Hi, i was checking back on conserapedia and wikipedia has no reference to rationalwiki other than just one sentence or an article about it. even if an external link is deemed not needed, why not a sentence elaborating that since conservapedia was started in opposition to wikipedia, rationalwiki was started in opposition to conservapedia? The more information people have, the better, no? Saadbd ( talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I checked out on conservapedia's homosexuality article and they seem to demonize gay people and say that gays are silencing free speech (but in reality, gays are being oppressed in hte U.S. when they denied the right to marry) and I notice there are lots of lies in conservapedia. So can I say that conservapedia is homophobic? -- Dark paladin x ( talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that someone has decreed that I can't make substantial improvements to this article [1] without asking permission first. So, here goes: Is there some reason why we can't put cold, objective facts about CP in ahead of the WP:SYNTH-violating stuff about how it's not WP? Is it OK if I remove some of the editorializing verbiage from this article? I'm trying to push this article a little closer to something that demonstrates that Wikipedia can live up to its own standards. Mother may I? - JasonAQuest ( talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not know the statement from Consevapedia that British spelling is "unpatriotic". This is the quote from the Conservapedia guidelines:
American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English
Jasra ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any sources connecting this to the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus on Conservapedia? They are clearly the same joke but linking the two is original research. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(I've also reverted your most recent edit because it made major changes without discussion, please discuss on the talk page before making such major changes). JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this redirect should be deleted. For example, in the article on his mom, the link is misleading. Conservapedia is the only thing he is 'notable' for, but it's only one aspect of who he is. If there is not going to be an article on Schlafly himself, the redirect should be deleted and people can still find related articles by looking at the search results. Richard001 ( talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Conservapedia article on evolution consists of large chunks of strung-together "quotation soup" rather than "an argument for or against".
There are some examples of evolution in action - for example the Soay sheep mentioned at [4]. (I am deliberately excluding evolution in which humans have had a deliberate part - eg the agricultural revolution, pets and so on).
Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The text does provide a viable anti-proof to the Conservapedia claims about the non-obviousness of evolution (and I know that is a double negative of sorts).
Can someone start off a Wikinfo article or similar so that Conservapedia-the-site can be analysed: which would resolve one thread on this talk page.
(CP appears to be down again.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Conservapedia is not just too biased to be called an encyclopedia (their articles on deceit, saying it is directly linked with liberalism, accusing Stalin and Hitler of being in 'alliance') but it is also deliberately factually inaccurate (linking breast cancer to abortion) and filled with libellous statements (for example, denying Richard Dawkins academic credentials). It is, in fact, the most moronic, basest propaganda tool which is so moronic that it actually damages the conservative cause. It is well documented that when it was released many people thought the entire thing was a comedic hoax. I don't know what it should be called; 'propaganda tool' is not totally accurate and is too emotive for a real encyclopedia as Wikipedia aims to be, however to call Conservapedia an encyclopedia is wrong and inaccurate, incidently giving it way more credit than it deserves.-- Superdantaylor ( talk) 10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have re-added an external link to RationalWiki. I admit that just a link to the RW mainpage is not valid so I have edited the bullet to include links to some of their more prominent pages concerning CP. -Icewedge ( talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
IMHO this article is completely disjointed and disorganized - it lacks flow and coherency. I think it should undergo a major overhaul - but before I make any wholesale changes, I want to get the opinions of the other major editors. Am I alone in feeling this way? Wisdom89 ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For completeness we need a photo of Schlafly here. There is a picture of him here on his Conservapedia biographical page (yes, article space; I guess they have different notability standards than we do) that would be good for this article. Unfortunately the moron hasn't specified what he means by 'released rights to it', so we probably can't use it can we? While it sounds like public domain, it could also be interpreted as 'released some rights', e.g. GDFL etc (which would still be okay, but we can't specificy which one). Ugh, so annoying... this guy is supposedly a 'lawyer', yet the whole copyright policy of Conservapedia is a legally vague disaster. Richard001 ( talk) 09:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
'Wikipedia can use it without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy.'
Fairly predictable response, but this, together with the comment, make it clear he's fine. It's here. -- Wikinterpreter ( talk) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Typical, there always has to be injected barb - regardless, if someone would care to include the image in the appropriate section, that would be great - I'm guessing the "Aschlafly on Wikipedia" portion. Thoughts? Wisdom89 ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You see, 'released rights' is vague. Does it mean 'released [all] rights', or does it mean 'released [some] rights' (perhaps under a non-commercial condition?). I bet if you explained to him that releasing all rights means people can do whatever they like with the picture - e.g. using it to denigrate him, he would reconsider.
Anyway, I'm happy with the PD tag. If he meant something else he should have been more specific, and he can always complain if he doesn't like it. I'd put it in the history section.
I would have asked him myself, though he blocked my account there after I created an article on sexual conflict. Richard001 ( talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is still a certain level of uncorrected inaccuracies - eg Gordon Brown's accident; secondary consumers still eat primary ones.
The high level of articles without external references should be mentioned. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't "plain observation" count? The method used was using "random article" a sufficient number of times to get a result that appears statistically sensible, ignoring lists, redirects and similar and basic number crunching on pages with and without external or internal links etc. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Article-counting of the above kind is useful as a general check for factual based Wikis (whether or not accepted for Wikipedia). (g). Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Last comment" - talk pages can be useful for general observations (g). Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, someone just now changed name of the section under "Reactions and Criticisms" titled "Conservapedia and dissenting views" to "Conservapedia and accuracy". I've read that section before several times; that focuses practically only on CP's position on the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. How do you think this section should be named/written? I find this section of the talk page the best place to comment on that section. If we really want to includes criticisms of CP due to accuracy, we need to find stuff beyond the Schlafly/Lipson debacle. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a small typo, but Wikipedia won't let me edit from my IP. In the quote under Andres Schlafly on Wikipedia reads "six times more liberal than the American public." "Liberal" should be plural. I'd change it, but I can't. 163.1.162.20 ( talk) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The "articles uneditable for most of the night" statement is incorrect. Can someone change it to say by new users? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should remove the URL link to conservapedia as many of its article (particulary those concerning homosexuality and Baroke Obama) insight hatred. It must be remembered that wikipedia is an international encyclopedia which has a lot of people who are more liberal than the average american. Many people cant dont tolerate the views expressed on conservapedia. Anti homosexual views arent going to be as shocking to americans as europeans as they see more of it ,but i asure you, you cannot say these sorts of things in most of europe. Wikipedia should remember it represents all members of the world not just americas who tend to lean to the right of politics. At the VERY LEAST there needs to me a warning attached to the URL informing people that they might find its content offensive. Realist2 ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats a strange answer , would you like to give a reason for it , Realist2 ( talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
People just keep trying to bring back WP:BADSITES in some form or other, don't they? (See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy.) *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why a simple warning can be added though, as most of the content would be considered hateful in europe and hopefully the sane half of america, opening tht article and reading its content is actually shocking. Realist2 ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A warning is not sencorship is it? Realist2 ( talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Realist2, you said that many people can't tolerate the views expressed on Conservapedia. How do you decide that it is the intolerant Conservapedians and not the intolerant Wikipedia readers who are wrong? I am sure many people are offended by some things they read on Wikipedia, too. Yet we don't have warnings on all pages of which someone might not be tolerant. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but MY point is that wikipedia is not solely for Americans , America is a LOT more conservative than Europe, Americans might not blink an eye over the content of conservapedia as their used to seeing it EVER day. However Europeans would find the content disgusting. My suggestion was to leave a warning for users not familiar with the American political system. I dont care about the culture war between the left and right in the US, I care about the people outside of america who will be offended. Wikipedia does not tolerate discrimiation so why link someone up to a hate sight (In the eyes of Europeans) without a warning. If a homosexual accidently came across that page (which I imagine some already have done) they would be heartbroken. Additionally I dont care what conservapedia fells about this page , they still dot realise that this is an international encyclopedia. When they develope an IQ large enough to understand that instead of burying their heads in bibles, then and only then are their opinions relevant on wikipedia. Realist2 ( talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, Realist2, I occasionally see things on Wikipedia itself that dislike. But that doesn't mean everybody caters to me to keep from offending me. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Such a warning would be not be neutral. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats not the same though, its so stupid no1 would take that cube thing seriouslt , people might actually believe conservapedia is ment to be serious and real and start spouting the hatred. No1 cares about that cub thing , its a joke , conservapedia s more sinister as it pretends to be really while spouting bigotry. Realist2 ( talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hum let me think ... what about the morality of wikipedia linking children up to a hate sight with no warning? Realist2 ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should bring a case to wiki to change the rules on rhese things. Realist2 ( talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol i just dont want ppl to be tainted by DECEIT. Realist2 ( talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How will "the proverbial child" come across Conservapedia? What proportion of "children and young people" (or adults for that matter) will be instantly blighted by investigating the topic - any more than by reading about (insert "unpleasant" topic of choice here)? Is the point of Wikipedia to describe the world, provide the means of interpreting it, or to change it? Sufficient information should be given about Conservapedia - and any other wikis operating from a specific world view (ie most of them) - for the reader to make their own judgement on pursuing the topic further. Most people will be able to deduce immediately what areas The Sporting Times will cover (headings are likely to be of the form "English earthquake affects sporting facilities") - Conservapedia's position is different (not least because there are several definitions of Conservative). As for changing Wikipedia's policy - Wikinfo and other places can be used for such matters.
I think most of the issues arising from Conservapedia have been aired, both on the main article page and the talk page (and its archives). There is a usually implicit dialogue between all the wikis which includes how they define themselves - the point about Conservapedia is that its nature differs more significantly than most from Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Aditionally i might add , there is already an external link to conservapedia at the bottom of the page. So why keep the link at the top? When at the bottom people have sufficient notice. There is no need for a top link. Realist2 ( talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that for articles on websites and web-based organizations, it is the custom here to put the URL in the box at the top of the article. See Politico, Citizendium, MSN Games, Google, Yahoo, and Uncyclopedia. If we changed this custom only for Conservapedia and not for the thousands of similar articles, we would be violating NPOV. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
sheesh, this article was once nominated as a "good article"....what has happened?
i come back one year later and find this article is not the same as it was. the content of this article is heavily influenced by conservapedia and not by wikipedians -- let us contribute! παράδοξος ( talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The link to the 12 step program for liberals - makes Rivers of Blood look tasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.12.126 ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
dont keep removing reason, it is clearly stated on the same page as the rest of the existing sentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you can't take something as true just because it's on Conservapedia. They complain that Wikipedia publishes gossip, yet have just created an article on "Hollywood Values" that consists of little but gossip of the vilest sort. Their complaints about Wikipedia, once made, seem never to be reevaluated. For example, Conservapedia complains that in our Henry Liddell article, "Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica." In comparison, Conservapedia's entire article on Henry Liddell consists of five short sentences. It has no mention of his family, early life, or educational background. It mentions his Greek-English Lexicon, but completely neglects his History of Rome. It can be read with no risk that one would learn an annoyingly unfamiliar term such as "double first" - or, indeed, any concept that might be too taxing or expand one's knowledge of the apparently dangerous-to-understand British educational system. One will learn the years that Liddell was Dean of Christ Church, but will learn nothing of what he did as dean. Curiously, for an allegedly religiously conscious website, one will not learn that Liddell was an ordained minister. The Conservapedia article is not illustrated.
Contrary to Conservapedia's claims, the Wikipedia entry contains no "grammatical error in its first sentence", tells us up front about Liddell's term as dean of Christ Church, contains no description of "royal" titles (though it accurately describes the peerage and baronetage titles appertaining to Liddell's family), and mentions Alice Liddell prominently, in the first paragraph (of six paragraphs that make up the entry). The use of public domain text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition in the development of the article is duly and clearly acknowledged, though little if any of such text actually remains in the article. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC radio 4 interview needs to be balanced with some of Jim Redmond's responses if possible. Also, despite being a far left liberal myself, this article is slightly more favoured for the criticism's of Conservapedia. More needs to be written about the positive aspects... if that's even possible. Scarian Call me Pat 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit appears to go against WP convention. Empirical observation shows that good articles on websites include a "External links" section containing a home page link basically 100% of the time, and the infobox is only meant to provide an at-a-glance summary of the subject: not to replace article content. This should go back in, regardless of the general content of the site. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already a link to RationalWiki in the main article and a reference to it. We don't need one in the External links section. --
Elassint (
talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "Andrew Schlafly" redirects to "Conservapedia". Isn't he notable enough? -- Caravato ( talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that a note has been made about Schlafly's tactics on Obamas article. Should it also be mentioned that, even when informed and 3rd party source confirmed that the misleading picture of Obama not holding his hand during the anthem, was not actually during the anthem or pledge, but right afterwards, he refused to remove the comment that it was. We all know why they have it as the first picture and with that heading, just curious if it warrants mentioning. Hooper ( talk) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that too. The best thing you can do is roll your eyes, because these people clearly aren't out to present facts in a balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.3.20 ( talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
On the “liberal style” list, which is currently on both its own page and “liberal bias”, Conservapedia claims liberals “often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal”. This previously ended “saying that about a fellow liberal” until they decided to accuse Sen. Obama of saying it about Sen. Clinton; now, the article histories appear as if they always said “supportive co-liberal”. Can this be included as observable from primary sources without having been commented upon elsewhere? The older version still shows up if Googled and is copied e.g. here [6] and here [7] Billwilson5060 ( talk) 10:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact check was reverted for some reason. I don't know why. It is a well known and commonly known fact that several wikipedians infiltrated Conservapedia and many if not most of the articles are written from a liberal or liberal/subversive point of view. 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Jesus Loves You
The article makes it sound as though the site owner thinks Wikipedia is biased just because it allows British English as an alternative to American English. The site doesn't have a problem with British English being used in topics on the site that pertain to the UK (as this article states), just with it being used in articles that are about the USA. That said, I definitely am not for the site because I don't think that it presents things from a NPOV, but I also don't think that Wikipedia does regarding subject such as Earth and earth's origin.-- Urban Rose 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty much one big attack article on Conservapedia. In no way do I agree with Conservapedia, but most of what's in this article should be listed under "criticisms". I guess there's really nothing that can be done about it because most of the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia actually have Conservapedia in the wrong, but it's still a little annoying to find articles like this. M.nelson ( talk) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i was checking back on conserapedia and wikipedia has no reference to rationalwiki other than just one sentence or an article about it. even if an external link is deemed not needed, why not a sentence elaborating that since conservapedia was started in opposition to wikipedia, rationalwiki was started in opposition to conservapedia? The more information people have, the better, no? Saadbd ( talk) 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I checked out on conservapedia's homosexuality article and they seem to demonize gay people and say that gays are silencing free speech (but in reality, gays are being oppressed in hte U.S. when they denied the right to marry) and I notice there are lots of lies in conservapedia. So can I say that conservapedia is homophobic? -- Dark paladin x ( talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that someone has decreed that I can't make substantial improvements to this article [1] without asking permission first. So, here goes: Is there some reason why we can't put cold, objective facts about CP in ahead of the WP:SYNTH-violating stuff about how it's not WP? Is it OK if I remove some of the editorializing verbiage from this article? I'm trying to push this article a little closer to something that demonstrates that Wikipedia can live up to its own standards. Mother may I? - JasonAQuest ( talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not know the statement from Consevapedia that British spelling is "unpatriotic". This is the quote from the Conservapedia guidelines:
American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English
Jasra ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any sources connecting this to the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus on Conservapedia? They are clearly the same joke but linking the two is original research. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(I've also reverted your most recent edit because it made major changes without discussion, please discuss on the talk page before making such major changes). JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this redirect should be deleted. For example, in the article on his mom, the link is misleading. Conservapedia is the only thing he is 'notable' for, but it's only one aspect of who he is. If there is not going to be an article on Schlafly himself, the redirect should be deleted and people can still find related articles by looking at the search results. Richard001 ( talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The Conservapedia article on evolution consists of large chunks of strung-together "quotation soup" rather than "an argument for or against".
There are some examples of evolution in action - for example the Soay sheep mentioned at [4]. (I am deliberately excluding evolution in which humans have had a deliberate part - eg the agricultural revolution, pets and so on).
Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The text does provide a viable anti-proof to the Conservapedia claims about the non-obviousness of evolution (and I know that is a double negative of sorts).
Can someone start off a Wikinfo article or similar so that Conservapedia-the-site can be analysed: which would resolve one thread on this talk page.
(CP appears to be down again.) Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Conservapedia is not just too biased to be called an encyclopedia (their articles on deceit, saying it is directly linked with liberalism, accusing Stalin and Hitler of being in 'alliance') but it is also deliberately factually inaccurate (linking breast cancer to abortion) and filled with libellous statements (for example, denying Richard Dawkins academic credentials). It is, in fact, the most moronic, basest propaganda tool which is so moronic that it actually damages the conservative cause. It is well documented that when it was released many people thought the entire thing was a comedic hoax. I don't know what it should be called; 'propaganda tool' is not totally accurate and is too emotive for a real encyclopedia as Wikipedia aims to be, however to call Conservapedia an encyclopedia is wrong and inaccurate, incidently giving it way more credit than it deserves.-- Superdantaylor ( talk) 10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have re-added an external link to RationalWiki. I admit that just a link to the RW mainpage is not valid so I have edited the bullet to include links to some of their more prominent pages concerning CP. -Icewedge ( talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
IMHO this article is completely disjointed and disorganized - it lacks flow and coherency. I think it should undergo a major overhaul - but before I make any wholesale changes, I want to get the opinions of the other major editors. Am I alone in feeling this way? Wisdom89 ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For completeness we need a photo of Schlafly here. There is a picture of him here on his Conservapedia biographical page (yes, article space; I guess they have different notability standards than we do) that would be good for this article. Unfortunately the moron hasn't specified what he means by 'released rights to it', so we probably can't use it can we? While it sounds like public domain, it could also be interpreted as 'released some rights', e.g. GDFL etc (which would still be okay, but we can't specificy which one). Ugh, so annoying... this guy is supposedly a 'lawyer', yet the whole copyright policy of Conservapedia is a legally vague disaster. Richard001 ( talk) 09:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
'Wikipedia can use it without restriction, as is Conservapedia's general approach to copyright issues. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't adopt the same unrestrictive policy.'
Fairly predictable response, but this, together with the comment, make it clear he's fine. It's here. -- Wikinterpreter ( talk) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Typical, there always has to be injected barb - regardless, if someone would care to include the image in the appropriate section, that would be great - I'm guessing the "Aschlafly on Wikipedia" portion. Thoughts? Wisdom89 ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You see, 'released rights' is vague. Does it mean 'released [all] rights', or does it mean 'released [some] rights' (perhaps under a non-commercial condition?). I bet if you explained to him that releasing all rights means people can do whatever they like with the picture - e.g. using it to denigrate him, he would reconsider.
Anyway, I'm happy with the PD tag. If he meant something else he should have been more specific, and he can always complain if he doesn't like it. I'd put it in the history section.
I would have asked him myself, though he blocked my account there after I created an article on sexual conflict. Richard001 ( talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is still a certain level of uncorrected inaccuracies - eg Gordon Brown's accident; secondary consumers still eat primary ones.
The high level of articles without external references should be mentioned. Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't "plain observation" count? The method used was using "random article" a sufficient number of times to get a result that appears statistically sensible, ignoring lists, redirects and similar and basic number crunching on pages with and without external or internal links etc. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Article-counting of the above kind is useful as a general check for factual based Wikis (whether or not accepted for Wikipedia). (g). Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"Last comment" - talk pages can be useful for general observations (g). Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, someone just now changed name of the section under "Reactions and Criticisms" titled "Conservapedia and dissenting views" to "Conservapedia and accuracy". I've read that section before several times; that focuses practically only on CP's position on the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. How do you think this section should be named/written? I find this section of the talk page the best place to comment on that section. If we really want to includes criticisms of CP due to accuracy, we need to find stuff beyond the Schlafly/Lipson debacle. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a small typo, but Wikipedia won't let me edit from my IP. In the quote under Andres Schlafly on Wikipedia reads "six times more liberal than the American public." "Liberal" should be plural. I'd change it, but I can't. 163.1.162.20 ( talk) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The "articles uneditable for most of the night" statement is incorrect. Can someone change it to say by new users? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should remove the URL link to conservapedia as many of its article (particulary those concerning homosexuality and Baroke Obama) insight hatred. It must be remembered that wikipedia is an international encyclopedia which has a lot of people who are more liberal than the average american. Many people cant dont tolerate the views expressed on conservapedia. Anti homosexual views arent going to be as shocking to americans as europeans as they see more of it ,but i asure you, you cannot say these sorts of things in most of europe. Wikipedia should remember it represents all members of the world not just americas who tend to lean to the right of politics. At the VERY LEAST there needs to me a warning attached to the URL informing people that they might find its content offensive. Realist2 ( talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats a strange answer , would you like to give a reason for it , Realist2 ( talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
People just keep trying to bring back WP:BADSITES in some form or other, don't they? (See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy.) *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why a simple warning can be added though, as most of the content would be considered hateful in europe and hopefully the sane half of america, opening tht article and reading its content is actually shocking. Realist2 ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A warning is not sencorship is it? Realist2 ( talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Realist2, you said that many people can't tolerate the views expressed on Conservapedia. How do you decide that it is the intolerant Conservapedians and not the intolerant Wikipedia readers who are wrong? I am sure many people are offended by some things they read on Wikipedia, too. Yet we don't have warnings on all pages of which someone might not be tolerant. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but MY point is that wikipedia is not solely for Americans , America is a LOT more conservative than Europe, Americans might not blink an eye over the content of conservapedia as their used to seeing it EVER day. However Europeans would find the content disgusting. My suggestion was to leave a warning for users not familiar with the American political system. I dont care about the culture war between the left and right in the US, I care about the people outside of america who will be offended. Wikipedia does not tolerate discrimiation so why link someone up to a hate sight (In the eyes of Europeans) without a warning. If a homosexual accidently came across that page (which I imagine some already have done) they would be heartbroken. Additionally I dont care what conservapedia fells about this page , they still dot realise that this is an international encyclopedia. When they develope an IQ large enough to understand that instead of burying their heads in bibles, then and only then are their opinions relevant on wikipedia. Realist2 ( talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, Realist2, I occasionally see things on Wikipedia itself that dislike. But that doesn't mean everybody caters to me to keep from offending me. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Such a warning would be not be neutral. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats not the same though, its so stupid no1 would take that cube thing seriouslt , people might actually believe conservapedia is ment to be serious and real and start spouting the hatred. No1 cares about that cub thing , its a joke , conservapedia s more sinister as it pretends to be really while spouting bigotry. Realist2 ( talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hum let me think ... what about the morality of wikipedia linking children up to a hate sight with no warning? Realist2 ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should bring a case to wiki to change the rules on rhese things. Realist2 ( talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol i just dont want ppl to be tainted by DECEIT. Realist2 ( talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How will "the proverbial child" come across Conservapedia? What proportion of "children and young people" (or adults for that matter) will be instantly blighted by investigating the topic - any more than by reading about (insert "unpleasant" topic of choice here)? Is the point of Wikipedia to describe the world, provide the means of interpreting it, or to change it? Sufficient information should be given about Conservapedia - and any other wikis operating from a specific world view (ie most of them) - for the reader to make their own judgement on pursuing the topic further. Most people will be able to deduce immediately what areas The Sporting Times will cover (headings are likely to be of the form "English earthquake affects sporting facilities") - Conservapedia's position is different (not least because there are several definitions of Conservative). As for changing Wikipedia's policy - Wikinfo and other places can be used for such matters.
I think most of the issues arising from Conservapedia have been aired, both on the main article page and the talk page (and its archives). There is a usually implicit dialogue between all the wikis which includes how they define themselves - the point about Conservapedia is that its nature differs more significantly than most from Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Aditionally i might add , there is already an external link to conservapedia at the bottom of the page. So why keep the link at the top? When at the bottom people have sufficient notice. There is no need for a top link. Realist2 ( talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that for articles on websites and web-based organizations, it is the custom here to put the URL in the box at the top of the article. See Politico, Citizendium, MSN Games, Google, Yahoo, and Uncyclopedia. If we changed this custom only for Conservapedia and not for the thousands of similar articles, we would be violating NPOV. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
sheesh, this article was once nominated as a "good article"....what has happened?
i come back one year later and find this article is not the same as it was. the content of this article is heavily influenced by conservapedia and not by wikipedians -- let us contribute! παράδοξος ( talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The link to the 12 step program for liberals - makes Rivers of Blood look tasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.12.126 ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
dont keep removing reason, it is clearly stated on the same page as the rest of the existing sentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you can't take something as true just because it's on Conservapedia. They complain that Wikipedia publishes gossip, yet have just created an article on "Hollywood Values" that consists of little but gossip of the vilest sort. Their complaints about Wikipedia, once made, seem never to be reevaluated. For example, Conservapedia complains that in our Henry Liddell article, "Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica." In comparison, Conservapedia's entire article on Henry Liddell consists of five short sentences. It has no mention of his family, early life, or educational background. It mentions his Greek-English Lexicon, but completely neglects his History of Rome. It can be read with no risk that one would learn an annoyingly unfamiliar term such as "double first" - or, indeed, any concept that might be too taxing or expand one's knowledge of the apparently dangerous-to-understand British educational system. One will learn the years that Liddell was Dean of Christ Church, but will learn nothing of what he did as dean. Curiously, for an allegedly religiously conscious website, one will not learn that Liddell was an ordained minister. The Conservapedia article is not illustrated.
Contrary to Conservapedia's claims, the Wikipedia entry contains no "grammatical error in its first sentence", tells us up front about Liddell's term as dean of Christ Church, contains no description of "royal" titles (though it accurately describes the peerage and baronetage titles appertaining to Liddell's family), and mentions Alice Liddell prominently, in the first paragraph (of six paragraphs that make up the entry). The use of public domain text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition in the development of the article is duly and clearly acknowledged, though little if any of such text actually remains in the article. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC radio 4 interview needs to be balanced with some of Jim Redmond's responses if possible. Also, despite being a far left liberal myself, this article is slightly more favoured for the criticism's of Conservapedia. More needs to be written about the positive aspects... if that's even possible. Scarian Call me Pat 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit appears to go against WP convention. Empirical observation shows that good articles on websites include a "External links" section containing a home page link basically 100% of the time, and the infobox is only meant to provide an at-a-glance summary of the subject: not to replace article content. This should go back in, regardless of the general content of the site. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already a link to RationalWiki in the main article and a reference to it. We don't need one in the External links section. --
Elassint (
talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "Andrew Schlafly" redirects to "Conservapedia". Isn't he notable enough? -- Caravato ( talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that a note has been made about Schlafly's tactics on Obamas article. Should it also be mentioned that, even when informed and 3rd party source confirmed that the misleading picture of Obama not holding his hand during the anthem, was not actually during the anthem or pledge, but right afterwards, he refused to remove the comment that it was. We all know why they have it as the first picture and with that heading, just curious if it warrants mentioning. Hooper ( talk) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that too. The best thing you can do is roll your eyes, because these people clearly aren't out to present facts in a balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.3.20 ( talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
On the “liberal style” list, which is currently on both its own page and “liberal bias”, Conservapedia claims liberals “often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal”. This previously ended “saying that about a fellow liberal” until they decided to accuse Sen. Obama of saying it about Sen. Clinton; now, the article histories appear as if they always said “supportive co-liberal”. Can this be included as observable from primary sources without having been commented upon elsewhere? The older version still shows up if Googled and is copied e.g. here [6] and here [7] Billwilson5060 ( talk) 10:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact check was reverted for some reason. I don't know why. It is a well known and commonly known fact that several wikipedians infiltrated Conservapedia and many if not most of the articles are written from a liberal or liberal/subversive point of view. 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Jesus Loves You
The article makes it sound as though the site owner thinks Wikipedia is biased just because it allows British English as an alternative to American English. The site doesn't have a problem with British English being used in topics on the site that pertain to the UK (as this article states), just with it being used in articles that are about the USA. That said, I definitely am not for the site because I don't think that it presents things from a NPOV, but I also don't think that Wikipedia does regarding subject such as Earth and earth's origin.-- Urban Rose 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty much one big attack article on Conservapedia. In no way do I agree with Conservapedia, but most of what's in this article should be listed under "criticisms". I guess there's really nothing that can be done about it because most of the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia actually have Conservapedia in the wrong, but it's still a little annoying to find articles like this. M.nelson ( talk) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)