, that Conservapedia is often subject to outside vandalism -- a steady stream of editors inserting material to produce an "over-the-top" version of what they perceive Conservapedia represents. I think you will find that "God-denying heathens" is not a common form of terminology in the site. 72.220.86.107 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps "fundamentalist" is a loaded term, and not all that well defined in this context. I would propose saying something like "Conservative Christian viewpoint, where literal interpretations of the Bible are often presented, even in matters of science". I would guess that this is the spirit of what the "fundamentalist" proponent is trying to convey, and it could be supported with numerous references to "scientific" articles within Conservapedia.Prebys (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a loaded term that requires context to be meaningful. However, I spent a few minutes looking for sources that directly support the disambiguation you propose, which I think is fine in principle, and could find none. Without an RS itself discussing literalism/presuppositionalism/etc. at Conservapedia this is just WP:OR. Nuttish (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sincere question: Is it WP:OR to give examples from within Conservapedia? For example, "Sun", "Relativity", and "Radiometric Dating" prominently feature Biblical discussions (with the latter actually using the phrase "infallible word of God", and I'm sure there are lots of others. To me, this is a reliable source to support the statement I made. Of course, the problem is that the scientific articles in Conservapedia are so laughably bad that this is often relegated to the realm of minor criticism.Prebys (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be original research. We should only be summarizing what reliable sources say about it and only mention articles that they think are notable. We can't just look through Conservapedia ourselves and pick the pages we think are interesting. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to echo what Dmcq says, that's pretty much a textbook example of original research. Our job is basically to report what reliable sources have said about CP. If a reliable source hasn't determined it worthy of coverage, then it's not something we should be looking to include. So while some of their articles which haven't received much coverage are very much anti-science e.t.c., we can't use those as examples of CP's anti-science viewpoint (or whatever), as that would be us doing our own research. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A more neutral term for "fundamentalist" is "evangelical." Carrite (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True, "fundamendalist" has become a snarl word, it's pretty loaded. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The word fundamentalist has citations and evangelical hasn't. The citations seem to refer to the Bible project rather than the whole of Conservapedia so I guess it could be pout in there. There's more than just a couple of citations so we can't just dismiss it. I feel it is misused in the context but perhaps the meaning is changing. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The word choice of "fundamentalist: should stay in the language of the article. Wikipedia lists the core beleifs of christian fundamentalism as

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
• the denial of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection

Conservapedia holds all six of these viewpoints. see http://www.conservapedia.com/God http://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism --BandrewD (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not. What you refer to, if I have found it correctly, was a section of the Christian Fundamentalism article that talked about a single document produced in 1920 by an author arguing the difference between his philosophy and the "liberal" Protestant theology of the day. It was not a definition of Fundamentalism nor was it portrayed as such. 72.220.86.107 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall this is an excellent article and has improved greatly from its earlier forms. The only difficulty that I still see is the inclusion of the Fundamentalist Christianian label as an opening paragraph definition -- which appears to be truth by proclamation. Conservapedia does not define itself that way and there are no claims to that effect from Fundamentalist denominations themselves -- only from those outside of Fundamentalist circles who self-define it in that vein. Not only are we doing a disservice to Wikipedia standards, but the article is missing the mark on this one in reality. The site creator is a Catholic and his #2 and #3 men are a lapsed Catholic and a Moonie. The primary Fundamentalist Christian editor left in March 2009 in a very public break over site direction. 72.220.86.107 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Account creation

It's fairly late here (and I'll likely be busy tomorrow), so I'll mostly post this as a request for help/comment.

I just reverted this edit (and stand by it), but now I'm not so sure about part of my edit comment: Does the article actually cover the "account creation is sometimes disabled" issue? I did remember that we used the Log-in/Register page as a reference, but then I saw that that was about the naming policy. (And I'm too tired to go through the rest of the article right now.)

The follow-up question of course is: If it's not, should we note it? Though that will most likely run into the whole "no RS covers this" issue. Any opinions on whether we can use CP as a source for something like this? We do use it occasionally already, even though I vaguely remember that this was one of those "We do, but we should try to avoid it" things...?

Any input is appreciated; I'm mostly asking for verification, not because I actually want to insert it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it would not be inappropriate to cite Conservapedia as a source. As you state, third party sources are preferred, but self-published sources suffice when they are used to verify a statement that a subject makes about themselves. If there is a page on Conservapedia in which Conservapedia states that account creation is periodically turned off, that could be used as a source to say just that. (Oh, and as far as I can tell, the article makes no mention of account creation being turned off) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In reply to 75.219.84.175, who reinstated the content that states that "Setting up a Conservapedia account is usually restriced to Administrator privilege": We're going to need a better source than Conservapedia's sign-up page. Their signup page changes from being closed to open, and vice versa, so if someone happens to go there while account creation is open, it will verify nothing for the reader - in addition, there is no mention of how account creation is usually closed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You, know there is a possibility that they may have on purpose prevented new users from being added. FortheCats (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they control it manually as far as I'm aware. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

phrasing

Not sure what "and in which attention was drawn to by a Talking Points Memo posting" is intended to mean... AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It basically means that Conservapedia's entry on relativity, upon being mentioned in a Talking Points Memo article, gained attention and some fame. I think the wording is fine (but that's because I wrote it), but just to make it more clear, I've separated the sentence into two. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Like Wikipedia, Conservapedia has talk pages for both unlocked and locked pages for people to discuss potential edits. Unfortunately, unlike Wikipedia many of the tabs leading to potential "talk pages" lead to other, insulting pages, particularly those geared towards atheism. For an example see the "talk page" of http://www.conservapedia.com/Shockofgod and in fact the "talk page" of the page supposedly the "talk page" of the aforementioned page. I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article under the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.78.250 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You might also complain about the fact that the whole page is an unabashed commercial for the channel in question. Unfortunately, like most of the stuff on Conservapedia, none of this appears to be "policy". You could do things like this on Wikipedia, but there's a critical mass of decent editors would quickly shut you down. Conservapedia has a relatively small number of editors, and they all think exactly alike, so a lot of really ludicrous stuff gets through. It's frustrating, I know.Prebys (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's editorial policy is surprisingly(?) sloppy and heavily biased in favor of admins, and some articles are indeed nothing but attacks on atheists/liberals/etc. or advertisements for Christians/conservatives/etc. But little of this is covered in Reliable Sources. So unless those sources turn up (which is... extremely unlikely at this point), inserting this into the article is pretty much a no-go, I'm afraid. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very eccentric page organization but it isn't mentioned in reliable sources. If this article started writing up all the little foibles of Conservapedia it would quickly fill up with original research and so we won't be covering this unless somebody writes a mainstream media commentary that gives this practice considerable prominence. --TS 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Parody Site?

I have heard accusations that Conservapedia is actually a parody, not a real online encyclopedia. Blkgardner (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's quite real. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Poe's Law applies. The founder is Andrew Schlafly who is the very real son of the famous anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly. --TS 13:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Poe's Law applies to parodies, of which Conservapedia is not.

-Sublime Satire (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But the converse of Poe's Law can apply just the same. As Poe's Law goes, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." Likewise, it is impossible to create the real thing without somebody mistaking it as a parody; there's no reason that Poe's Law is one-way street. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The likewise does not follow, that is invalid logic. The correct inverse is if no-one would mistake a site for the real thing then it is not a parody of fundamentalism. There is no implication that it is impossible to create the real thing without someone mistaking it for a parody. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I would think that Poe's Law is basically indicating that parodies of fundamentalism and fundamentalism itself are indistinguishable. So I don't see how switching fundamentalism and parodies of fundamentalism wouldn't hold true if the two are indistinguishable from each other. But either way, I think I'm thinking too much into this... ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Account creation

I've removed the following paragraph from the History and overview section

On November 01, 2010, Conservapedia shut down its open account creation policy. Site owner Andrew Schlafly posted a message to the Main Page, requesting aspiring editors to send an e-mail message in order to be granted editing rights.

We don't know if this really means account creation has been disabled, or if it's just an alternative means of getting an account. I'm not sure if anyone at RationalWiki has actually investigated this or if everyone's just assuming that account creation is now disabled completely, but in any case that would be OR until we can get a reliable source. -- Nx / talk 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had an edit reverted about this. Surely this belongs in the article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep removing and re-adding it according to CP's latest update, be my guest, but I don't see what purpose it serves. However, using CP's own login page fails WP:PRIMARY, which I'm keen on sticking to for that article, to stop it turning into WIGO CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What belongs in the article is not my previous edit, but rather information that states: they often disable account creation altogether. — Timneu22 · talk 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you a citation for that? Plus the argument above 'Surely this belongs to the article' just sounds like argument by exhortation to me. It doesn't seem to be a feature of the site that secondary sources have picked up on. Their front page is acceptable as a primary source without secondary support or reference but I really don't see that needing email to register as a notable feature of it. It's just a piece of news about the site they're passing on. That they disable account creation often doesn't even rise to that level that I know of. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite unwikilike, and since there's already a section on differences from wikipedia, why wouldn't this be added? — Timneu22 · talk 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all wikis are open, so "being unwikilike" doesn't apply. You still haven't addressed the WP:PRIMARY point. We can't just put any old thing in without a reliable, third-party source, and you haven't provided one. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't preach to me about WP:RS. In this case it seems the site itself is the source? Sometimes the primary source is the source. If their site says "we sometimes lock down account creation", then they do. — Timneu22 · talk 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The big problem here isn't whether it is a reliable source, but of WP:Original research. It is a primary source. It can be used to back up something a secondary source has said, but picking out pages from Conservapedia just because you think they are interesting or comparing them with Wikipedia is original research. Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is quickly becoming as comical as Conservapedia itself. The login page is already cited as a source. Frankly, I don't care any more. It should be in there with the other Wikipedia differences. Why on earth is there a debate? — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, why are we referring to the login page or quoting things from it? The things that are there don't sound like the sort of stuff anybody has remarked on, it sounds like what some wikipedia policy geek was interested in and no-one else. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian terminology in article

I am concerned that various editors have used words like "evangelical," "fundamentalist," and especially capital-F "Fundamentalist" with a lack of precision. Those words quite simply don't mean "anyone who is a political conservative and a self-identified Christian." Insofar as Conservapedianity resembles any mainstream form of Christianity at all, that form of Christianity is Catholicism. Also, real evangelicals and fundamentalists are aghast at the site's attitude toward Biblical authority and inerrancy. 68.84.6.2 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The words were in reliable sources, that's why they are used. Personally I'd disagree with some of the descriptions but putting in our own views would be WP:Original research. Summarizing what others say is the way Wikipedia works - see WP:5P for a basic introduction. Otherwise it would just be people here arguing their opinions against each other - not that that doesn't happen quite a lot anyway! Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your saying Conservapedia resembling Catholicism, that doesn't nowadays reject scientific findings the way Conservapedia does. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential resource

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/08/17/2740506/einstein-jewish-liberal-conspiracy-andrew-schlafly

Cross posted at talk:Andrew Schlafly. Huw Powell (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything particular in the article that you'd like to point to? Conservapedia and their relation with the theory of relativity is already mentioned at the bottom of the section "Conflict with scientific views", and I think much of what is covered in the linked JTA article is already covered here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Add more footnotes, perhaps, to our content? Darn, now I have to read it again to answer your provocative question! Huw Powell (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This new piece makes the connection between "liberal conspiracy" and "Jewish science." Is this worth putting in? Is the JTA being unreasonable? If so, is it up to us to judge what criticisms are reasonable and can be included, and which are not (and can't)? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth putting in. It is just smearing by association, the Conservapedia crowd say enough silly things without making up more. It might be worth putting in an article about denial of relativity somewhere what with the Deutsche Physik crowd as well. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's not worth putting in. As far as I can tell, the only way that the connection is produced is that the article states that the Nazis dismissed Einstein's theory as "Jewish science" in the past, and today it is being rejected by Andy as a liberal conspiracy. There's no direct relatedness or anything. Schlafly isn't a Nazi, and he rejects the idea for completely different reasons than what the Nazis rejected it for. The mentioning of the Nazis is nothing more than a brief history lesson on the background of the rejection of the theory. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I really have to re-read it. I thought they did more than throw a Godwin at Andy/CP; calling CP a "blog", mentioning the Gish Gallop, etc. Although those examples probably aren't usefully incorporatable... Huw Powell (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

View of liberals

In February 2009 the Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly made this opening paragraph to http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal: "A liberal is a person who's views reject logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing." [1] More than 200 edits later, many of them by Conservapedia administrators, it has only been reworded slightly to the current version: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." Should we quote the article as Conservapedia's view of liberals? It wasn't some random editor who just added something that didn't get noticed. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Has the conservapedia idea of liberals been reported in a reliable source? If so I think it would be okay to refer to the conservapedia page as a primary source. Otherwise it would be original research from trawling through the site. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of Google hits on "logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons" Conservapedia. Most are selfpublished but there are also some reliable sources. Leonard Pitts, winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, said "You may judge Conservapedia's own bias by reading its definition of liberal". His commentary was brought in more than one reliable source: [2] is in The Press of Atlantic City and [3] in The Baltimore Sun. Carrie Quinlan quoted the first sentence in The Guardian [4] and contrasted it to Wikipedia's "Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom". The sources don't mention (I guess they didn't knew) that it was added by the founder Schlafly, but if we cite the reliable sources then I think it would be OK to also cite the page history afterwards to show who added it which seems relevant here. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good enough to me. Dmcq (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

403 error?

Resolved

 – Access now working again

I get a 403 error when I go to the front page. Is the site actually operational? Exxolon (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It goes down for short periods sometimes. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon: You're not alone. Several IP ranges (yes, including mine) appear to have been blacklisted, so that they get this 403 error. If you for some reason still want to access it, google up a proxy (just be aware that your account may be banned if you actually edit through one - "using anonymous proxy" is one of their ban reasons, after all, and they apparently use CheckUser on a regular basis).

And before anybody asks the obvious question: All of this has little to no impact on the article since the site is still running and since no reliable source took note of this (yet?). I'm also currently not aware of any CP sysop commenting on this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Try again now. Looks like they situation has been fixed/resolved/undone (it's working for me and others again at least). --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, working okay now. Thanks everyone for checking. Exxolon (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal bias

I see that liberal bias redirects to media bias and someone wanted to put in socially liberal bias still redirecting to media bias. Does Liberal bias really mean this? And do we have evidence this is what conservapedia means by liberal bias? In this it does not really matter whether it is actually true or not of Wikipedia, just is the article 'media bias' a reasonable description of its subject and is it a reasonable approximation of what Conservapedia mean about Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that redirect isn't ideal for this situation. I've modified the wikilink to be "liberal bias in Wikipedia", which redirects to Criticism of Wikipedia#Liberal bias. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Completely off-topic discussion about matters internal to RationalWiki and unrelated to any attempts to improve the present article. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to ask for block log cleansing on other wikis, especially not on non-WMF-wikis. And doing so on an article talk page is beyond absurd. Hans Adler 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was just reading through random pages in Wikipedia when I realized the edit by 74.92.159.213 had been reverted. Why revert an edit on the talk page? Not only is the an unnecessary action against freedom of speech, but appears to attempt to hide bad consequences of Conservapedia. An explanation should be available by whoever was responsible. the edit summery given in the revert seems only valid for articles, not talk pages. I've seen the F-word a exceeding large number of times in the talk page which calmly remain undisturbed, and there better be an extraordinary explanation for this revert.173.180.214.13 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I removed the comment mainly due to the fact that the comment contained accusations and derogatory labeling. Accusing people of being murders is nothing to be taking lightly, especially when they are not so. That's called libel and does not belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. Beyond that, Wikipedia should not be the place to assign blame in anger, especially when it is unconfirmed and speculated. It's not directly in line with improving the article (which is the purpose of talk pages) and causes arguments and other undesirable problems. Regarding your point about swearing, generally uncivil messages that aren't derogatory comments directed to other users are generally left be, as it is not particularly hurting anyone, and removing it in a heated discussion would simply make things more heated. As for freedom of speech, if you are using it in the legal sense, it only applies to the government. There is no such thing as a right to free speech on Wikipedia. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Yah well I just got blocked at Rationalwiki with the implication I somehow was involved in the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in Arizona. [5] And Rationalwiki is considered a reputable enough critic that they are afforded a subheading in this article. RobSmith, aka nobs (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Okay...what's your point and what does it have to do with the article? RationalWiki is in the article because it's creation and coverage has to do with Conservapedia as has been covered in at least one reliable, published source. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC) There seems to be an extended discussion about CP's blocking policy that recently found its way to Jimbo Wales talk page. A Rationalwiki bureaucrat, for no other reason than my association with the Conservapedia project, blocked me as an immediate response to the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in Arizona and posted an edit summary as such. Why is a biased and agenda driven organization such as Rationalwiki, whose own founders voted to deleted Wikipedia's article about Rationalwiki, allowed to promote itself as a viable critic of Conservapedia in this article? nobs (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Well, the editor was messing around, considering that they unblocked you two minutes later with the summary, "Ah, that felt good. Now back to sanity" (though I do think it is a joke in bad taste and that it shouldn't have been done, even as a joke). But that's beside the point. Like I said, RationalWiki is included in the article because it has been covered in at least one reliable source regarding its relatedness to Conservapedia, including how it was founded and events that have taken place between RationalWiki and Conservapedia since. The nature of the site doesn't matter (one could easily argue that Conservapedia is biased and agenda driven just the same), and the fact that RationalWiki is not notable enough for its own article does not mean that it is not notable enough for mention in other articles. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) By the way, would you mind linking me to the discussion you were referring to at the beginning of your post? I'd imagine that it's this one, but I am not sure, especially since the related discussion on Jimbo's talk page was not about CP's blocking policy at all, but rather, the discussion itself. If it is that discussion, I removed it several days ago for reasons that I have explained in my first reply of this section. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) For the record I was blocked for several hours and, using the new recourse proceedures at RW:LegalFAQ, got timely action from one of the sites founders. Here's a continuation of that discussion [6] but contains many extraneous and emotionally charged arguments. nobs (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Nobs, at the risk of another rambling non-sequitur, why exactly are you discussing RW business on WP? Especially as you and TK are so vociferous about not having CP business discussed on WP. I'm not sure why you're still whining about it either, as you've been unblocked. And no, it has no relevance to the article. Psygremlin (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Here's several reasons to question why Rationalwiki is promoted as a viable critic of Conservapedia with its own subheading in this article: Rationalwiki does not meet WP standards of notability. Rationalwiki's founders voted to delete and merge WP's entry on Rationalwiki. Rationalwiki, which claims to have a "Rationalwiki point of view", without evidence blamed Sarah Palin for yeserday's tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gifford. [7] A Rationalwiki bureaucrat, citing the shooting of Conresswoman Gifford, blamed me and blocked me. There was no discussion of the shooting even going on at the time. Given this mere superficial evidence, how does RW qualify as a reputable source and critic? nobs (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, let's answer your questions one-by-one Rationalwiki is not quoted directly as offering criticism of CP. Rather the statements are taken from the LA Times article. The LA Times is notable, thus your point is false. (or are you going to go through the song and dance of having the LA Times declared non-notable again?) I'm not sure what you point is here. Has nothing to do with the CP article. Has no relevance to the CP article. Has no relevance to the CP article. So, does that answer your questions? Nowhere is RW being cited directly as a notable source. Give it up Nobs. Psygremlin (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Then delete, merge, or rename the Rationalwiki subheading (and Peter Lipson cannot be used as a subhead, that has been determined in Archived discussion). Why did RW founders vote to delete & merge WP's entry on Rationalwiki? my guess is they wanted to avoid independent and NPOV scrutiny from non-Rationalwiki editors. nobs (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)! Someone remind me of the definition of insanity again? 188.95.42.176 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Nobs, get over yourself. The RW article was deleted because - as you said - we are not notable as per WP's guidelines. Unless we are being quoted by a notable source, of course. Also, show me a) where Lipson is used as a sub-heading and b) where is was "determined" in the archive. You still haven't explained why the Rationalwiki heading should be "deleted, merged, or renamed," given that the earlier points you raised have no relevance to the article in question. Seriously, are you really going to go down the same road you and TK did last year? Psygremlin (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Rob Smith wasn't blocked for hours and I sincerely doubt he even noticed either block he received on the 8th quickly enough to email the RW legal address before I unblocked him the second time. He spent a total of about 12 minutes blocked yesterday. Nuttish (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC) TK protested his outing here & at RW, and probably didn't handle it well. He had little to do with my efforts to improve this article at that time. Rationalwiki is cited directly twice, and the language is acceptable in compromise & consensus, though Stephanie Simon of the LA Times was hoaxed by Rationalwiki founders & editors, and her article does contain errors. It still does not make sense to elevate Rationalwiki alongside Jimbo Wales in the subsection on Reception. And Rationalwiki editors also were active as parodists and sockpuppets in the Richard Lenski matter, as well as the so-called U.S. Senate "hit list". None of that has undergone independent or NPOV scrutiny from WP editors (who are not also RW editors). As to my recent block at Rationalwiki after being accused by a Rationalwiki bureaucrat of being involved in the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, User:Tmtoulous finally unblocked my after about three hours, and I thank him for it. Too, bad, open discussion could have helped save them the embarassment to thier credibility. And this comes on the heals of another RW editor here in WP last week calling CP sysops "murderers". nobs (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC) None of this belongs on this talk page. I suspect nobs realizes it and is trolling, but what else would one expect from the Conservapedia crowd. But to clear one thing up, from the RationalWiki block log it appears one User:RobSmith was blocked for a total of 16 minutes on Jan. 3 (11 + 5), 2 minutes on Jan. 8, and 10 minutes on Jan. 9, which is the total of all blocks this year. So if nobs is indeed RobSmith, this talk about being blocked for hours is a lie. No reason to believe anything else he says either. -R. fiend (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC) To clarify the block issue, Rob was blocked and unblocked within minutes, however, the sysops that blocked him forget to undue the IP block. I game in a few hours later and undid that. So everyone is right, Rob was blocked for a few hours but it was an oversite/mistake, and the administrator thought they had unblocked him a few minutes later. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Let's oversight the "miswording" in the blocklog and forget it then, nuffsaid? nobs (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Registration

I consider it worth noting that it is no longer possible to register an account on Conservapedia. This should be made reference to within the article. --86.177.59.139 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says this and maybe it can go in. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, they're "merely" switching account creation on and off as they please. Right now it seems to be on again, and the user creation log shows some activity. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They do not allow registration. This should be noted in the article. Even if they just turn it on and off, it is noteworthy. It is a closed system where only a few editors post the bulk of inaccurate information up there. - Sean Townsend

Have you a WP:reliable source describing this? Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say, this has been brought up repeatedly here. It's clear that this is the process on their site. How can the site not be a source for this? Is it safe to say that conservapedia's logo is a circle with a flag in it, and the word "conservapedia" over it? I mean, if it's not written anywhere, how can we be sure this is the case? Well... we can all see it! I agree here with Sean (but am bewildered about the "murder" claim below) that it is indeed noteworthy, as this isn't truly wiki-like. There's already a wiki differences section. Just add it. — Timneu22 · talk 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be considered original research and would not be acceptable. We can't take the experiences that users have reported on this talk page or take the results of our own analyses of Conservapedia and turn that into material for the article. Sure, it might be worth noting, but we simply cannot include it unless it can be sourced. Stating that Conservapedia is a closed system run by a few editors and simply citing "Conservapedia" as our source simply wouldn't work (unless, of course, they themselves claim that they are a closed system run by a few editors, but they don't). Yes, you'd be using "Conservapedia" as a source of your information, but that information would be developed based on your own analysis, and that can't be used. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the closed system, I'm just talking about the fact that they don't freely allow logins. Again, tell me how one would describe their logo without citing their logo. — Timneu22 · talk 11:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:verifiability is what's required, not 'fact' or 'truth'. The logo is not described, an illustration is given. But anyway the front page can be used as a primary source. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that this information is very relevant to the article, finding a reliable source that will address it is going to be pretty hard due to the limited coverage of that website.

And yes, I know Wikipedia relies on WP:V but the fact that you cannot create an account is simply verified by directing your browser to www.conservapedia.com

I think this is one of the instances where common WP:SENSE could be applied harmlessly.

Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.

Nonetheless, this is just one guy's opinion, you might want to get a broader set of opinions by posting this question on theWP:RSN. Likeminas (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me what's being asked here is if we could apply Ignore all rules in this instance. Is it important enough and obvious enough for that? Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're exactly the same policy.

Is it important enough? Sure, most Wikis (if not all) are open for any internet user to edit. Conservapedia isn't.

Omitting that information because a source like the NY Times is not reporting it, would be detrimental to the project. In other words If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it Likeminas (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't include this information. It's a WP:OR problem. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we rely primarily on secondary sources and sometimes on primary sources for our information. If a reliable 3rd party source reported that registration had been disabled we could include it. If Conservapedia itself reported on it's own website that registration had been disabled we might be able to include it. Anecdoctal evidence from editors is just not good enough when it comes to verifying this. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Conservapedia itself is being used as a primary reference for sources 1,3,17,19,22,24,27.....among others. I decided to go back to Conservapedia and see if somewhere in their website they had something about it. And guess what? They reinstated open account creation. I can only assume the good folks at Conservapedia must be reading this page because this morning it wasn't like that.

Anyway, I guess this settles the issue.Likeminas (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They turn this on and off. That's what's important enough to cover. And like you said, we already use their site as a source. — Timneu22 · talk 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We only use their site as a source when they talk about themselves. For example, our article states the following:

"Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages."

In such a case, we cite Conservapedia as a source because they themselves reported it. That's the only way we can use sites as sources about themselves - when they are giving information about themselves. Check out WP:ABOUTSELF. Using their site as a source for how account creation works would not qualify, as you'd be researching and finding a conclusion yourself about how Conservapedia's account creation works. Yes, you'd be using their website, but no, you would not be using Conservapedia's text itself as a source, but rather, you own conclusion upon viewing it. We would only be able to use, as Exxolon said, Conservapedia as a source only if they themselves report on their own website that registration is enabled and disabled day by day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on; now we're taking OR a little too far. If account registration is erratic (which I've noticed is the case), we can state as much. The purpose of OR is to keep out useless noise and other fringe bullshit; if something is right in front of our faces, there's no reason not to mention it. Like Timneu22 says above, just stick it in and be done with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose it is not documented and it would have to be extremely important indeed to do silly messing around. It just simply isn't that important. Doing anything on these lines is original research. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, OR doesn't require us to stop using our heads. Someone mentioned above exactly why it is important; that it's one of, if not the only wiki that does this. And it's really not that hard to verify that this is the case; this is the equivalent of calling it OR to say that Wikipedia consistently allows account registration. I won't get into a policy discussion here, but I think that's a very fundamentalist interpretation of OR, and ignores the spirit of it (which I said above). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of websites, including Wikipedia, have down periods or limited functionality sometimes, usually due to technical problems or limitations. Conservapedia doesn't work for me at all for the last days, maybe because my IP is non-American but that's just speculation. And many wikis don't allow passers-by to create accounts on their own, for example [8][9][10]. If reliable sources haven't discussed why or called their account creation "erratic" then neither should we. I don't see a good reason to mention Conservapedia's account creation system if reliable sources haven't done it. Some editors may think it tells something about the editing policy of the site but speculating about that would be original research. And I don't think we should present selected information ignored by reliable sources in the hope that readers will make negative speculation about the subject. There are plenty of reliable sources making negative statements about Conservapedia. The article doesn't have to make innuendoes about their account system to make them sound bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A word about OR: easily-verifiable things do *not* need to be cited. This is very clearly stated in WP:V, another pillar of Wikipedia. The current status of whether or not one can create an account at Conservapedia requires no reference, because the way to verify this is fairly obvious. HOWEVER, commentary regarding them "switching account creation on and off as they please" DOES require a reference, since historical behavior is not easily verified. Now, whether or not the current ability to create an account is notable is another discussion entirely. There's my 2 cents. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, but would like to add to the first part of your comment regarding WP:V: It is true that easily-verifiable things do not need to be cited in the article itself, but WP:V also states that reliable published sources must exist for all material, regardless if the source appears in the article or not. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that stating: "new users may find that registration is restricted from time to time, or entirely from their IP due to extensive rangeblocks." Without any editorial comment is entirely acceptably neutral. It is patently true, and factually and neutrally states the situation. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this factoid? I feel a {{citation needed}} coming on. Why is it felt so important to stick something like this in if nobody in the outer world seems interested? t is just something editors here have some sort of bee about. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, it's notable because this isn't typical wiki behavior. Are you seriously speaking on behalf of the whole world? They don't find this important? — Timneu22 · talk 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No I don't find it particularly interesting, especially not interesting enough to warrant use of WP:Ignore all rules. If you find a reliable source that says something about it then I'll agree that people outside Wikipedia might be vaguely interested. Otherwise I get the feeling if it was somehow in an article people would just skip over it blankly. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite outnumbered here. But based on your attitude, you certainly must be correct. — Timneu22 · talk 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

By my count, five users have expressed their opposition by citing Wikipedia policy, while no more than six have expressed support, if you include the discussion starter. It's pretty even. Either way, we shouldn't base the "winner" off of pure poll numbers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Superhamster pointed out to me that WP:V states that all material in WP should have a reliable source. I raised an eyebrow; that's not how I understood it, nor was I sure that I agreed. Then I read this phrase in WP:V#Reliable sources and original research: "Wikipedia must never be a first publisher." Then it made sense to me. And it makes sense, imho, to not be the first publisher for this particular factoid. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there's a small edit back-and-forth (I wouldn't call it "war" yet) over this, I'll briefly list my reason for reverting the addition: Even ignoring WP policy questions (which I'm too lazy to read into at the moment), things aren't quite as clear to me as some portray them:

1. The main page blurb doesn't say that you must contact the mail address to get an account. It says "Email us at conservapedia@zoho.com to request an account.", not "You cannot make an account without applying at conservapedia@zoho.com first". This makes some sense as the site flips registration on and off, so my reading is that people can send a mail to get an account without having to wait for a registration window. Also, the Login/Register pages say nothing about having to apply first.
2. Registration is currently enabled and thus free-for-all by default. For example, StatDorf made an account, started editing, interacted with a sysop and wasn't banned. There is no indicator that he had to apply first. If you look through the user creation log, you will see several people who simply made accounts and edited without being banned.

I currently see no reason to assume that you cannot make an account at CP without applying first, so stating otherwise simply strikes me as incorrect. However, there is the possibility that I'm the one who misinterpreted things. So how about we just ask a CP sysop to comment on the current state of affairs? Not as a source for the article, but to get some clarity about what the actual situation is before we worry about article inclusion. In my eyes, Ed Poor would be a good candidate since he is a Senior Administrator who is also somewhat active at Wikipedia. We could poke him on his talk page here, for example. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked a sysop on his WP talk page but received no response. Their admins seem to be unwilling to divulge any information. — Timneu22 · talk 22:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor doesn't like being asked about other places he's on, so that one's out. What about nobs or TK-CP? Although I really don't see how it would help the article any. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that people have been banned under the reason "must register by email" or something along those lines, I think this is pretty safe to include. Yaksar (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's a policy change on CP or not. Unless you can cite a reliable source commentating on it, it's seen as original research and thus can't be included in the article. Psygremlin (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly think it could qualify as original research if there's citable evidence on the site itself? Yaksar (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody noted it in a secondary source. Somebody here found it by looking at the site and saying, "oh that's interesting". That's original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 January 2011

But by that logic, if, say, google posted about a change they were making, or whitehouse.gov posted about cosmetic changes to their website, these would be considered unciteable? Yaksar (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the examples that you state, those sources would be considered citable, as we are allowed to use self-published and questionable sources for information about themselves. So if Conservapedia were to "officially" announce somewhere (such as on a policy page) that users must email them to join Conservapedia, then that could be used as a source. However, if it is just "evidence" that is being cited, that would be original research. In the case of citing a block log, I think that it's pretty borderline. In the end, though, I think that it still wouldn't count as an appropriate source, as an administrator's block isn't an officially published source by Conservapedia, especially since users seem to be signing up without emailing Conservapedia first and are not being explicitly blocked for not doing so. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But the homepage clearly says "Email us at conservapedia@zoho.com to request an account." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So they don't in fact say you have to email them if you want an account?, that makes this whole discussion rather moot. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that's somewhat implied, especially since people have been banned for not doing so (yes some have slipped through the cracks, but that is not to surprising with this site.) Yaksar (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Although there's any easy way to test this: someone should just try making an account and making some edits without emailing them. Yaksar (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Material Disappearing

Would any admin care to comment on the reason why properly-cited material about a CP admin has been removed from the page, and its entire edit history? --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific, do you mean the article or the discussion? What was the topic? when was the stuff put in? Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article. It used to contain the name of a CP admin mentioned in the LA Times article. I don't know exactly when it was added, but I'm fairly sure it was on there for at least the last 18 months. I'm not going to name anybody just in case it's been oversighted and there's a valid reason. This seems to relate to a previous discussion on this page about the LA Times article not being notable in an attempt to get this name removed, and the deletion seems to have occurred just as other deletions of similar material are happening elsewhere on the Internet. Sorry to sound so vague, but as I say, there might be a valid reason. I'd like to know what it might be though. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. It seems I was experiencing a false memory (along with others!) and that the material to which I was alluding was never actually on the article. Sorry for wasting your time, Dmcq. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is the bit just stuck in I can't really see that it was worth losing any sleep over, seems crufty to me, but I'll leave it since you seem so enamoured of it. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the lede

I added this in response to the "lead too short" tag:

Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: advocacy for Young Earth creationism, negative accusations against President Barack Obama, criticism of Albert Einstein and relativity, and claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer. Conservapedia also operates a "Conservative Bible Project", a conservative re-interpretation of the Bible.

This is based on the sourced content in the rest of the article. Feel free to expand on this/improve more. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me Andrew. Beach drifter (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i might point out that Conservapedia is also quite ideological regarding feminism. this can be verified by visiting their page. here is a link: http://www.conservapedia.com/Feminism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarofalbany (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia a joke?

Discussion unrelated to improving the article Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Conservapedia a joke? It certainly seems like one. I looked up "Evolution" and most of what they had there was nonsense. They claimed the earth was 6000 years old. I can't believe that they're so closed minded to the scientific evidence staring at them from all sides...[[[Special:Contributions/155.136.80.37|155.136.80.37]] (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC) No it is not a joke. Questions should be asked at one of the desks at Wikipedia:Reference desk as this page is for discussion about improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, it's a joke. Congratulations. You got it. Nuttish (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Not intended as a joke but their article on dinosaurs had me in stitches.--Charles (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) They do seem to have some level of racism, they are anti-atheist, I might have seen some signs of anti-Islam. They are also against Homosexuals and Bisexuals. 70.233.92.33 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Lanigan, Damian. "Conservapedia's gay obsession." The Telegraph. November 22, 2007.
• An alternate link for the simon article: Simon, Stephanie. "Conservapedia: online reference that's read from right to right." Los Angeles Times at Seattle Times. Saturday June 23, 2007.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That first one looks more like a blog to me, it's not a newspaperman. Do they have editorial control over those pages? Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Just checked with the Telegraph and the blogs on their site seem to come from the My Telegraph site, where the system is moderation by flagging.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checked on the second link, and I'm afraid it won't work as an alternate link for the Stephanie Simon article at the LA Tiems. Superficially it looks like the same article, but it has been pruned in places and sometimes quite severely. Better to stick with the original source, not a derived clone where the redaction of material could have altered the reading of the original article.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

C'mon people, SOURCES!

I can't stand Conservapedia any more than the next guy (proudly blocked since April 2007) but you can't use sources like Conservaleaks and RationalWiki. These just don't even approach meeting WP:RS. Edit-warring a change into an article after it has been objected to ([11][12]) is out-of-bounds behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of edit warring without proper justification. The original edit was removed because no source was provided; I provided one. That's not edit warring. If you don't think that an email from the site's owner is a reliable source, fine, but remember NPA and AGF when saying so. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was certainly better than adding it back with a "citation needed" tag, which was what the first restoration did.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Limited Membership and Bias

i went to the conservapedia to become a member and they wouldn't even allow me to create an account. I think this is an obvious attempt to keep people of differing opinions out. i have also noticed that their site has many conservative bias and doesn't have nearly as many topics as wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarofalbany (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Account creation is switched on and off as the admins see fit. You could send an application to their mail address, of course (it's not widely advertised, I admit: Look for it at the bottom of the left column of the main page - happy scrolling).

Also keep in mind that this talk page is about improving the article, so this isn't the place for original research or speculation about motivation. If there are reliable sources about the quality/quantity of CP articles compared to WP, we can talk more about this. :) --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is one function of fascism, so it really shouldn't be a surprise. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is brought up repeatedly on this talk page: they turn registration on/off from time to time. There's even a discussion about this point above. No one will allow this to be presented in the article, though, because everyone's experience on CP is considered original research. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was usually switched off by admin TK (User:TK-CP), who switched it off in December and (I understand) passed away on Dec 17. No-one has seen fit to switch it back on again since - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I missed that. How did you find out about that? That's sad to hear. I disagreed a lot with TK but enjoyed chatting with him. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The blow-by-blow account of how we figured it out is here, but basically social security death index, and then verification from local authorities. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I encountered heavy resistance on Conservapedia when I tried to cite articles detailing scientific evidence for evolution. I mean, the name of the site admits that their purpose is to be biased, but I was still a little surprised when I got my editing privileges revoked for citing a scientific experiment... Makes me very grateful for Wiki.

Also, I apparently got banned by Andy Schlafly himself. Kind of an honor. The Cap'n (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add information on Conservapedia currently blocking large ranges of IP addresses from accessing their website, but it seems Rationalwiki is not considered an appropriate source (though I actually have "original research" on this subject, ie. most of Finland seems to be blocked). Having this information included in the editorial policies would make sense, what would be an appropriate method of including it? – OttoMäkelä (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You can stick it in when some newspaper writes about it. Not before. See WP:Reliable sources. Set up a blog if you really feel an urge to publicise information like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. We all know that is Conservapedia range-blocking actions are true, we don't have to be bigger Catholics than pope. It is not a gossip or a fact that is hard to prove. Europeans for weeks can't access Conservapedia.-- Bojan  Talk  09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

They've blocked several IP ranges on the server itself. See this. Probably still doesn't count as a Reliable Source though. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Britain's blocked. Although that's perhaps not surprising, since according to Rationalwiki the use of British spelling itself indicates a liberal bias. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you thought it couldn't be done, but...some spelling is ant-conservative! (Although, irony upon irony, the American spellings are an evolution of the original British ones, and thus inherently more liberal an interpretation than the British versions...) BlackMarlin (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The only semi-reliable source I've found is this, a blog at the London Review of Books. Doubt if it's usable though. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

I am a Conservapedia under the same name but I am unable to view the site. Is it down? Does anyone know why I keep getting a page that says "Forbidden"? Does anyone know how I can contact Conservapedia? Thanks. MaxFletcher (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See above discussion about IP rangeblocks restricting access to the site... yep, even to view it. --Canttaketheskyfromme (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But I have been viewing and editing for a week, why have the restricted me now? Is there anyway I contact them? MaxFletcher (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to Email an admin to get a block lifted, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. The official advice is to "Email cpwebmasterconservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.". I'm not sure if that address is still active, or if it is, if they even bother to check it, but it's worth a shot. Just be realistic in your expectations (i.e. nothing) --Canttaketheskyfromme (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. MaxFletcher (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So one can't even view it if rangeblocked and can't see who blocked you or where to write? That's a good one LOL (That's "laughs out loud" for sheltered Conservapedia readers). I think that's worth telling some guy in the media and then we'll be able to write about it ;-) Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am getting no answer from that email provided, does anyone have any other email address I can use. You can email me. MaxFletcher (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq: It's not a MediaWiki rangeblock, but a server one, so yeah, you just get a 403 and that's it. Max: You can use a proxy (for example one of the ones listed on Proxy.org) to view CP and find a mail address or use the CP mail system to send a plea to Andy. But do not edit using a proxy (or if you do, disclose that and why you do so). Alternatively, you can send a mail to conservapediazoho.com or aschlaflyaol.com (before privacy objections come up: Both mail addresses are listed openly on CP as contact addresses). --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, my problem has been solved. MaxFletcher (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this appropriate talk page discussion? Mr. Anon515 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussion related to improving the article, no. However, since this is a problem that is hitting quite a few IP ranges (and thus several Wikipedians) by now, I'd suggest that instead of deleting or force-archiving this section, we just collapse it with this summary/note: "Users who are getting 403 Forbidden errors should contact conservapediazoho.com for support". Does this sound like an acceptable compromise? --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm blocked from even accessing their pages now. And I was going to look up their atheism and obesity page which seems to be doing the rounds. :) I wonder what on earth is up with them because at this rate soon they'll eliminate all access. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was reading a news article about Gen. Benjamin F. Butler and decided to check it out on Conservapedia. I got on and when I tried to search it dumped me. Now when I try to get on the Conservapedia link it says no broadband link.Mylittlezach (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look around with Google to try and figure what's happened to them and it looks like some gits are doing a denial of service attack [13]. I do hope thay manage to get their act together and get the site up again soon, I am most definitely against such attacks. By the way Google prompted me with the following on the left under something different 'uncyclopedia, encyclopedia dramatica, citizendium, wookieepedia, wikileaks'. Do Google really choose these things just with some algorithm, I'm amazed, it seems to summarize them so well. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And I finally got around to looking at the RationalWiki article on Conservapedia and according to that Andy Schlafly started a deliberate policy in December 2010 to block all foreign access to Conservapedia [14]. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You can assume any high profile site will be under some sort of cyber attack at all times. Somehow most manage to survive it without blocking entire ranges of IP's. When you add all foreign IP's to the growing list of domestic IP's that are blocked, pretty soon only Conservapedia's own editors will be able to read it - which might be better for everyone. Is there really no RS on all this stuff? I know, for example that all the IP's from my workplace are blocked, and I'm certainly in the US last time I checked.Prebys (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Alexa [15] they are not suffering at all from all the blocks they're doing and may be gaining. Your coming here indicates your workplace is probably a den of liberals unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite .... lacking significant moral restraints. So no great loss there to them ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At less than three pageviews per user and an average time-on-site of under two minutes, I think that terms like "suffering" or "gaining" are relatively useless - they are pretty much dead in the water, with or without 403-blocks. (Not that I really care about Alexa.)

And bringing this a bit more on-topic re: article improvement: I don't know of any RS for this. Keep in mind that the widening 403 blocking is a somewhat recent measure, may not be permanent, and requires a big-picture look at a site that is less than a minor blip on any reliable source's radar. If somebody wanted to write about CP, they'd either get the site and write about it, or they'd get a 403 and assume it's just broken. In general, unless something big happens (on par with Lenski or the Bible Project), I wouldn't hold my breath. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm from India, and I've been getting this 403 message for quite some time now. I used to get it before as well, but then it went away for a while. Now that it's returned, it doesn't show any signs of leaving anytime soon. All this even though I managed to create an account and write an article on Time Cube (which was subsequently deleted as I "violated copyright" by copying from you guys). Is this a recurring thing, or what? Ilov90210 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath. It looks like they are chopping off all access from outside the United States as part of a deliberate policy. They are only interested in the US and see anybody outside as just a potential source of vandalism. You're welcome to write in as explained earlier in this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The site's up and running, but my account has been perma-banned for "liberal trolling" by the same admin who deleted my article. He also blocked my e-mail. Real mature, Andy, we're all REALLY proud of you! Ilov90210 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about Conservapedia. This comment doesn't even add value to the article, because this blocking behavior is well-known and well-documented. Perhaps you're thinking of a different webpage. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationalwiki section issue

Thought I'd bring this to talk since it's not a clear cut question...

In the section on RationalWiki, it states:

"RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire.[16]:4"

The source indicated does state this. However, the (probably unintended) implication is that Rationalwiki is adding those specific edits. I don't think that was the intent of the source, and I think it's mostly an issue with poor writing on that particular piece. However, reading it out of content, one gets a bit of an implication that RW is leaving porn all over Conservepedia. It's falls a bit afoul of guilt by association (RW is vandalizing, some people who vandalize leave porn, therefore RW leaves porn).

Given that the sentence preceding the bit above also says they have admitted to cybervandalism, and that the general vandalism is discussed elsewhere, I think we can probably ditch this bit. Thoughts? Jbower47 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The point is already made in the earlier sentence. I'll remove that statement. 120.56.175.8 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has reverted the removal, and while I don't quite agree with the revert summary, I think the revert itself was acceptable - at least at this time. The RW section has been a bit of a battlefield focus point in the history of this article, so I'd suggest waiting for more user input first to get consensus. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We also have to consider the point that we have to go by what the LA Times article says, not what we think it meant. I don't agree with that bit either but WP:NOR trumps what we'd like to say instead. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the most recent discussion regarding this topic was this reliable sources noticeboard discussion that I initiated a while back. The current wording regarding the bit about RationalWiki and vandalism is the result of that (rather short) discussion, and were this topic to be brought up again at the noticeboard for outside views, I'm sure that consensus wouldn't be any different now than it was before. So I say leave it as is. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(this is jbower47, not signed in, sorry) I'm not suggesting we try to guess what the source is saying. I think it's clear what the source is saying. I think the exact wording of the quote is oddly made, and what I'm concerned about is the implication (unintended by the source) that is drawn from the syntax, not the content. Given that there is duplication of that statement (as indicated above), perhaps the best approach is simply to paraphrase, keeping the meaning, but eliminating the potential misinterpretations based on the poor wording. I respect the precedent of previous discussions, but they are certainly not the last word on things. Topics can be discussed again, and consensus can change. I'm happy to wait for more user input. But regardless of interpretations, there is redundancy in the statements as they exist. For that reason alone, it would seem prudent to trim.204.65.34.189 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)