Talk:Andrew Schlafly/Archive 1

August 1st
I plan on resubmitting this for AFD in a few weeks, August 1st is about when I think I will do it if no one else has. I have been through writing this article now 3 times. If you guys can create an actual article with real sources by then good on you. But I don't see it happening at all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lenski incident
I removed the Lenski incident, and reverted the removal when Icewedge put it back again. Despite the appearance of four sources, none were reliable, as already discussed on the AfD: the first was a reliably published report about a scientific discovery, but unrelated to Schlafly, the second was Schlafly's own web site, and the other two were blogs with a strong anti-Shlafly bias (perhaps a deserved one, in my opinion, but bias nonetheless). Per the Wikipedia policy on biography of living persons we need to be extremely careful about sourcing, especially about embarrassing incidents such as this one. Unsourced contentious material is subject to immediate removal. In addition, per the policy on neutral points of view, I am concerned that making a whole section of the article, similar in length to his biography and much longer than the line about Conservapedia, gives undue weight to a passing incident in his life. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see the second article by new scientist, not the one that is just about the study but the one on reactions to the study which spends more then half its time discussion Schlafly? I linked you to it. As for the blogs given there notability (PZ has an article on himself and a separate one for his blog, Zimmer has an article) I think it is at least acceptable to note there criticism, as my version did. There is also the fact that both parties openly declare the exchange happened, if both parties say it happened, the website of a magazine says it happened, a notable journalist say (Carl Zimmer) says it happened, and one of the most well known science bloggers says it happened then I think its reliably sourced. - Icewedge (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Michael Marshall piece? It is not an article. It is a blog. A blog hosted by newscientist but a blog nonetheless. Look at the url. Blogs are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia for most purposes, and especially for BLP-related issues. See WP:EL: they are listed under "links normally to be avoided". And while some of the authors of the blogs are recognized experts on evolution, that's not really the subject of this incident, so that exception does not apply. The question here, by the way, is not so much whether the event happened — I think we can all agree it did — but its significance and interpretation, and quoting as sources three blogger enemies of Schlafly hardly seems like neutrality. Anyway, "it happened" is very different from "it's a notably enough incident in his life to spend four times the length of our coverage of his role in Conservapedia". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that the Conservapedia section is smaller that the Lenski section but that should be fixed by improving the Conservapedia section. As for the blog, yes it labeled a "blog" but it is not the personal blog of the author, the blog is hosted and financed by new scientist who pay the authors to write articles that they feel there audience might be interested in. This incident is notable and the version I reverted too was much less POV, I did not include the quotes, just noted that he had been criticized by two prominent evolution bloggers, which is verifiable and factual. - Icewedge (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your search - lenski schlafly - did not match any documents. See also WP:NOT: there is no sign that this event will maintain any notability in the long term. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd, I get Google news 8 results for . Which includes The guardian and Reason Magazine, admittedly both hosted blogs, but as they are affiliated with publications so they are RS. I also found this piece on Ars technica. - Icewedge (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a list of sources about the incident which can be seen below. I do believe that more than half a dozen citations is enough to pass WP:BLP. - Icewedge (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Laundry list of RS about the "lenski dialog"

 * Arthur, Charles. "Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution". The Guardian. Accessed July 19, 2008.
 * Bailey, Ronald. "Bacterial Evolution Disproves Conservatism?". Reason Magazine. Accessed July 19, 2008.
 * Timmer, John. "Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount". ars technica. Accessed July 19, 2008.
 * Marshall, Michael (2008-06-25). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". NewScientist. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
 * Zimmer, Carl (2008-06-24). "Of bacteria and throw pillows". Loom. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
 * Myers, PZ (2008-06-24). "Lenski gives conservapedia a lesson". Pharyngula. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
 * Leonard, Andrew. "Worst. Encyclopedia. Ever.". salon.com. Accessed July 19, 2008.


 * The Salon one might be acceptable. The rest are blogs. I understand your enthusiasm for trying to source this, but please, consider WP:BLP and make sure the sources are reliable. That was the whole problem that led to the AfD, and it still hasn't been fixed. WP:BLP is not optional. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may quote directly from BLP, "Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" [italics mine]. That statement would seem to validate the NewScientist, The Guardian, and the Reason magazine sources as I believe they all meet both the above criteria. Also see, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 where the general consensus was that pages from the articles and news section of the site count as RS (which the linked ars technica article is part of). - Icewedge (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found this page and this dispute, and here's my view: the various references provided certainly meet WP:RS, as Icewedge explains above; most of them are more than just blogs, and should generally be considered reliable. However, I would still advise against including this material in the article, as it seems to me like a relatively minor controversy, which didn't get much attention outside of the science blogosphere, and to devote a paragraph of Schlafly's article to it would seem like undue weight. It's also more of a 'Conservapedia controversy' than a Andrew Schlafly one, so really belongs at that article instead - and indeed, it already is covered there, see Conservapedia. Given that, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned on this page as well. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I wonder if we could elaborate more on the Schlafly-Lensky dialogue? I ask because I don't want to work in vain as anybody could delete the information, as it happens so often on Wikipedia. YvetteY (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion and breast cancer
The article reads, 'He is active in promoting a link between abortion and breast cancer despite several studies to the contrary.' I think the last six words of this sentence should be deleted, simply because they aren't about Schlafly. This is an article about Schlafly, not the science of breast cancer. Skoojal (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would misrepresent the subject to delete that clause: talking about "a link between abortion and breast cancer" implies that there is such a link, which according to best scientific studies is untrue. Leaving in the part about studies to the contrary makes Shlafly's context in the debate more clear: he is not so much creating new untested hypotheses, but going against known tests of existing hypotheses. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A statement about what Schlafly thinks is a statement about what Schlafly thinks and nothing more. Or do articles always imply that something is true by mentioning that their subjects believe it? To 'make Shlafly's context in the debate more clear' is exactly what the article should not do, since, as I said, this isn't an article about debates over breast cancer. Skoojal (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True but Schlafly views are more in context if this fact is mentioned as per what David said. - Icewedge (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This passage is a violation of the article's neutrality. It's not even relevant to the article, which is about Schlafly. Rather than providing more 'context', it spills over into irrelevant territory. Skoojal (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "He is active in promoting a link he thinks exists between abortion and breast cancer"? Or some such? Huw Powell (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we be attempting to interpret how sincere he is in what he promotes? "He thinks" is only in his mind; we should be reporting on what he does, not what he thinks. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "He insists there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and promotes it actively."? --75.71.18.186 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant problems continue
There has been no significant expansion or addition of sources or material that addresses the concerns raised at the last AFD. Is there anyone that is going to work on this? If not I plan on resubmitting this for deletion at the end of the week. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Conservapedia
The result was merge and redirect to Conservapedia. - Icewedge (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I am tired of having to repeatedly describe how this article violates core wikipedia policies, I will sum it up thus: what in this article justifies it's existence outside of the article on Conservapedia? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know my opinions. I tried damn hard to find sources for this in the wake of the first AfD, and found nothing. I see no reason for this to be kept unless someone among those screeching for it to be kept can actually clean it up instead of whining about how easy it would be to clean it up if only someone else would do it. – iride scent 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect, the website is notable he ain't. RMHED (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - this guy has not been covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources, only mentioned in the context of Conservapedia - he's clearly not a notable figure, and his web site is only barely notable in itself, as a fringe group. -  Toon  05  22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge it. Notability is not inherited, so his mother being notable does not make him notable, and his being the editor of Conservapedia does not make him notable. The sources presented as references merely show that he went to school, got married, has a job, ran for political office without success, and has conservative opinions about many issues. None of these satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N.  The references only provide passing reference, directory type listings, or are not reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Even thought I speedy closed the last afd (mainly because I felt that it was too soon after the previous afd, only two weeks), I support the merger of Andrew Schlafly to Conservapedia. The only thing he's really notable for is Conservapedia, so the merge would make perfect sense. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge He fails the notability guidelines IMHO.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Wait until he becomes the official spokes-person for the KKK (it won't be long). At the moment he isn't notable. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to withdraw that as it just gives him and his cronies ammunition against us; there might be a lot wrong with Schlafly, but I don't think racism's among them. – iride scent 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, strong support for that. WP:BLP1E - if Schalfly had not founded Wingnutpedia we'd never have heard of him, most people have never heard of either, and virtually all who have heard of Schlafly have, I venture to suggets, always heard of him in that context. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge although mention might be made of him in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as he's their legal eagle. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - as it's been impossible to write a good biographical article about Schlafly because there's been little coverage of him beyond CP (is it a sign of liberal media bias perhaps?) Over at the CP article we already mention he's been an engineer and is currently also an attorney for Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. I also notice that this page is getting repeatedly re-created & deleted and thus the title "Andrew Schlafly" may need to be locked after redirection.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. Full disclosure: I've edited Conservapedia in the past. I point with pride to my articles on Mother's Day and BIlly Sunday, in fact. As I look at the article, I see several paragraphs of content and sixteen sourced items. At a quick glance, the sources look reliable. There's more content here than can be properly merged into Conservapedia without loss. Now, while I am by no means an inclusionist, I've always felt that the concept of notability was closely related to availability of reliable sources. That is, the justification for excluding "non-notable" content is that people who are not notable will not have enough verifiable source material for an acceptable article. To me, this article is not very good, but perfectly acceptable. I regard the "professor test" as necessary, but not sufficient, and I think Schlafly is, in fact, as notable as the average tenured college professor. I'm going to make one more test, and I'm going to state the test before I make it. If he's mentioned in The New York Times... and not just in passing, or in the "marriages" listings or something like that... then that suggests he's notable. Here goes: One hit in the Globe,
 * "Some Parents Seek Options to Vaccine Orders", Jill P. Capuzzo. New York Times, December 23rd, 2007. pg. NJ.2, quotes Schlafly.
 * Also, one in the Boston Globe:
 * "Just the facts - and they're always right" Alex Beam. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Jun 6, 2007. pg. E.1. A rather snarky article about Conservapedia--one which Conservapedia fully deserves--mentions Andrew Schlafly as founder.
 * Finally, I've been a very strong supporter of Jessamyn West (librarian) as notable enough for inclusion, and I think she and Andrew Schlafly are broadly comparable in notability.
 * So, it's all pretty borderline, but I come down on the "don't merge" side of the border. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, how many sources offer more than trivial references to Schlafly? That's the problem, all the sources, while many are reliable and do mention his name, say almost nothing about him. Maybe one factoid or a single quote in an article about something else. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A quote? A mention? Not enough.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a relevant suggestion: HARM --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The present 2 paragraphs about Schlafly in Conservapedia could be expanded to four or so paragraphs by a selective merge (Smerge) from the present bio article. Edison (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, what notable things has Schlafly done beyond CP? Has he as an attorney ever presided over a notable court case/lawsuit/etc (beyond his pro-life soundbites)? I also notice he's helped design "nonvolatile static RAM", but how has the engineering community received it? There's nothing special about this article, to be honest. (CP's article/autobiography of him isn't really helpful.) There are many people who've been in Schlafly's shoes, you know. Thousands and thousands of people have graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School. Just as many work as engineers for notable corporations like Intel. Where are the entries for those people? That's why I put up the WP:ONEEVENT argument.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't merge Schlafly's work for the AAPS has given him quite a bit of non CP related coverage and I would assume that there was some coverage of Schlafly's campaign back when it happened, this was just before the rise of the internet. True, Conservapedia is his only major claim to fame but he is not unknown for his other work and this would have to be lost in a merge. - Icewedge (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing political campaigns don't generally count for notability. As for your claim that "Schlafly's work for the AAPS has given him quite a bit of non CP related coverage": please back this up with actual citations. The whole problem here is that we haven't found any. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is all minor coverage most certainly but he has been described as a "Noted Medical Attorney" and Google News brings up nearly a hundred relevant results. The fact that newspapers such as the New York Times, USA today, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Times times feel they need to report on Schlafly's actions shows that he is a significant figure in the national legal scene. - Icewedge (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note him in AAPS, rather than give him his own page surely, it's the association that's of note, not its legal dogsbody? Has the lawyer for the (for instance) BMA got his/her/their own page? If he does anything personally notable in the future a page can always be created. TheresaWilson (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. All the references provided are either (a) trivial coverage, in the context of something else (usually Conservapedia), (b) from non-reliable sources, or (c) both. As far as I can tell, he's never been the subject of significant coverage himself from an independent, reliable source, so this article should probably be merged into Phyllis Schlafly and Conservapedia. Terraxos (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Newly gained notability
Since 2008, Schlafly has become lead counsel for two precedent-setting legal campaigns and has appeared on the Colbert Report. He's been covered in a lot of media, including the Guardian. I think saying somebody is unnotable as an American political activist & lawyer is somewhat discredited by his coverage in a major British newspaper. I welcome serious debate about if this article should exist or not, and hope we can work together to make a good article. SmokingNewton (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to the Guardian source? Most of the media coverage was about Conservapedia, not Schlafly, from what I recall. Some random musings by me:
 * Not sure if RW has to be mentioned here since it's a site created as a reaction to Conservapedia, not Schlafly personally. And while its main focus nowadays isn't just on Conservapedia, it's also not really on Schlafly. RW does criticize Schlafly and some of his... er... "insights" (including things he does off-site, such as the whole Supreme Court issue), though, so it's kinda debatable, I guess? Dunno.
 * I'm not sure what the lead-in paragraph should focus on. I'm not an American, so I don't know how significant his role in recent politics (again, Supreme Court) is. Overall in regards to notability, I find it somewhat troubling that Conservapedia is one of basically two or three major achievements.
 * While Andy being a critic of all things Obama is true, it's troubling to cite "his website" since it's (technically) an open wiki, so the views of the site (technically) don't have to mirror his own.
 * Overall, I have no strong opinion on whether or not he's notable enough now, so these are just my first thoughts coming in. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question, is this an appropriate source to mention his marriage? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with it; unless I'm missing something here, it falls in-line with WP:RS. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the sources?
As per my comment in the AfD (which IMO was started way too soon, especially since the question isn't whether to delete it, but rather whether to redirect it), let's hear it: What are the sources that establish notability? Once we got a few links in here, we'll get a better impression of whether, why and how Schlafly is notable. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Bible project
There should be a bit here about the Conservative Bible project I think, in particular his statements about the project. I feel it is sufficiently different from the Conservapedia stuff to warrant a separate section. Dmcq (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Official external link question
Seeing as how there's been some back and forth about this now, maybe people can sort it out here? I would've thought that maybe the Eagle Forum blurb may qualify here, but I only gave the guideline a quick look (since I have to head out very soon). What are the arguments for/against linking to CP? --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of linking to Conservapedia. WP:ELOFFICIAL is quite clear that a link is official if 'It is controlled by the subject' and 'The link content primarily covers the area of notability.' The page about Andrew Schlafly on Conservapedia and the page it links to are both controlled by him and between them cover his notability. There might be an Elephant in the room - I think we're reluctant to link to Conservapedia. Being neutral, I feel we should. Smoking  Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  10:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You link CP in an article about CP, not about Andrew Schlafly. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can put in an external link to a users own page in an article about the person. A link in the article itself though should only be used for very straightforward stuff or for a response to something from a reliable source saying something about them. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain how CP is an "official" link for Schlafly? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly fussed if it goes in or not, but I don't feel it's a matter of sticking strictly to the policy, I'd rather say Ignore all rules and apply common sense: Everyone knows Schlafly holds the reins of Conservapedia tightly, and that there's nothing on his page that he'd disapprove of. Writing an article on someone, and linking to the page about them on their own wiki, for further information, makes sense. Smoking  Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * External links makes since for a project like CP, or for a subject in which the EL provides information that could not be included in a WP article but should be "available." Such as POV or official statements, etc. Neither of these seem to apply. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The CP link seems a pretty clear violation of WP:ELNO #12 (no links to open wikis) to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again I'm afraid I'd have to agree we have to consider the Conservapedia page on Andrew Schlafly as not under his full control without some other evidence, so it isn't 'his' web page any more than Jimmy Wales is Jimbo's. We would probably be okay using the Conservapedia equivalent of User:Jimbo Wales though. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe User:Aschlafly would be okay. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But why? EL aren't just thrown in to article for the hell of it. There has to a be a reason for it, the short version: an "official" website that the article is about (which is why a link to CP is a good idea for the CP article), or a page that provides information that wikipedia can not provide and is compelling to include. Neither of these seem to apply. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to David, I'd just want to point out: WP:ELOFFICIAL overrides WP:ELNO whenever there is a conflict in ruling, per WP:ELOFFICIAL. As a result, the link being a violation of WP:ELNO #12 is irrelevant (on the basis of the event that we are considering Andy's userpage as an official link). ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't the foggiest what you're saying. I believe his own personal page where he writes about himself at User:Aschlafly should be considered his official page. I do not believe Conservapedia page about Andrew Schlafly should be considered his official page, it is a wiki page about him albeit in a site he has strong control over. Do you agree with that or not and if not could you explain why in simple language please? I believe his official page should be included and I'm slightly against the wiki page but if people feel strongly it should be included I'd not object. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not his official page at all, it is a user page on a wiki. If he has a facebook page should we link to that? What about his public wish list on amazon.com? Just because he "controls" the content on a page doesn't make it an official link. The deciding factor for an EL is very simple: dos it provide information that should be made available that WP can not provide in the article itself. The answer is no, ergo, it is a silly link. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ELOFFICIAL is a separate bit of WP:EL for websites fully controlled by the subject person or organization and explicitly about them. This site starts by saying 'Hi, my name is Andy Schlafly and I...', he gives pictures of himself and describes his record in homeschooling. It is not an amazon booklist or annything like that. EL is specifically overruled for official links. Most any biography or company profile in Wikipedia will have an external link for their own webpage if they have one. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * About Facebook, ytes a person's page on Facebook is an official page but there are guidelines saying that one should try and keep the number of such pages down - only include the most important official page or pages and try not to duplicate content. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to wikilawyer this, then lets wikilawyer this, please show me on that page how it meets the requirement of: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable."? The subject is notable for his activities on CP, and a few legal issues. He is not notable for his "teaching." Please show how this "official" page covers the subjects he is notable for. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not engage in wikilawyering but I do know where WP:WQA and WP:ANI are. Please do not go around insulting other editors. The referenced page says "The primary initial motivation for Conservapedia was to make available a free, online resource helpful to students.", it lists his favourite pages in Conservapedia as well as talking aboout his teaching. The entry fulfills the purpose of ELOFFICIAL as stated there "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Satisfying that purpose is why it should be in. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't. Two prongs for why this should not be included: 1) it is not an "official" link since it does not address any of the topics that make the subject "notable" 2) since it is not an official link, and does not provide any information that could not be included in the article itself it should not be included as an external link. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we are unable to agree on this I shall post the question to the external links noticeboard and we'll see what the consensus is there. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the question about User:Aschlafly at External_links/Noticeboard Dmcq (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only response so far referred to 'de facto' control which indicated they were looking at the Conservapedia page about Andrew Schlafly despite them saying they were looking at the user page. I've therefore removed the citation of the Conservapedia page about him, if someone wants to use it as an external link I've no objection but it would be very iffy as a citation as it is not written by him, this is a biography, and it is an article in Conservapedia. I'm resigned to the removal of his user page too unless somebody says otherwise at the noticeboard or puts a good argument here though it think it fulfills the criterion of WP:ELOFFICIAL. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems
The EL is silly to be worrying about now, this page has horrific problems across the board, its grammar structure is weird, there is redundant text. It is using non-encyclopedia language, weasel words, and vague constructs. I still think a merge to CP is the best solution. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's plainly obvious this article should be redirected to Conservapedia - Not only can half of the content be found there, but some of it is lazily cut and pasted. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be specific about problems or better edit the article to try and fix them. There is an AfD but you should be more specific about its failings on notability there. I don't like it is not a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is talking about deleting the article. Thanks. And the above is quite specific. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmcq's point is that if there's a problem - fix it! Nothing is stopping anyone from fixing the weird grammar structure, re-wording the redundant text, replacing non-encyclopedic language and weasel words with better wording, or correcting vague constructs. Just stating that there are simple problems like these won't get them fixed, especially when it is just flat-out stated without actually giving any specifics. In addition, these are simple wording problems we're talking about! If it was something like the entire article being promotional, sure, complain about it, but grammar structure? It is by-far much easier to edit a sentence to place in a needed comma as compared to starting a whole discussion about. In addition, those problems do not qualify as reasoning for merging an article by themselves. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate more specifically what I outlined above. No one should waste time "fixing" an article that should be a redirect. Once you strip out all the problems your not left with much of an article. I will wait till the AFD is closed, but I will put up a merge discussion after that. This section was merely started to point out that an argument over EL is silly when there shouldn't even be an article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why I haven't edited the article, or gone into excruciating details is because the best solution is to merge with CP. I don't really feel like devoting a ton of time to cleaning up an article that should just be a redirect. But if you want something more specific lets take the opening paragraph:


 * Andrew Layton "Andy" Schlafly (born April 27, 1961), is an American lawyer, conservative political activist, teacher of homeschooling classes, and the founder and owner of conservative wiki Conservapedia. He is the son of Phyllis Schlafly, the founder of the Eagle Forum. He also teaches homeschooling classes.[1][2] He has appeared on The Colbert Report to discuss his Conservapedia Bible Project.


 * He has become relatively well known as lead counsel for the AAPS's efforts to bring Obama's healthcare legislation before the United States Supreme Court and as lead counsel for efforts to recall New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez.


 * How many times are we going to mention homeschooling? "He has become relatively well known as" that is weasel wording, vague, and non-encyclopedic. What does Phylis Schlafly founding Eagle Forum have to do with anything? The AAPS and Menendez stuff needs sites, and needs some NPOV language. The Colbert Report is just out of the blue and there is no flow to any of this. Most of the information is not sited, because there is no real reliable source for it. When you strip it down to the citable material your left with a poor quality stub, which is mostly a rehash of material in the CP article. Hence redirect to CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is clear that articles aren't kept or deleted based on quality. If the subject is notable or not, that is the question. From there, the article is kept and built on, however bad it is. It will get better with time. Smoking  Newton   (MESSAGE ME)  20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Half right, I am not talking about AFD, I am talking about a merge. An article that is mostly a rehash of material that is in another article, or would fit better in another article should be merged to that article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Going back in time here...I've gone ahead and done, or at least attempted to make better, the things you've pointed out. I marked the part regarding the AAPS and Menendez w/ weasel word and fact tags, which of course, don't make it any better, but at least they're there. As for the rest of the discussion, I see what you're getting at, and half-agree with you. However, the key is not what the current state of the article is when we're looking at merging, but rather, what the article could potentially be. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that I can touch on my last sentence a bit more, so I shall. What should determine whether or not our friend Andy Schlafly gets his own article is whether or not he meets the notability guidelines for people, more specifically under the notability guidelines for what he identifies as (a lawyer, educator, site owner, etc.) What shouldn't determine whether or not our friend Andy Schlafly gets his own article is how well the article is sourced or how long it is (all in respect to the fact that the article can always be improved). It's all about how notable the subject actually is, not how notable he is portrayed as in the Wikipedia article. If we begin a formal discussion here about merging the article, I feel it would be important to stress the finding of sources to determine whether or not we merge, as Sid actually started a topic on above. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly as a teacher.
I feel it must be mentioned that Mr. Schlafly is a homeschool teacher. Why this is relevant? Mr. Schlafly engages in sexist behavior in the classes he teaches, such as giving female students less/different questions as well as his statement "Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood."This is it. Also he engages in the curious practice of publicly grading homework. We at rationalwiki have seen how inept this man is as a teacher. Their are other examples here.--Thanatos-RW (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is mentioned that he is a homeschool teacher; see the first sentence of the article.
 * Now, regarding the rest of the points you bring up; if the information you are stating were to be placed in the article, it would have to follow policy:
 * The Conservapedia links that shows what Andy said would fall under a self-published source, and can only be used in a way that directly supports whatever information it is being used to cite (in other words, we cannot interpret sourced ourselves if it isn't explicitly stated by the source; see WP:SYN).
 * Running along on unpublished synthesis: If we were to state the methods of Andy's teaching, we would have to state it flat-out in a neutral manner, without any opinions such as it being "inept". The only way that opinions can be placed into articles is if there is a reliable source that reports on either:
 * The opinions of what some somewhat notable figures have said (for example, a reviewer from Gamespot's opinion on how good a game is would be acceptable if we were writing a reception section for a video game article)
 * What notable controversies it has caused.
 * That opinion would also have to be attributed to whoever they are coming from, per WP:WEASEL; we cannot simply state that it is inept, but we could say that John Doe said that it is inept. In conclusion, if there is a reliable and neutral source out there that states, for example, that many parents of the students of Andy expressed that the way he publicly grades homework is inept, we could then state that. If there isn't, however, we can't.
 * Even if such a source exists, we would still have to make a strong effort to keep a neutral point of view. There needs to be a balance of views in the article; if everything in the article was people saying how inept Schlafly is, that would be unacceptable.
 * RationalWiki would not be considered a reliable source, as it is a third-party source that is non-neutral and is an open wiki. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of this is actually wrong in terms of WP policy, balance isn't about having an equal amount of "good" and "bad" or anything like that. Balance is about what RS sources say. See the CP article and multiple archives of people discussing the dominance of "negative" coverage. Regardless, this all comes down to the simple point that there is very little information in the RS sources about Schlafly and his activities. Most of it is CP related, and that is yet again why this should be a redirect. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out - you're correct about balance, per WP:GEVAL. What I meant and should have said rather than balance was that we need to keep a due weight in terms of the point of view of the article; I would think that if sources exist that criticize Andy in the department of teaching, that sources would probably also exist that praise Andy in the same area. If we were to mention Andy's beliefs when it comes to differences in gender, I would think that it would be fair to mention both the criticisms and praise it has gotten. Of course, as you say, if there hasn't been any praise, then there hasn't been any praise, and thus, it would fair to mention only the criticisms. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find anything in the least notable about him as a teacher in a WP:reliable source using google. I don't think we can say anything about him in that respect except what's here already. Dmcq (talk)
 * There is very little to nothing that makes him notable in a RS outside of CP. Hence redirect. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wish somebody would be bold and just do it. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He's notable in his own right as the AfD decided. As to his home schooling I also had a look and I could find nothing of note that could be used as a reliable source except that he is one. So that's all that can be said. If someone can persuade a reputable newspaper to do an article on him it would be a different matter. If there was criticism of him I think possibly some statement by him on Conservapedia that was directly relevant to the criticism could be used for his rebuttal but otherwise we can't go rummaging through Conservapedia for stuff about him. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lenski section is incomplete
It basically says a guy wrote and article and he and andy talked it up online. I realize the subject has been a source of tension here on the talk page, but that section is inadequate if you ask me. We could provide the reader some meaningful information with one or two more sentences. I am not suggesting making a big deal out of it, but a more detailed (yet brief) summary is warranted. Or just delete it altogether, because I can't see any value in it at all in its current state. I know I can be bold and blah blah but I'm no writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I will cross-post at talk:conservapedia. Huw Powell (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words? Where?
This is a semi-formal request for clarification of where and what "Weasel Words" are being used. The article by and in large seems to use clear concise and arguably, oversimplified sentences that avoid weasel words. With clear indication of what people believe these weasel words to be, then correct could commence. --Puellanivis (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Education background sources?
Pardon me for sounding skeptical, but the only reference to his educational background at Princeton and Harvard is Eagle Forum University, which claims Schlafly graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and cum laude from Princeton. Is Eagle Forum University really that credible a source? The majority of its courses is taught by Schlafly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.192.72 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

August 1
Why Adolf Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.191.189 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2011
 * That would be vandalism. I've gone ahead and fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. ~<i style="color:#07517C;">Super</i> Hamster  Talk Contribs 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Photoshop
Maybe someone who is skilled enough in photoshop could retouch Mr. Schlafly's picture to make his teeth whiter and brighter. The article would look way better. YvetteY (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that would defeat the point of this article!23.16.216.31 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture seems fine to me, I can't see anything wrong with it, that's a normal colour of teeth. Pictures should only be cleaned up to fix actual problems like overall hue or red eye, not to make things different from what they are by touching up like some fashion magazine. Dmcq (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture is horrible, no doubt chosen by some liberal whitewasher to discredit conservapedia. I shall search for a better one. DavoV (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seem like the alleged liberal whitewhasher also controls Mr. Schlafly's user page as well as the article about Mr. Schlafly over at Conservapedia... WegianWarrior (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability
The subject in question doesn't carry any encyclopedic value. Andrew Schlafly seems to be an activist or local political leader of sorts who happens to maintain a fairly controversial web page. In any case, most of Schlafly's popularity seems to derive from public criticism of his web page and being the son of a much more notable activist. Because any sort of significance he holds is completely tied with his own Conservapedia, it would seem fair to delete this entry or at least merge it with the Conservapedia article. Please sound off below. --78 Personal Appeals (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See top where AfD's have been opposed. Tbere's enough to show notability. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it allow for a second nomination? --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The last AfD was June 2010 so it's not too close. I can't see any good grounds though as notability seems to be well established. See Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (5th nomination) for what you'd be arguing against, the result was pretty decisive. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote to include?
"Wikipedia punishes internet users by darkening its pages" -- diff. Worth including? Selery (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody has noted it in a secondary source so no. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, why this quote? A comment on a one-off event doesn't really help the article. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Query
According to this article, " Schlafly became concerned about perceived bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.", But all the problematic edits there are attributed to a "Roger Schlafly" who claims to be Andrew's brother. Is on a sockpuppet for the other? Just curious.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with finding a secondary source pointing anything like this out. What Andrew Schlafly said was probably just a bit of polemic licence but it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "his" so that it reads "Schlafly became concerned about perceived bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly undid edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings." This is consistent with both the NYT story and with the history here on Wikipedia. — rybec 06:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)