Also regardin the Lenski dialog: CP sent a letter to PNAS, requesting a review of Lenski's results. a transcript can be found at Wikisource [1]. I think this is also worth mentioning. Diego_pmc Talk 11:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the fact that Barack Obama is listed under "Muslims" (and an explicit statement of Obama's supposed Muslim beliefs) was placed on the talk page by Schlafly would be a good example of the site's political ideology. I'm confused with the formatting issues involved in citing this, else I would do it myself. CopaceticThought ( talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Would this video originally broadcast on The Hour be suitable for inclusion as an External Link? Diego_pmc Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact I believe his page would become a vandal magnet, I do think that we should make a page on Andrew Schlafly himself. Some of his achivements include
Additional input is welcomed, and I look forward to the community consenseus (damn, I hate spelling...) Javascap ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a brief, one-paragraph biography of Schlafly in this article's History section? It would mention who his parents are, his run for Congress, his AAPS work, and finally his teaching, which led to the founding of CP. Fishal ( talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Around May 2008, 7 of the top 10 popular pages of Conservapedia were homosexuality-related. | ” |
This is just hearsay; perhaps someone else can find a reliable source. I am pretty sure that the hilarious Statistics page screenshot of Conservapedia (showing 7 of the top 10 most popular pages as relating to Homosexuality) was created by some prankster using a web-bot to inflate page views. « plushpuffin ( talk// contribs) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
How about we do this: Instead of citing the sources for authoritative statements, we can say something along the lines of: "A number of blogs have stated that 7 out of the top 10 mostly viewed articles on Conservapedia deal with homosexuality. Other blog writers have questioned the veracity of this claim." ... This is probably not the perfect language, but by acknowledging in the main text that we're talking about blogs, I don't think we need to worry about WP:V, since we're not citing them for an absolute authoritative proposition but merely for a summary of what they say about Conservapedia. What do you guys think? Idag ( talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Per NPOV, the see-also section of a page is not to be used for editorial comments. The reference to Poe's Law, given as "Without a blatant indicator such as a smiley, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof," does not add anything to this article -- except support for Mr. Schlafly's argument that Wikipedia is a liberal website in which neither conservatives nor conservative arguments can get a fair hearing. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia; let's try to stay that way. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states:
Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor, criticize, and often lampoon Conservapedia.
However, the LA Times article, A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia, states:
After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.
And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.
In recent months, Conservapedia’s articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: “Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants.”
The vandalism aims “to cause people to say, ‘That Conservapedia is just wacko,’ ” said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.
The wikipedia article does not seem to line up with the source. Or is there another source that got deleted? Meanwhile, I changed the article to match the LA Times source. The wording could probably be better, though, so feel free to help me out here. Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Was Conservapedia's role in the Lenski dialog covered by any mainstream press? Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added a source which cites Conservapedia's assertion that Obama may be the first Muslim president of the US if elected. I'd like to try to gain some consensus about whether this link belongs here or not.-- ParisianBlade ( talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
After reading the post-Election Obama page, I'm convinced that Schlafly is having a nervous breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.234.228 ( talk) 20:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
On the evolution page it has a picture of Hitler at the top some quotes from Mein Kempf and an out of context quote from Dawkins that made it seem like he supported Hitler. Is this appropriate for the article or not? Father Time89 ( talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JoshuaZ. That cyber-vandalism was orchestrated by rationalwiki per the LA Times source Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia. This meets WP:V (verifiability).
After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.( Simon 2008).
Thanks. Ann arbor street ( talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFCbio}}
Should "Several editors including Lipson started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they criticize, lampoon Conservapedia and organize cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia." be striken, reworded, or left as an accurate summary of an LA Times article? Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to WikipediaLos Angelous Times Ann arbor street ( talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I decided to Be Bold and change the RationalWiki article back into a redirect to this page, although I agree with an above post that it should redirect to a different section (not "Science and Religion"). Fishal ( talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Exactly: RW simply is not notable enough (and more importantly, does not have enough sources about it) to have an article of its own. And its link would not be as a source - it's not a source on anything; it really is more of a community of sarcastic people from all I've seen. But I think everyone agrees it warrants a mention. I think that a link is natural if it is mentioned, but then, Nunh-huh makes a good point that it could be seen as unnecissarily promoting the site. I'm willing to concede that a link is not called for, but I believe RW should still be mentioned as a fairly notable response site to Conservapedia. Fishal ( talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Instead of stating that Lipson and other editors personally organize vandalism of Conservapedia as though this is common knowledge, I think a better solution would be to say - According to the LA Times, "(Lipson and the other editors) by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber vandalism".
In other words, include the quote about Lipson and cyber vandalism in the article, but present it strictly as a claim by the LA Times rather than a well-known fact.-- ParisianBlade ( talk) 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I know conservapedia has too many unintentionally hilarious articles to mention them all, but I think some comment on Barack Obama is called for. Almost the whole article is an attack, with most of it claiming he is a Muslim. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, I have read the aforementioned article on conservapedia myself and I agree with you that the article is an attack, and most of it is purely paranoid speculation; but I don't think it holds merit to be included in the wikipedia article. It has been mentioned that conservapedia is right-wing, and that is enough information.
If you are still interested in the finer moments of the Conservapedia experience, be sure not to miss gems such as 'liberal friendship' and 'overcoming homosexuality'. I would also encourage wikists not to get too wound up about Conservapedia - it is really just another attack site, which uses wiki clothing. I back this statement up from the gatherings of Conservapedia itself which indulges the reader that not all its pages have legitmate content. Joshgreenw00d —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC).
Some of the articles border on the libellous - and "politically incorrect" directs to politically correct. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
A reminder that this isn't a discussion forum about Conservapedia. This is for improving the Conservapedia article... JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, none of the proposed edits violate Wikipedia policy. I will address your arguments one at a time
I noticed this too. I also noticed that Rene Descartes was listed as an atheist. Most of the Muslims were terrorists (eg; Osama bin Laden), whilst most atheists seemed to be vile dictators like Stalin. This has to be the funniest 'encyclopedia' I've ever seen! :-) The flying pasty ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
At this point one certainly can't register for an account, only log in. Too much vandalism?
I defend this on the grounds that their editorial practices are newsworthy - do they need to be included in the article? That's for other users to decide. Jezze ( talk) 09:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I got banned when I signed up a long time ago so it doesn't surprise me that they are still blocking outside opinion. Also damn near every article is only editable by administrators.-- WhereAmI ( talk) 07:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski shortly mentioned CP's article on atheism (their article of the year), describing it as "wide-ranging". [7] Is this good for inclusion in the Reactions section? Diego_pmc Talk 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident Vunecal212 ( talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I did'nt see this "also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam." But i think it should be explicitly said that they used to report or still do acts of vandalism to the FBI. Considering its a crappy website that nobody looks at and wikipedia, one of the most popular websites ever just leaves a note on the vandals talk page saying use the sandbox if you wanna try stuff out i think its definantly worth mentioning. Vunecal212 ( talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that's how he promotes himself, but the man has no creditionals to call himself a teacher. SirChuckB ( talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(Anon comment removed to end of thread: Talk:Conservapedia#...And_another_thing TheresaWilson ( talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I see! Whereas the point of this thread--or of this section-is a bunch of Liberals arguing about just how right-wing Conservapedia is--is it really fanatical or just a little fanatical? hmmm--I'm going all off topic and pointing out how futile and contradictory it is for a bunch of Liberals to go around arguing how right-wing a site is, so they can keep a neutral POV in an article that is an obvious attack piece from top to bottom, and that furthermore is subject to an interested party, in that it is critical of Wikipedia. I get it now. --Submitted for the approval of Ms. Wilson: just, esteemed, and renowned sage of relevancy and propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanematches ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, instead of "attack piece", I will say "defense piece". My main beef with the article in and of itself is that it takes Conservapedia's admittedly wacky views on certain things to 11 while downplaying its criticisms of Wikipedia in the main article, only mentioning 3 of about 105. Focusing on the most extreme and absurd portions of Conservapedia w/o dealing with its raison d' etre qualifies as bias in my book.
On the rest, I will defer to Ms. Wilson & co and apologize. My beefs with Wiki in general--the main problem is that it can cite the SPLC and other bogus institutions as a legitimate source of scholarship and info, and that these errors always tend towards the Left--are not relevant here. I would edit the article except that I feel it is poorly organized and requires a complete overhaul, and that I'm not qualified to and have no inclination towards deleting the work of other people and substituting my own; that is, I lack the imperious pretensions of several Wiki editors. ˜˜˜˜
I have undone an edit by an anon editor (68.236.194.181) who replaced Right Wing with Conservative. I think that this was unjustified as CP is extremely to the right of any Conservative I've ever met. I can't produce a reference so may be wrong. TheresaWilson ( talk) 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(left indent) They are clearly to the right of main stream conservatives. Even Limbaugh won't go so far as to call Obama a Muslim socialist who uses mind control. Maybe we could use the term "far-right"? Idag ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest understanding the difference between the words: "Conservative/Right Wing" and "Religious" as the left conflates the two. To begin with, this sentence towards the bottom of the page: "and has also seen it as part of a trend of new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch" SHOULD have the word "religious" substituted for "conservative". This is a Young Earth Creationist website, NOT a Right Wing/Conservative website. To use an analogy, imagine that an extreme vegan/environmentalist organization got ahold of the domain "Liberalopedia.com" and published bizarre and ridiculous articles about how humans, industrialization, meat eating and free markets must be destroyed by any means possible. Should a conservative be scratching his head over calling that site Liberal or Left-Wing? Call it what it is: Young Earth Creationist; I'm a conservative and they have no problem deleting my edits! - Templar January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.237.62 ( talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Republicans have nearly destroyed the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative", in the US at least. If radical reactionaries are "Conservatives", what can we call conservatives? -- Ampwright ( talk) 17:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Also regardin the Lenski dialog: CP sent a letter to PNAS, requesting a review of Lenski's results. a transcript can be found at Wikisource [1]. I think this is also worth mentioning. Diego_pmc Talk 11:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the fact that Barack Obama is listed under "Muslims" (and an explicit statement of Obama's supposed Muslim beliefs) was placed on the talk page by Schlafly would be a good example of the site's political ideology. I'm confused with the formatting issues involved in citing this, else I would do it myself. CopaceticThought ( talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Would this video originally broadcast on The Hour be suitable for inclusion as an External Link? Diego_pmc Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact I believe his page would become a vandal magnet, I do think that we should make a page on Andrew Schlafly himself. Some of his achivements include
Additional input is welcomed, and I look forward to the community consenseus (damn, I hate spelling...) Javascap ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a brief, one-paragraph biography of Schlafly in this article's History section? It would mention who his parents are, his run for Congress, his AAPS work, and finally his teaching, which led to the founding of CP. Fishal ( talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Around May 2008, 7 of the top 10 popular pages of Conservapedia were homosexuality-related. | ” |
This is just hearsay; perhaps someone else can find a reliable source. I am pretty sure that the hilarious Statistics page screenshot of Conservapedia (showing 7 of the top 10 most popular pages as relating to Homosexuality) was created by some prankster using a web-bot to inflate page views. « plushpuffin ( talk// contribs) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
How about we do this: Instead of citing the sources for authoritative statements, we can say something along the lines of: "A number of blogs have stated that 7 out of the top 10 mostly viewed articles on Conservapedia deal with homosexuality. Other blog writers have questioned the veracity of this claim." ... This is probably not the perfect language, but by acknowledging in the main text that we're talking about blogs, I don't think we need to worry about WP:V, since we're not citing them for an absolute authoritative proposition but merely for a summary of what they say about Conservapedia. What do you guys think? Idag ( talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Per NPOV, the see-also section of a page is not to be used for editorial comments. The reference to Poe's Law, given as "Without a blatant indicator such as a smiley, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof," does not add anything to this article -- except support for Mr. Schlafly's argument that Wikipedia is a liberal website in which neither conservatives nor conservative arguments can get a fair hearing. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia; let's try to stay that way. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states:
Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor, criticize, and often lampoon Conservapedia.
However, the LA Times article, A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia, states:
After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.
And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.
In recent months, Conservapedia’s articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: “Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants.”
The vandalism aims “to cause people to say, ‘That Conservapedia is just wacko,’ ” said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.
The wikipedia article does not seem to line up with the source. Or is there another source that got deleted? Meanwhile, I changed the article to match the LA Times source. The wording could probably be better, though, so feel free to help me out here. Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Was Conservapedia's role in the Lenski dialog covered by any mainstream press? Ann arbor street ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added a source which cites Conservapedia's assertion that Obama may be the first Muslim president of the US if elected. I'd like to try to gain some consensus about whether this link belongs here or not.-- ParisianBlade ( talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
After reading the post-Election Obama page, I'm convinced that Schlafly is having a nervous breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.234.228 ( talk) 20:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
On the evolution page it has a picture of Hitler at the top some quotes from Mein Kempf and an out of context quote from Dawkins that made it seem like he supported Hitler. Is this appropriate for the article or not? Father Time89 ( talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JoshuaZ. That cyber-vandalism was orchestrated by rationalwiki per the LA Times source Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia. This meets WP:V (verifiability).
After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.( Simon 2008).
Thanks. Ann arbor street ( talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFCbio}}
Should "Several editors including Lipson started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they criticize, lampoon Conservapedia and organize cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia." be striken, reworded, or left as an accurate summary of an LA Times article? Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to WikipediaLos Angelous Times Ann arbor street ( talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I decided to Be Bold and change the RationalWiki article back into a redirect to this page, although I agree with an above post that it should redirect to a different section (not "Science and Religion"). Fishal ( talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Exactly: RW simply is not notable enough (and more importantly, does not have enough sources about it) to have an article of its own. And its link would not be as a source - it's not a source on anything; it really is more of a community of sarcastic people from all I've seen. But I think everyone agrees it warrants a mention. I think that a link is natural if it is mentioned, but then, Nunh-huh makes a good point that it could be seen as unnecissarily promoting the site. I'm willing to concede that a link is not called for, but I believe RW should still be mentioned as a fairly notable response site to Conservapedia. Fishal ( talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Instead of stating that Lipson and other editors personally organize vandalism of Conservapedia as though this is common knowledge, I think a better solution would be to say - According to the LA Times, "(Lipson and the other editors) by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber vandalism".
In other words, include the quote about Lipson and cyber vandalism in the article, but present it strictly as a claim by the LA Times rather than a well-known fact.-- ParisianBlade ( talk) 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I know conservapedia has too many unintentionally hilarious articles to mention them all, but I think some comment on Barack Obama is called for. Almost the whole article is an attack, with most of it claiming he is a Muslim. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, I have read the aforementioned article on conservapedia myself and I agree with you that the article is an attack, and most of it is purely paranoid speculation; but I don't think it holds merit to be included in the wikipedia article. It has been mentioned that conservapedia is right-wing, and that is enough information.
If you are still interested in the finer moments of the Conservapedia experience, be sure not to miss gems such as 'liberal friendship' and 'overcoming homosexuality'. I would also encourage wikists not to get too wound up about Conservapedia - it is really just another attack site, which uses wiki clothing. I back this statement up from the gatherings of Conservapedia itself which indulges the reader that not all its pages have legitmate content. Joshgreenw00d —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC).
Some of the articles border on the libellous - and "politically incorrect" directs to politically correct. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
A reminder that this isn't a discussion forum about Conservapedia. This is for improving the Conservapedia article... JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, none of the proposed edits violate Wikipedia policy. I will address your arguments one at a time
I noticed this too. I also noticed that Rene Descartes was listed as an atheist. Most of the Muslims were terrorists (eg; Osama bin Laden), whilst most atheists seemed to be vile dictators like Stalin. This has to be the funniest 'encyclopedia' I've ever seen! :-) The flying pasty ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
At this point one certainly can't register for an account, only log in. Too much vandalism?
I defend this on the grounds that their editorial practices are newsworthy - do they need to be included in the article? That's for other users to decide. Jezze ( talk) 09:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I got banned when I signed up a long time ago so it doesn't surprise me that they are still blocking outside opinion. Also damn near every article is only editable by administrators.-- WhereAmI ( talk) 07:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski shortly mentioned CP's article on atheism (their article of the year), describing it as "wide-ranging". [7] Is this good for inclusion in the Reactions section? Diego_pmc Talk 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident Vunecal212 ( talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I did'nt see this "also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam." But i think it should be explicitly said that they used to report or still do acts of vandalism to the FBI. Considering its a crappy website that nobody looks at and wikipedia, one of the most popular websites ever just leaves a note on the vandals talk page saying use the sandbox if you wanna try stuff out i think its definantly worth mentioning. Vunecal212 ( talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that's how he promotes himself, but the man has no creditionals to call himself a teacher. SirChuckB ( talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(Anon comment removed to end of thread: Talk:Conservapedia#...And_another_thing TheresaWilson ( talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I see! Whereas the point of this thread--or of this section-is a bunch of Liberals arguing about just how right-wing Conservapedia is--is it really fanatical or just a little fanatical? hmmm--I'm going all off topic and pointing out how futile and contradictory it is for a bunch of Liberals to go around arguing how right-wing a site is, so they can keep a neutral POV in an article that is an obvious attack piece from top to bottom, and that furthermore is subject to an interested party, in that it is critical of Wikipedia. I get it now. --Submitted for the approval of Ms. Wilson: just, esteemed, and renowned sage of relevancy and propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanematches ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, instead of "attack piece", I will say "defense piece". My main beef with the article in and of itself is that it takes Conservapedia's admittedly wacky views on certain things to 11 while downplaying its criticisms of Wikipedia in the main article, only mentioning 3 of about 105. Focusing on the most extreme and absurd portions of Conservapedia w/o dealing with its raison d' etre qualifies as bias in my book.
On the rest, I will defer to Ms. Wilson & co and apologize. My beefs with Wiki in general--the main problem is that it can cite the SPLC and other bogus institutions as a legitimate source of scholarship and info, and that these errors always tend towards the Left--are not relevant here. I would edit the article except that I feel it is poorly organized and requires a complete overhaul, and that I'm not qualified to and have no inclination towards deleting the work of other people and substituting my own; that is, I lack the imperious pretensions of several Wiki editors. ˜˜˜˜
I have undone an edit by an anon editor (68.236.194.181) who replaced Right Wing with Conservative. I think that this was unjustified as CP is extremely to the right of any Conservative I've ever met. I can't produce a reference so may be wrong. TheresaWilson ( talk) 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
(left indent) They are clearly to the right of main stream conservatives. Even Limbaugh won't go so far as to call Obama a Muslim socialist who uses mind control. Maybe we could use the term "far-right"? Idag ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest understanding the difference between the words: "Conservative/Right Wing" and "Religious" as the left conflates the two. To begin with, this sentence towards the bottom of the page: "and has also seen it as part of a trend of new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch" SHOULD have the word "religious" substituted for "conservative". This is a Young Earth Creationist website, NOT a Right Wing/Conservative website. To use an analogy, imagine that an extreme vegan/environmentalist organization got ahold of the domain "Liberalopedia.com" and published bizarre and ridiculous articles about how humans, industrialization, meat eating and free markets must be destroyed by any means possible. Should a conservative be scratching his head over calling that site Liberal or Left-Wing? Call it what it is: Young Earth Creationist; I'm a conservative and they have no problem deleting my edits! - Templar January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.237.62 ( talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Republicans have nearly destroyed the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative", in the US at least. If radical reactionaries are "Conservatives", what can we call conservatives? -- Ampwright ( talk) 17:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)