On Dec. 13, Andy Schlafly added to the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page that this article "conceals" how CP is an educational resource. Thoughts? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess either Schlafly either is willfully ignorant or has a low level of reading comprehension - something we wouldn't want to find in a lawyer (especially if he attended Harvard!) I guess we can move on to more important matters now. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed two attempts to describe the "Educational resource" aspect of Conservapedia. [1] [2]
They both contained non-neutral language and seemed to amount to critiques of the website.
There is also a minor problem with presenting anything about a website on the say-so of its authors. The time to write significant content about this would be when we have information about it from a reliable source. Until then such time as that happens we should include perhaps a single sentence to the effect that the website also hosts courses. -- TS 04:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate the removal of some aspects of the bits I wrote, but I think it was unnecessary to remove it all. The points regarding the marking were based upon statistics which can easily be calculated from the website itself, and I would think it a very significant point that the average mark is in the high 90s with no one scoring below 90%. I think this marking despite obvious errors etc is a point of note no matter what your opinion of the subject matter itself. I think anyone who has ever been to school will easily identify that the questions asked are meant to be essay questions, and the factual errors in the lectures themselves are self-evident, with the example I provided being one of them. I will repost the section, but I will delete the aspects that for now I think may be more questionable, at least in terms of sourcing. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jammy07 (
talk •
contribs)
Well in that case I'll be sure to look at RationalWiki, but I think the material I added regarding the courses is appropriate given the claims Conservapedia makes to be an educational resource. The grade inflation is obvious, all I actually did was state the statistics and not that this was in fact grade inflation, that can be left for readers to determine, especially since the link is provided. Additional sources seem unnecessary for what is a statistical fact that can be found on the website itself. I can perhaps appreciate the need for extra sources for my other two main points, especially to one highlighting the lack of scientific understanding shown by that example from the lectures, and I shall try and provide a good ref for that soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems an odd policy that statistics derived directly from the website itself, without any actual mention of personal opinion of grade inflation, require additional references which will simply be someone else's opinion that there is in fact grade inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure this is not a bad parody/spoof site? The Barack Obama article boggles the mind. [Per the "right-wing debate"] were the "criminally misinformed" members of the the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 even allowed a seat? Redthoreau( talk)RT 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlike Wikipedia which is 42% libertarian, 40% socialist/liberal/democrat, and 8% conservative, at least conservapedia isn't disproportionately liberal like this site is. Oh another statistic that is irrefutable: wikipedians are 8 times more atheistic than the rest of the general population. Yea, there's some bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 09:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite apart from Benjamin Disraeli's comment on statistics - what definitions of liberal and conservative are being used? Given that Wikipedia's contributors come from "a large variety" of countries, cultures, and professions, most statistics beyond "higher degree of literacy, relevant computer skills and "use and interpretation of knowledge" than the average population are likely to be meaningless. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A reminder that this page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing Conservapedia or Wikipedia and certainly not for religious debate. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the "main issues" WP users have with Conservapedia have been repeatedly aired on the talk page.
Possibly some discussion could be decanted to the Wikinfo pages concerned with Conservapedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
could we add "sexist" to young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian? looking for a source. obvious from original research, but i need a source (check out the differing tests for andy's student's exams on conservapedia, for example, girls get easier exams than boys)-- Mongreilf ( talk) 07:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got an IP ban from conservapedia for the reason that I tried to make a reasoned and loigical argument that Obama was not a Muslim and I got an infinite IP ban. Is there any case to have something said about moderation and censorship on the site? I wasn't even provided with an opportunity to make my case or even edit my post, of which was rather angry, but still a reasoned argument, which was entirely removed though I made it point-by-point with reasoned evidence.
And on a side note, I am in Australia, am I safe from the United States code?
Katana Geldar 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't tend to add all of an organization's beliefs in the opening paragraph for articles concerning progressive/liberal groups (sometimes not even labelling them, instead letting a quotation do that job), let alone first sentences like this one. I do not know (and frankly don't care) about the proportions of liberals and conservatives in WP, but does "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view" sound like a good lead for an encyclopedic article? Is this some kind of warning or what?
My proposal is to change that opening sentence to just reduce the clutter of claims (not matter how citation-able they are) to just Conservative Christian. The other three have been tediously expanded and "explained" in Conservapedia#Editorial viewpoints and policies, maybe to an unnecessary extent, and the "Conservative Christian" phrase covers the political aspect, as well as the religous part about the site. Short and simple, and mostly controversy-free!
(I had written this right after reading Conservapedia's own little debate.) --Penalty Killah Jw21 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
CP has died, or so it appears. The site is completely inaccessible. Is this worth mentioning? Anyone know? -- 70.208.4.24 ( talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you guys think, but CP looks dead. Both Conservapedia.com and conservativeencyclopedia.com are inaccessible. Can we pronounce? -- 75.196.82.17 ( talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Early Wikipedia had outages. They're not worth mentioning. TK says he disagrees with my on the authorship of the article. He says he's pretty sure it was by a parodist (QWest is apparently the name of an ISP).
The Wonkette thing may be worth a mention, especially as it was also mentioned by Minnesota Independent. But it's a bit borderline. -- TS 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
From the main page "The Conservapedia Evolution Article is Picking Up Steam" - "full steam ahead": slightly anachronistic.
Is the comment under the heading "Please Sign the Academic Freedom Petition" an ezample of begging the question.
The appearance or unavailability of CP (or any other website) is only noteworthy if it is a frequent occurence.
To what extent is this talk page an "analysis of the subject and reactions to it" rather than discussing the WP article itself? Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard’s line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-06-08.
Not exactly what I would support as a citation in any article. While I may agree with a number of the sentiments about Conservapedia, the writer is clearly biased. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anything, it only adds fuel to the fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHarnden86 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Site is being redirected to http://serv01.m264.sgded.com/suspended.page/ (which doesn't exist) - does it mean it's dead? -- 79.41.234.132 ( talk) 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article is in the category "iamges for deletion". which image id for the chop, though? They're both stated as public domain, so it's not a copyright issue - is it because of the "personality rights" thing on the picture of Schaffers? What is to be done? Totnesmartin ( talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The link for reference 65 is broken but can now be found at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog. 97.114.175.157 ( talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits (see Medical marijuana) although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment."
I know this isn't directly related to the article, but I couldn't resist putting it in. I copied and pasted this straight from the Conservapedia article about "marijuana". Hallucinations? That's ridiciulous. Not even LSD causes true hallucinations. The article even goes on to say "Marijuana is mostly favored by liberals and hippies". Lol, what is this biased drivel? And to think I couldn't even edit it to "protect against vandalism".-- 206.28.43.170 ( talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
'Quite a few' Conservapedia entries do not cite sources. The entry on Elizabeth the Queen Mother - at [4] is 'somewhat POV'.
Anything which describes itself as 'a trustworthy encyclopedia' immediately raises suspicions of the reverse. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
AS much fun as this may be, this is not the place to discuss the merits and otherwise of Conservapedia. Please stop. TheresaWilson ( talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a "Criticism of Conservapedia" page over on Wikinfo - and critiques, reviews, analyses from various points of view and positive discussions of the topic (or any other) are also welcome. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I just read this article, and frankly, it reads just as much as a condemnation of Conservapedia as a description of it. Yes it's hard to dispute that CP is biased, but this is wikipedia, and we have to rise above that. The main issue I have is that criticism of the site is scattered all over this article, instead of being limited to a Criticisms section; by contrast, it's a lot harder to find supporting comments of CP. Again, I openly acknowledge that it may be a lot harder to find the good in CP than the bad, but that's no excuse to tip the scales.
My suggestion is either move the critisms scattered throughout the article into one single section, or remove those outside the article. Alternatively, if this won't come across as a POV fork, most of the criticisms could be moved to its own article, thus leaving this one a lot easier to balance. toll_booth ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Any other comments before the NPOV-check tag comes down? toll_booth ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I mention the Wikinfo "Criticisms of Conservapedia" page [5] in this context, as a way of resolving the above issue. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, the issue seems to be about a misunderstanding of how the NPOV policy works. — R 2 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is all wrong, this article is being done in the style of its subject. Something seems inherently wrong with that. It doesn't feel encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.251.173 ( talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. Would anyone be uncomfortable if I nominated it? Idag ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Here is the link to the featured article discussion. [7] There appear to be some sourcing concerns, so some more established editors of this article may wish to comment as well. Idag ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The assessment is over - Conservapedia will not be promoted to FA. The discussion is now here. Totnesmartin ( talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Today the phrase " Biblical literalist" was added to the lede and " young Earth creationist" was removed. I'd like some opinions on this. I think it's not a good change: [1] Conservapedia actually has a project to rewrite the Bible, hardly a "literalist" thing to do, and [2] young Earth creationism doesn't follow from literalism, as asserted, and [3] young Earth creationism is a striking feature of the website. The editors there devote far more attention to defending young Earth creationism than they do Bible literalism. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And given CP's views on BritEnglish, what would they make of "local colloquial" etc: would Strine be acceptable Australian articles, etc - and what about Lallands for regional Scottish?
[8] [9] [10] or just read the whole discussion at [11]. Andy was definitely claiming that some significant number (IIRC it varied between "most" and "some") of YEC's are also materialists, and even said that many arrived at YEC for materialist reasons. I would normally say that he had misunderstood materialism, but we collectively defined both materialism and YEC a number of times, and he insisted that the link is undeniable. He also specically said that many are liberal (not just PJR). At some point (in some other discussion) Andy said that he rejected OEC, but lately he speaks of YEC as third party, and mostly critically. As to atheist sysops and senior editors, maybe I should say "until recently". There are a couple still around that I think are atheists but haven't said so; and most of those that were overtly atheist have been taken out by TK (and I don't mean socially). LowKey ( talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Schlafly is certainly YEC, though he accepts people who aren't if they are conservative enough in other respects. His rants against YEC materialists are not against YEC. See, Andy has a bunch of criteria for what is a conservative, and one must meet just about all of them to qualify. Being YEC is not nearly as important to him as views on abortion, classroom prayer, and gun control (guns are more important than Jesus). His rants are a response to the idea that if someone is YEC they are de facto conservative, regardless of views on his Big Three issues. He tries to make the point, in his unique brand of idiocy, that plenty of ACLU-supporting, gun grabbing, atheistic liberals also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, so someone claiming they are conservative because, though they support gun control, they also believe God created Adam and Eve in 4004 BC, is meaningless to him. To Schalfly it's like saying "I'm conservative because I think the sky is blue"; to him it's so obvious that anyone with a brain thinks that. - R. fiend ( talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A Conservapedia sysop has retired from the site, and here is an essay describing his grievances. Can we use this as a reliable source? Or could it go into the External Links section? Totnesmartin ( talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to Conservapedia as an "encyclopedia". I posit it'd be changed to either "project" or some other more appropriate description. Conservapedia is a social blog (or community blog, use whichever word you like), not an encyclopedia per se. The site does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Even if I call our cat a "horse", it's still a cat. Reminds me of the old joke "if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?". The answer is, of course, four. Just because you call the tail a "leg", doesn't a leg out of it make. The same w/ Conservapedia. Just because they call themselves an "encyclopedia", doesn't automatically make it so. The project must be assessed on it's own merits, and as it stands it doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. I posit this is a minor change, clarifying the position of the article. What saith thee, fellow WikiPedians? - 82.181.94.185 ( talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for your input. However; although I also understand there's no need to continue this line of inquiry, I also fail to see how it's POV to use correct designations. Blog is perhaps then not correct, but neither is encyclopedia. Nevertheless, for now, this issue is then closed. (Sorry for not signing in.) - 82.181.94.185 ( talk) 05:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The question perhaps, is to what extent can Conservapedia be compared to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia - which had its own particular viewpoint (albeit somewhat different from Conservapedia) or "Encyclopedia of (obscure topic of choice)" - which covers nothing outside that topic. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A concern is that if this article is calling it an encyclopedia then this article becomes a verifiable source for a flawed statement. Conservapedia's homepage is clearly an exposition of political views. I believe a neutral description such as "web site" would be accurate and would keep Wikipedia from validating a false identity. 12.144.219.194 ( talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to it as an "encyclopedia project" in all but one place where it is refered to as an "encyclopedia" (Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[quote from page on this date]). In this one instance it is putting the views of the representatives of the website in context. This raises two issues, does "en.. project" imply all the factors of 'encyclopedia-ness' exist and should the reference to it as a "encyclopdedia" be in inverted commas to represent it as not a fact about C-pedia, but a represtatation of how the founders perceive it. ( Protectthehuman ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
On Dec. 13, Andy Schlafly added to the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page that this article "conceals" how CP is an educational resource. Thoughts? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess either Schlafly either is willfully ignorant or has a low level of reading comprehension - something we wouldn't want to find in a lawyer (especially if he attended Harvard!) I guess we can move on to more important matters now. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed two attempts to describe the "Educational resource" aspect of Conservapedia. [1] [2]
They both contained non-neutral language and seemed to amount to critiques of the website.
There is also a minor problem with presenting anything about a website on the say-so of its authors. The time to write significant content about this would be when we have information about it from a reliable source. Until then such time as that happens we should include perhaps a single sentence to the effect that the website also hosts courses. -- TS 04:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate the removal of some aspects of the bits I wrote, but I think it was unnecessary to remove it all. The points regarding the marking were based upon statistics which can easily be calculated from the website itself, and I would think it a very significant point that the average mark is in the high 90s with no one scoring below 90%. I think this marking despite obvious errors etc is a point of note no matter what your opinion of the subject matter itself. I think anyone who has ever been to school will easily identify that the questions asked are meant to be essay questions, and the factual errors in the lectures themselves are self-evident, with the example I provided being one of them. I will repost the section, but I will delete the aspects that for now I think may be more questionable, at least in terms of sourcing. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jammy07 (
talk •
contribs)
Well in that case I'll be sure to look at RationalWiki, but I think the material I added regarding the courses is appropriate given the claims Conservapedia makes to be an educational resource. The grade inflation is obvious, all I actually did was state the statistics and not that this was in fact grade inflation, that can be left for readers to determine, especially since the link is provided. Additional sources seem unnecessary for what is a statistical fact that can be found on the website itself. I can perhaps appreciate the need for extra sources for my other two main points, especially to one highlighting the lack of scientific understanding shown by that example from the lectures, and I shall try and provide a good ref for that soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems an odd policy that statistics derived directly from the website itself, without any actual mention of personal opinion of grade inflation, require additional references which will simply be someone else's opinion that there is in fact grade inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy07 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure this is not a bad parody/spoof site? The Barack Obama article boggles the mind. [Per the "right-wing debate"] were the "criminally misinformed" members of the the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 even allowed a seat? Redthoreau( talk)RT 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlike Wikipedia which is 42% libertarian, 40% socialist/liberal/democrat, and 8% conservative, at least conservapedia isn't disproportionately liberal like this site is. Oh another statistic that is irrefutable: wikipedians are 8 times more atheistic than the rest of the general population. Yea, there's some bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 09:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite apart from Benjamin Disraeli's comment on statistics - what definitions of liberal and conservative are being used? Given that Wikipedia's contributors come from "a large variety" of countries, cultures, and professions, most statistics beyond "higher degree of literacy, relevant computer skills and "use and interpretation of knowledge" than the average population are likely to be meaningless. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A reminder that this page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing Conservapedia or Wikipedia and certainly not for religious debate. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the "main issues" WP users have with Conservapedia have been repeatedly aired on the talk page.
Possibly some discussion could be decanted to the Wikinfo pages concerned with Conservapedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
could we add "sexist" to young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian? looking for a source. obvious from original research, but i need a source (check out the differing tests for andy's student's exams on conservapedia, for example, girls get easier exams than boys)-- Mongreilf ( talk) 07:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got an IP ban from conservapedia for the reason that I tried to make a reasoned and loigical argument that Obama was not a Muslim and I got an infinite IP ban. Is there any case to have something said about moderation and censorship on the site? I wasn't even provided with an opportunity to make my case or even edit my post, of which was rather angry, but still a reasoned argument, which was entirely removed though I made it point-by-point with reasoned evidence.
And on a side note, I am in Australia, am I safe from the United States code?
Katana Geldar 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't tend to add all of an organization's beliefs in the opening paragraph for articles concerning progressive/liberal groups (sometimes not even labelling them, instead letting a quotation do that job), let alone first sentences like this one. I do not know (and frankly don't care) about the proportions of liberals and conservatives in WP, but does "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view" sound like a good lead for an encyclopedic article? Is this some kind of warning or what?
My proposal is to change that opening sentence to just reduce the clutter of claims (not matter how citation-able they are) to just Conservative Christian. The other three have been tediously expanded and "explained" in Conservapedia#Editorial viewpoints and policies, maybe to an unnecessary extent, and the "Conservative Christian" phrase covers the political aspect, as well as the religous part about the site. Short and simple, and mostly controversy-free!
(I had written this right after reading Conservapedia's own little debate.) --Penalty Killah Jw21 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
CP has died, or so it appears. The site is completely inaccessible. Is this worth mentioning? Anyone know? -- 70.208.4.24 ( talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you guys think, but CP looks dead. Both Conservapedia.com and conservativeencyclopedia.com are inaccessible. Can we pronounce? -- 75.196.82.17 ( talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Early Wikipedia had outages. They're not worth mentioning. TK says he disagrees with my on the authorship of the article. He says he's pretty sure it was by a parodist (QWest is apparently the name of an ISP).
The Wonkette thing may be worth a mention, especially as it was also mentioned by Minnesota Independent. But it's a bit borderline. -- TS 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
From the main page "The Conservapedia Evolution Article is Picking Up Steam" - "full steam ahead": slightly anachronistic.
Is the comment under the heading "Please Sign the Academic Freedom Petition" an ezample of begging the question.
The appearance or unavailability of CP (or any other website) is only noteworthy if it is a frequent occurence.
To what extent is this talk page an "analysis of the subject and reactions to it" rather than discussing the WP article itself? Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard’s line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved on 2008-06-08.
Not exactly what I would support as a citation in any article. While I may agree with a number of the sentiments about Conservapedia, the writer is clearly biased. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anything, it only adds fuel to the fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHarnden86 ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Site is being redirected to http://serv01.m264.sgded.com/suspended.page/ (which doesn't exist) - does it mean it's dead? -- 79.41.234.132 ( talk) 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article is in the category "iamges for deletion". which image id for the chop, though? They're both stated as public domain, so it's not a copyright issue - is it because of the "personality rights" thing on the picture of Schaffers? What is to be done? Totnesmartin ( talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The link for reference 65 is broken but can now be found at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog. 97.114.175.157 ( talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits (see Medical marijuana) although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment."
I know this isn't directly related to the article, but I couldn't resist putting it in. I copied and pasted this straight from the Conservapedia article about "marijuana". Hallucinations? That's ridiciulous. Not even LSD causes true hallucinations. The article even goes on to say "Marijuana is mostly favored by liberals and hippies". Lol, what is this biased drivel? And to think I couldn't even edit it to "protect against vandalism".-- 206.28.43.170 ( talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
'Quite a few' Conservapedia entries do not cite sources. The entry on Elizabeth the Queen Mother - at [4] is 'somewhat POV'.
Anything which describes itself as 'a trustworthy encyclopedia' immediately raises suspicions of the reverse. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
AS much fun as this may be, this is not the place to discuss the merits and otherwise of Conservapedia. Please stop. TheresaWilson ( talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a "Criticism of Conservapedia" page over on Wikinfo - and critiques, reviews, analyses from various points of view and positive discussions of the topic (or any other) are also welcome. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I just read this article, and frankly, it reads just as much as a condemnation of Conservapedia as a description of it. Yes it's hard to dispute that CP is biased, but this is wikipedia, and we have to rise above that. The main issue I have is that criticism of the site is scattered all over this article, instead of being limited to a Criticisms section; by contrast, it's a lot harder to find supporting comments of CP. Again, I openly acknowledge that it may be a lot harder to find the good in CP than the bad, but that's no excuse to tip the scales.
My suggestion is either move the critisms scattered throughout the article into one single section, or remove those outside the article. Alternatively, if this won't come across as a POV fork, most of the criticisms could be moved to its own article, thus leaving this one a lot easier to balance. toll_booth ( talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Any other comments before the NPOV-check tag comes down? toll_booth ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I mention the Wikinfo "Criticisms of Conservapedia" page [5] in this context, as a way of resolving the above issue. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, the issue seems to be about a misunderstanding of how the NPOV policy works. — R 2 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is all wrong, this article is being done in the style of its subject. Something seems inherently wrong with that. It doesn't feel encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.251.173 ( talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. Would anyone be uncomfortable if I nominated it? Idag ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Here is the link to the featured article discussion. [7] There appear to be some sourcing concerns, so some more established editors of this article may wish to comment as well. Idag ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The assessment is over - Conservapedia will not be promoted to FA. The discussion is now here. Totnesmartin ( talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Today the phrase " Biblical literalist" was added to the lede and " young Earth creationist" was removed. I'd like some opinions on this. I think it's not a good change: [1] Conservapedia actually has a project to rewrite the Bible, hardly a "literalist" thing to do, and [2] young Earth creationism doesn't follow from literalism, as asserted, and [3] young Earth creationism is a striking feature of the website. The editors there devote far more attention to defending young Earth creationism than they do Bible literalism. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And given CP's views on BritEnglish, what would they make of "local colloquial" etc: would Strine be acceptable Australian articles, etc - and what about Lallands for regional Scottish?
[8] [9] [10] or just read the whole discussion at [11]. Andy was definitely claiming that some significant number (IIRC it varied between "most" and "some") of YEC's are also materialists, and even said that many arrived at YEC for materialist reasons. I would normally say that he had misunderstood materialism, but we collectively defined both materialism and YEC a number of times, and he insisted that the link is undeniable. He also specically said that many are liberal (not just PJR). At some point (in some other discussion) Andy said that he rejected OEC, but lately he speaks of YEC as third party, and mostly critically. As to atheist sysops and senior editors, maybe I should say "until recently". There are a couple still around that I think are atheists but haven't said so; and most of those that were overtly atheist have been taken out by TK (and I don't mean socially). LowKey ( talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Schlafly is certainly YEC, though he accepts people who aren't if they are conservative enough in other respects. His rants against YEC materialists are not against YEC. See, Andy has a bunch of criteria for what is a conservative, and one must meet just about all of them to qualify. Being YEC is not nearly as important to him as views on abortion, classroom prayer, and gun control (guns are more important than Jesus). His rants are a response to the idea that if someone is YEC they are de facto conservative, regardless of views on his Big Three issues. He tries to make the point, in his unique brand of idiocy, that plenty of ACLU-supporting, gun grabbing, atheistic liberals also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, so someone claiming they are conservative because, though they support gun control, they also believe God created Adam and Eve in 4004 BC, is meaningless to him. To Schalfly it's like saying "I'm conservative because I think the sky is blue"; to him it's so obvious that anyone with a brain thinks that. - R. fiend ( talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A Conservapedia sysop has retired from the site, and here is an essay describing his grievances. Can we use this as a reliable source? Or could it go into the External Links section? Totnesmartin ( talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to Conservapedia as an "encyclopedia". I posit it'd be changed to either "project" or some other more appropriate description. Conservapedia is a social blog (or community blog, use whichever word you like), not an encyclopedia per se. The site does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Even if I call our cat a "horse", it's still a cat. Reminds me of the old joke "if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?". The answer is, of course, four. Just because you call the tail a "leg", doesn't a leg out of it make. The same w/ Conservapedia. Just because they call themselves an "encyclopedia", doesn't automatically make it so. The project must be assessed on it's own merits, and as it stands it doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia. I posit this is a minor change, clarifying the position of the article. What saith thee, fellow WikiPedians? - 82.181.94.185 ( talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for your input. However; although I also understand there's no need to continue this line of inquiry, I also fail to see how it's POV to use correct designations. Blog is perhaps then not correct, but neither is encyclopedia. Nevertheless, for now, this issue is then closed. (Sorry for not signing in.) - 82.181.94.185 ( talk) 05:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The question perhaps, is to what extent can Conservapedia be compared to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia - which had its own particular viewpoint (albeit somewhat different from Conservapedia) or "Encyclopedia of (obscure topic of choice)" - which covers nothing outside that topic. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A concern is that if this article is calling it an encyclopedia then this article becomes a verifiable source for a flawed statement. Conservapedia's homepage is clearly an exposition of political views. I believe a neutral description such as "web site" would be accurate and would keep Wikipedia from validating a false identity. 12.144.219.194 ( talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to it as an "encyclopedia project" in all but one place where it is refered to as an "encyclopedia" (Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[quote from page on this date]). In this one instance it is putting the views of the representatives of the website in context. This raises two issues, does "en.. project" imply all the factors of 'encyclopedia-ness' exist and should the reference to it as a "encyclopdedia" be in inverted commas to represent it as not a fact about C-pedia, but a represtatation of how the founders perceive it. ( Protectthehuman ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC))