Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 14

Reliable Source?
This has a problem. RS states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Sources 9 and 11 are blogs, which regardless of being hosted by news websites, are opinion pieces. The section needs to be rewritten to address that or removed. With regards to source 10, I believe that it is not NPOV as it was categorized as weird news. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The poor quality of the cites is the main reason the article failed its FA application. There was a lot of debate at the time, especially about Newsvine's news-blog-thing, and it hasn't really been resolved - unless the Vanity Fair article can be used to replace anything substandard. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a news-blog qualifies as a reliable source and I believe that WP:RS does not treat blogs as reliable either. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to comment out sources 9 and 11, as they are blogs (opinion pieces) and violate RS. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking to see what sources are apparently unusable and they are:
 * Clarke, Conor. "A fact of one's own". The Guardian: March 1, 2007.
 * --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guardian source can be used because the author is the editor of the guardian.co.uk, so there isn't any reason to doubt why it wouldn't be reliable.--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm alright with the Guardian citation because its author has some credibility at least, but I'm not sure about the Evan Maloney editorial. And according to WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Emphasis is of the policy. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn’t it be okay to just slightly reword the article so that it’s clear that the material represented by those references is POV? e.g. “a is b” ⇒ “y led x to comment that a is b”. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 00:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy brings up this issue
I just looked up the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page for the first time in several months, and on May 7, Andy Schlafly brought up his grievance about this widely-discussed claim, which I commend my fellow editors for changing: Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy," but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims. I think the "vulgar blog" referred to Maloney, the "liberal rant" to Clarke, and the "neutral" article to be Metro. It's a good thing we changed the lead's statement to reflect criticism rather than asserting opinion as fact. I hope we can appease the admin of CP this way, but I think Schlafly may have a good point about the reliability of sources. I mean, is Maloney's blog really necessary (given Schlafly doesn't like reading potty humor)? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that's a very old grievance being recycled, I think; once Andy posts a grievance there, he never permits it to be removed, even after it no longer applies. So there is no appeasing Andy; whether or not problems he perceives are addressed, he keeps them posted. Still, better sourcing never hurts. Perhaps the Guardian? "The arrival of Conservapedia has been met with derision by much of the internet community".   If one throws "conservapedia bias" into Google, one gets many hits; most are Conservapedia complaining about Wikipedia bias, most of the rest are what we'd characterize as unreliable sources noting Conservapedia's deficiencies (e.g. Associated Content: (link blacklisted here) "Anything but Trustworthy", "only concerned with the views and opinionated writings of those that only see events through the eyes of a conservative ideology" "if you want your factual information dipped in a dose of Christian bias, stripped of all valid points, and replaced with diluted content that serves to blind and misinform the reader, then the content on Conservapedia is for you. " "It is scary that a site such as this is claiming to be more reliable and factual with regards to information, while it taints and strips actual value out of the information provided in an effort to spread their conservative agenda.").  This is simply because Conservapedia was written about extensively in the beginning, but is now not considered important enough to write about; it was only interesting to the press as a concept; the execution being so egregiously inept is less interesting.  - Nunh-huh 08:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Appeasing Andy is not a priority in improving the article. But yes, the Guardian quote from Nunh-huh is an excellent addition. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate Groups...
Why has the addition of the 'hate group' tag been reverted? The views that Conservapedia holds on homosexuals, Muslims, etc. clearly qualifies them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because no reliable source has labeled them a "hate group". Find a reliable source; don't insert your own opinions. But don't waste too much time looking: mostly, Conservapedia has been ignored. - Nunh-huh 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does some "hate group" watchdog have to sign off on it to make it true? Wikipedia itself defines hate groups as "An organized group or movement that advocates physical or verbal aggression toward or refusal to interact with persons on the basis of those persons' possession and/or exhibition of a certain characteristic." Clearly, Conservapedia does this with homosexuals.

I notice also that this entry bears the tag 'Free Encyclopedias.' Did the International Organization for the Monitoring of Encyclopedia Cost sign off on that? Or was it simply added because it's common sense?--76.89.155.60 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories that are not controversial don't need verification. If anyone objects to that category, we can discuss that as well, but the sources already in the article confirm that it is a free wiki-based website anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that Conservapedia is a hate group. However, such a label in this article is unwarranted unless the Conservapedia receives a sufficient amount of attention to receive the brand of 'hate group' from a reliable source. Jacotto (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are all these rules coming from? Do you just make them up? What does controversial have to do with anything? Either it is accurate or it is not. I have cited Wikipedia's own definition of hate groups. Conservapedia CLEARLY fits that definition. Why is it necessary for a third party to confirm that they fit the definition? Why is it necessary that they receive sufficient attention? Again, either it is accurate or it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The pertinent rules are no original research and use reliable sources. Yes, any thinking person can recognize Conservapedia's rabid homophobia, but we are not here to report our personal observations or opinions; we are here to report opinions that have already been reported in reliable sources: that is, opinions of significant persons rather than Wikipedians. Because Conservapedia is quite obscure, and has, over time, dwindled to a shadow of what it hoped to be, it has not been written about extensively, and is unlikely to be written about much in the future. So there are many facts that will probably never be added to the article. Regrettable, but those are the rules. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the rules for tags are different. How do we know? Because tags cannot have citations. Even if we find that the International Organization for the Identification and Monitoring of Hate Groups has conducted their extensive peer review and has identified Conservapedia as the hate group they are, there's no way to cite that in a tag. Ergo, the tags are clearly meant to be based on common sense, not on citations. Furthermore, if the rules of wikipedia prevent us from adding accurate information to an article, then the rules should be ignored. That's not my idea--it's Wikipedia's: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Not adding information because the site is not "important enough" seems far more of an unsubstantiated value judgment than anything I've said.--76.89.155.60 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tags are supported by the information in the article. Is there anything cited in the article that defines CP as a "hate group?" No?  Then no tag. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * RationalWiki is a wiki a large part of which is dedicated to documenting observations of Conservapedia. There is a link to it in one of this article's footnotes.  That might be a good place to write about hatemongering you observe on CP.
 * Interestingly enough, RationalWiki is now a more active wiki than Conservapedia, the site that originally spawned it. It doesn't get a lot of press, however, which is why it barely gets a mention on this page.  Fishal (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What is a "hate group tag"? Where do I find it? When was it on the article? When removed? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was placed in the category "hate groups." 76 is right that not every category has to have a cite backing it up. However, if there is debate on the subject, as there is in this case, there should be something better than one user's opinion backing it up. If you are unwilling to let this drop, I suggest you initiate an request for comment on this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to the WP:CAT page that Beeble cited, but I didn't find anything about hate groups. Where is this tag referenced? Where do I find the pages listed in this category? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Type "Category:Hate groups" into the search box and it will take you there. It's a fairly small category, and everything else in it is already well-defined as a hate group. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a negotiation, and I am not looking for you to broker a compromise. Indeed, who gave you that authority? If they are a hate group--and you now clearly agree they are--then the tag should be on the article. I grow weary of all the ridiculous excuses and runaround I'm getting here.--76.89.155.60 (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a "Hate group"; it might does include entries which are usually associated with a hate group, but Conservapedia itself isn't a hate group. It's just a platform for a disjoint mob, some of whom qualify as writers of hate.
 * In passing, the "encyclopedia" categories ("free" and "online") are also disputable. I know it claims to be an encyclopaedia, but there's no way it is one. If I created a website claiming to be a dictionary, would that automatically entitle it to the category "online dictionaries"? TheresaWilson (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent)"This is not a negotiation, and I am not looking for you to broker a compromise." 76... If that is how you feel, then you may be in the wrong place. Wikipedia works by consensus. When there is disagreement, it needs to be discussed. Simply repeating your assertion again and again does nothing to further your point. I also think Theresa makes an excellent point about them not being a cohesive group at all. There is no "real world" presence, no Conservapedia rallies on the steps of courthouses or marches down city streets. They've never shown up on Jimbo's front lawn and burned a symbolic laptop. Might as well call 4chan a hate group while your at it, they hate everybody... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My general rule of thumb on categorizations is not to place an article in a category unless one could reasonably make the claim in the article space as well. For example, does Cleveland, Ohio belong in Category:Cities in Ohio?  Yes, because sources can easily substantiate the claim, "Cleveland is a city in Ohio" if it were to be written in the article.  In this case, can we say, "Conservapedia is a hate group" in the article?  I imagine we could, but I would be certain that someone, somewhere would challenge it; moreover, a reliable source for that claim would be hard to find.  If such a source could be found, it's acceptable (IMO) to include that claim and citation in article space along with the categorization, thus indirectly providing a source for the categorization. -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter what, it is going to be very difficult to substantiate any claim beyond "so-and-so believes Conservapedia to be a hate group", which would not be enough to allow a hate group category to be added to the article. Categories are supposed to be for self-evident classifications only. However strongly one may believe CP to be a hate group, it is not self-evident that they are. -R. fiend (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not detract from my point, which is simply that no article should be added to a category unless a similar claim can reasonably be made in the article itself. You're speaking of a higher standard for inclusion, yes, but it's clear for now that this fails even my lower standard for inclusion.  Thus it's really a moot point. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur; if new rationale is brought to the table as to why it should be included in the hate group category, please post it. If it's valid, people will probably agree with you. Otherwise, please find somewhere else to use as an drama outlet. Although I notice that the user driving this argument has a very recent and diverse history of factual vandalism on other pages, so I also suspect this is an elaborate troll. Jacotto (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we say that "some consider them to be a hate group," since they acknowledge that themselves now on their website?[] Yeah, sure, they're just linking back to here, but if the discussion is becoming a thing-in-and-of-itself, and not referential, and it's among those on the online free encyclopedia editing community, can't we talk about it? Most hate groups that would qualify for a tag 1. are called this by parallel organizations advocating strongly different positions, and 2. dispute that claim, making it controversial. Or, if they want to push back, that makes it a thing, and that's something this article can talk about. I'm just sayin'...69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're asking whether we can use this conversation as an example to point to in order to claim that some people consider Conservapedia to be hate group, then I would say no. Wikipedian editors dont qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.  Soap Talk/Contributions 04:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The guys at Conservapedia sure are jonesing for us to call them a hate group, just so they can claim to be persecuted. Check out their main page. Personally, I think that just because they hate, doens't make them a hate group. Let's take the high road here.Czolgolz (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, he's right this very debate is being discussed right on the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, do we really care if this is what they consider 'newsworthy'? The newspost regarding this talk page distorts the (mostly contrived) discussion here, and I just don't think we should be miffed. It's not like Conservapedia gets any significant traffic anyways, when looking at the monthly statistics. Jacotto (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey CP haters, why don't you check with the current administration to see if they define CP as a "right-wing extremist group." That's probably as close as you're going to get. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Daily-selected"
Anyone can tell from the history that the Bible verse is not updated daily, unless by daily, you mean "occasionally less than weekly". 207.67.17.45 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia
I suggest we revise our viewpoint on conservapedia as an encyclopedia, as it does not follow the editorial standards of a true encyclopedia; I suggest a better name be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, however it's actually described as an 'Encyclopedia Project'. I don't think further hairs need to be split over the name. Jacotto (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should it be removed from the categories: category:Free encyclopedias and category:Online encyclopedias though? As Michaelkirschner notes, it is in no way accurate to describe it as an encyclopaedia. In fact is it noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia entry at all? TheresaWilson (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any subject that has 70 references supporting it's article is notable enough for an entry. It defines itself as an encyclopedia (laughable though that may be) so it's not up to us to make our own judgments about whether it is or isn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, it should have an article (that was a jest - a poor one, I know) but just because something calls itself an encyclopaedia is good enough for a Wikipedia category? No way is it encyclopaedic - it's a platform for right wing American weirdness. Does anyone else credit it with being an encyclopaedia - without putting the word in quotes? TheresaWilson (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most sources describe it as "the Right's answer to Wikipedia" or something similar. Most general-public sources define CP in relation to Wikipedia.  It's intended to be an encyclopedia.  Its cadre of users certainly use it more as a soapbox, however, and do not seem to care whether people will ever use it as an actual work of reference.  But that's commentary and opinion.  According to the sources, CP is an imitation WP and should be defined as such.  Fishal (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I said "a while back" - if the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which had "a particular viewpoint"), Wookiepedia, and the paper "An Encyclopedia of (obscure subject)" are allowed as encyclopedias, then Conservapedia can be so defined. What is needed is a succinct term to define "a website or paper volume which has at least some of the attributes of an encyclopedia, but is of a non-global nature or particular viewpoint." Jackiespeel (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that Conservapedia shouldn't be defined as an encyclopedia, for the reason that it has a particular viewpoint while wookiepedia is considered one, the issue is that Conservapedia does not follow the editorial standards that other encyclopedias do. Michael Kirschner (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most sources describe it as "the Right's answer to Wikipedia" or something similar." (Fishall). Currently? They did when it started based on Andrew Schlafly's statements, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that did now with hindsight. Indeed you'd be hard pressed to find any current reliable commentary at all on Conservapedia.
 * "Most general-public sources define CP in relation to Wikipedia." (Fishall). True, but one can relate any two things without them being classed alike, indeed that is generally the reason for the comparison: to raise the differences. The comparison in this case is usually accompanied by a snigger.
 * "Conservapedia does not follow the editorial standards that other encyclopedias do." (Michaelkirschner). It adheres to NO editorial standards beyond its extremist views. Notable among many other points is the use of "Fair Use" for image copying on a truly massive scale.
 * "a website or paper volume which has at least some of the attributes of an encyclopedia, but is of a non-global nature or particular viewpoint." (Jackiespeel). How about "blog"?
 * That Conservapedia is anything but a blog for a few, very few, people cannot be argued with; although I appreciate that it might be "original research" - it's true. The self categorisation should be disallowed. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So what is the consensus on whether or not Conservapedia should be defined as an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just respond to your rebuttals of me (although I wasn't really arguing any point, just making observations). Vanity Fair had a recent mention of CP; there was another piece I read somewhere about the "top 5 bastardizations of Wikipedia" or somesuch that made CP its #5.  Both were fairly cursory and did indeed talk more about CP's original goal of creating a right wing Wikipedi.  None of them seemed to reflect the current consensus on RationalWiki that Cp no longer has any real interest in encyclopedic writing.  I agree with the RW consensus; after all, they watch CP night and day and know what they're talking about.  But reliable sources, even "current reliable commentary", continue to describe CP as an alternative Wikipedia, albeit a bizarre alternative concocted by the farthest fringes of US thought.  Fishal (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not enough input yet. Give it time. TheresaWilson (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been sitting this out, but I'll just say I don't find any of the arguments that Conservapedia shouldn't be classified as an encyclopedia on the same level as Wikipedia to be convincing. Even if we can find an objective way of agreeing that it is a bad encyclopedia, a bad encyclopedia is still an encyclopedia.  I remember from middle school a publication called the World Book Encyclopedia (I dont remember today whether we had the "real" World Book or a cut-down student edition) and it was full of errors.  Wikipedia is also full of errors and original research; how can we place ourselves above Conservapedia when we host articles such as table manners which are almost 100% original research?  (Note that the current state of the article is an improvement from a year ago, when it was literally 100 percent OR.)  Lastly, the standards of research we uphold at the English Wikipedia are in my opinion much higher than what exists on some of the less populated wikis, but those are just as much a part of Wikipedia as en is, and if efforts to revoke the "encyclopedia" status of Conservapedia go forward, I will argue that we should apply the same standards of judgment to Wikipedia as well. (Also, in the interest of disclosure and because my userpage is hard to take seriously: I'm a conservative, but not an editor of Conservapedia.)  --- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm going to chime in one more time here as well. I can't believe we're still debating what categories this belongs in. The purpose of categories is to aid the readers of Wikipedia in navigating the site. They can go to a category page and see articles about similar subjects grouped together. Any website or publication that defines itself as an encyclopedia, no matter how flawed they may be, should be in that category. Any addition or removal from a category that requires us to make our own observations and draw our own conclusions is no good, per WP:OR. We have to remember why we have categories in the first place, not to express our opinions about a topic, but to make Wikipedia easier to use. This is the whole hate groups conversation from above in reverse, trying to remove it from a category because we don't like it or don't agree with them is no different than trying to slap that label on them for the same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Beeblebrox (talk) Again this is not about the political stance thw website slants to I could make the same article about a liberal site, the issue that stands is if their editorial standards or lack their of are the same editorial standards that fit in with accepted definitions of encyclopedias Michael Kirschner (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. We are not talking about article content but rather about how the article is categorized, and I think that having it in this category will aid readers in locating this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK we need some more opinions on this does Conservapedia's editorial style or lack their of fit in with the definition of encyclopedias, forget the fact that the site is utter trash, forget the fact that it can be classified as a hate group against the gay community, turn a blind eye to the political stance and instead focus this debate only on if the editorial standards or lack their of fit in with the definitions of an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are getting what I am saying, I don't think their editorial standards are even remotely relevant, I don't believe it is the crux of this issue at all. The reason for putting an article in a particular category is to aid readers in navigating the encyclopedia, and this categorization does that. If you disagree with that statement, I suggest you initiate an request for comment on the categorization of this article if you want to involve more editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK how do you initiate a request for comment?Michael Kirschner (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Click here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance BeeblebroxMichael Kirschner (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Soap, above. It matters not whether it is a good or bad encyclopedia.  Most of its content makes it obvious that it maintains at least the facade of its claim to be one.  I don't think putting it in the category carries some sort of "seal of approval" from WP that it is a valid encyclopedia, does it? Huw Powell (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with you, Huw. The argument here seems driven more by a need to argue than by the actual relevancy of the subject at hand, which is rather minor. Jacotto (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does Conservapedia adhere to the editorial standards of an encyclopedia?
Does Conservapedia adhere to the editorial standards of an encyclopedia? Does Conservapedia fit in with the definition of an encyclopedia? Remember this is not an issue of political stance the same can be said about a liberal encyclopedia, the question is does Conservapedia fit within the accepted definition of an encyclopedia? Michael Kirschner (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to define or describe anything. Find reliable third party sources which reject the term. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Conservapedia adhere to the editorial standards of an encyclopedia? Does Fox adhere to the editorial standards of news media? Not really, but they're classified as such anyway. What part of the definition of an encyclopedia does CP not meet? I don't believe that reliability is part of the definition, nor is non-batshit craziness. A pisspoor excuse for an encyclopedia they are, but they are, in the general sense of the word, some sort of encyclopedia. -R. fiend (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02: Before reaching any conclusion, would someone mind listing what the required editorial standards are (For the question regarding whether it fit in with the definition, we are using the definition(s) found in here, right?)? I think a list of standards is needed in order to objectively evaluate whether it adhere to the editorial standards. K61824 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia isn't defined by "editorial standards". I don't know why anyone would claim that it was. I like to use a dictionary for definitions - (I know, what a concept) - and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate says an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Unless someone can find a dictionary that defines an encyclopedia in terms of "editorial standards", I'm going with Merriam-Webster. Conservapedia's low editorial standards make it useless as an encyclopedia (except perhaps as an encyclopedia of Right-Wing craziness), but they don't make it not an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be a crappy and overwhelmingly biased encyclopedia, but it identifies itself as an "encyclopedia", and categories aren't the place to try and enforce external judgement about whether it meets some minimum encyclopedic standard.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We should say it's an encyclopedia because the sources say so. We can't use original research to say if it is or isn't. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with the people who point out the dictionary definition and the Original Research vs. Reliable Sources issue. I would never use Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, but that's not exactly a strong case for why it is not an encyclopedia. It meets the cited definition, so yeah, I guess it can be called that even though Andy Schlafly just uses it to promote his views as truth. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been pointed out above that someone at Conservapedia apparently keeps a pretty close eye on this talk page, and events here are being mentioned right on their main page. We are playing right into their hands by giving them all this attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! which is hardly how an encyclopaedia works! TheresaWilson (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That they've been provoked into directing their home scholars to this page to read about Conservapedia is more a case of shooting themselves in the foot than it is "playing into their hands". And if we visit their home page in response, we find other delights. The little guy fighting evolution with a medieval weapon? Priceless. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the above comments; the question posed here is irrelevant. The only question we ought to be concerned with is whether or not the website is typically referred to as an encyclopaedia in the reliable sources. End of story. Skomorokh  19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Claims to be an encyclopedia. Resembles an encyclopedia. Sourcing calls it an encyclopedia. I see no reason to describe it as otherwise. The various problems with it are discussed in the text in detail enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Referring to my comment above - is there a suitable term for 'encyclopedia-like' entities (paper or web)? And how does CP compare with the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in having a partisan viewpoint? What would Trotsky have said about CP's comment on Pravda's interpretation of Barack Obama's activities? (at ? Any truth in the allegation? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What would Trotsky have said about Conservapedia? I fail to see the relevance of your question or the link you supplied, since Trotsky was long dead before the internet was even conceived and it has nothing to do with topic under discussion in this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A reference to Trotsky founding Pravda - and he was in favour of a form of internationalism. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All that aside, RFCs can run up to thirty days, but I think consensus is pretty clear on this one. If no one objects, I think we can close this one up. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comedy
I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Others have had the same idea, the problem being that writing about what you find amusing about Conservapedia's bigoted articles would constitute original research, and so would not be appropriate for inclusion here. What's needed is a reliable source (a third-party account) detailing the general hilarity that ensues upon reading said articles. And you're unlikely to find such a source, because almost no one has written about Conservapedia other than at its founding; it's not on anyone's radar screen. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now on everyone's radar, as Stephen Colbert just targeted it. Expect a plethora of third party references of its entertainment value within the next few days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.142.14 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * it was on one of those Cracked lists a few months ago, but that's worth a passing mention at most, if even worth putting in at all. Meanwhile, the usual comedy/satire sites are available, and there's a whole website out there dedicated to laughing at CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish i could say yes.. see the "evolution" and "liberal" articles on their website.. have a good laugh.  (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * there's a third party account of humourous conservapedia articles on rationalwiki. i could write one as well ;) 92.12.95.57 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found an article on Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news But please, find some more, and stop this nonsense! It should be clearly stated on wikipedia, that conservapedia is a joke! 95.176.155.96 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No need, stating something is a 'joke' in any way is blatant bias, despite my personal convictions. Jacotto (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They will make a joke out of themselves, no need to state it in the article; besides, doing so, would not be appropriate. Tommy   talk  02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia is a horrible website. They do not try to inform their readers of the truth, rather the ignorance of right wing fanaticals who want nothing more than to destroy America.  If is ran by a bunch of whiny republicans who people are just getting sick and tired of hearing from.  Why can't they move on and try to help America succeed instead of trying to hold us back?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.83.134 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

However this is one of the most stupid things i have ever read on the internet "Alma mater normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. [28] However, at Wikipedia, the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. [29] Sean Hannity attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashorrobin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with anything on Conservapedia but i don't think we should treat it as a joke. These people seriously believe this stuff. Let's not make this paragraph on Conservapedia about Wikipedia true "Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia[14] with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia"

{outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Hello everyone (if that is your real name),

I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.

If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another unrelated incident of original research
Regarding this edit by : (rv, for us to compare the two policies is WP:OR. Find a WP:RS that says this.) How many comparison pages on Wikipedia might be deleted under such an interpretation of WP:OR? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your WP:OR also fails WP:COI. As an editor on WP then you have a clear WP:COI to compare the policies on a system that you are an editor of with the competitor system. Again, let someone else comment about this commonality of policy. Then you can add that in and ref that 3rd party. That so other stuff exists isn't never usually a good reason to justify edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the forum shopping. I tend to do it when I feel confused about the intent of a policy, especially if the policy appears to have ramifications that cover far more than one article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points I think should be resolved
It appears as if there are several editors here who seem to have a conflict of interest who are editing. I don't mean any prejudice to TK-CP, but as he claims to be an administrator of Conservapedia, I don't think it is wise for him to actively edit this article. Similarly, there are a couple of editors who have identified on Wikipedia that they are members of RationalWiki, which is a site that is generally opposed to Conservapedia. I do not think these editors should actively edit this article either. I do not mean any prejudice to these editors as well.

As far as any allegations concerning Conservapedia, if it is not reliably sourced, it must be removed from the article and if it violates BLP, the revision should be requested deleted. Sourcing from either Conservapedia or RationalWiki is not reliable for this article.

My own personal opinion is I do not find any administrator on Conservapedia, aside from Andrew Schlafly, (or his or her actions) to be notable yet. This includes TK of Conservapedia.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.

Lulaq (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree at all that CP & RW editors should not edit the article - that would leave very few people to do so, given the obscurity of the subject matter. However, when RW or CP editors do work on this article, they should do so in accordance with WP guidelines, verifying all points from a reliable secondary source, as noted above.   12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article about Conservapedia isn't the place to pursue vendettas. It's for verifiable NPOV info about CP, & its talk page is for discussion of the article content only . Anyone editing the article who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at another wiki with an ax to grind against Conservapedia, or who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at Conservapedia should, in all fairness, disclose their positions up front, so other Wikipedia editors, sysops and the public can view their edits in context of their affiliation. That is why I disclosed my Conservapedia connection up-front, and have not actively edited the article, other than to reverse a change made by a Sysop from another site actively opposed to CP's existence.


 * Editors here at Wikipedia should not be pursued on their talk pages to answer for actions taken someplace other than on Wikipedia, and those are the rules of Wikipedia. --TK-CP (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, yet you pursue vendettas. Arguing that someone's position elsewhere "at a vandal site" is also pursuing vendettas. You haven't disclosed your CP connection any more than others here have disclosed their affiliations elsewhere.
 * No one at RW wants to see CP go away; it's full of laughs and facepalmery. But for Wikipedia, the goal is to be factual and not present opinion or false pretenses in any article. I opened the discussion with evidence to support my case. You attacked anyone from RW and said they had a personal axe to grind, but never defended your position. The unsourced and untrue portion has already been stripped out of the article. If you want WP to state that the CCs are the true guidelines of CP, there must be a verifiable, unbiased source stating so (which would also mean that the CCs, not the admins' whims, should be the true guidelines).
 * Since you were the one who declared that the admins, not the CCs, set the policy at CP, it would be inappropriate for you to try to state otherwise here, or try to change the article. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If talk pages are meant to discuss article content only (as it indeed happens to be the policy here), what does it matter who discusses the facts, and what does it matter what they do in their spare time? Either the facts people want to introduce to the articles fit Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, or it doesn't - who adds that information is completely irrelevant. This is incidentally why the conflict of interest policy doesn't prohibit editing in COI situations; if material is acceptable for inclusion, then it is acceptable for inclusion even if the editor who adds it has a conflict of interest. COI policy also says "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" - that is, if you're genuinely working to improve Wikipedia, your outside interests are of no consequence, but if your outside interests are stronger, then you darn well should disclose that fact. So people aren't required to reveal their affiliations unless they're clearly advancing their own interests and not Wikipedia's. Also, assuming good faith is policy too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people have 'pet interests' - and will develop the articles in those areas; and some people with strong viewpoints that could amount to COI #in particular areas# can be neutral elsewhere - or 'able and willing' to develop the articles in question without overly pressing their viewpoint.

Conservapedia is in 'the category of topics' which arouses strong viewpoints for and (several angles of) against - and the talk pages of which are likely to develop into discussion forums on the merits or otherwise of the subject and other editors, proponents and straw persons involved or assumed to be involved in the discussion, and 'a chorus of so what' among passers-by. Jackiespeel (Talk) 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages shouldn't develop into discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the subject: they are discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the article content.  17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Project section
I don't see why this section is included in an article on Conservapedia, instead of being in an article of its own (possibly with a "see also" link). Only toward the end of the section is the slightest (and it is slight, as of today) connection between the two mentioned (and it may be a mistake: "Conservapedia Bible"). It seems that somebody desperately wanted to say something about the CBP, but didn't have a better place to put it, so dumped it here. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be because the project is part of Conservapedia? It's all being done on-site, it's not a separate project. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The CPB, in my opinion, is not important enough to have an article of its own. Having it as a section in the Conservapedia article is the perfect place. Keegscee (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When CBP was first publicised, someone made an article about it. Someone slapped it with CSD A7. I merged it to this article because it's part of Conservapedia and edited by Conservapedia users; discussing it is appropriate in this article because that particular sub-project has gotten some media attention. Even so, it's a bit hard to explain why it would desperately need to be split into an article of its own in its current state. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to make more sense where it is. If it gets larger we can split it off but right now it is well within reasonable section size. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about Conservapedia's Theory of Relativity criticisms
I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this. If it is not, let me know. It’s about conservapedia’s criticisms against Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I’m familiar with objections against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I’ve never seen objections against Relativity, so this is pretty new for me. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't the right place, which would probably be the Wikipedia science reference desk or Rationalwiki's WIGO talk page, so feel free to ask there for more complete explanations. But to answer your question: no, none of their objections to relativity are valid; some are based on a naïve and invincably ignorant confusion of "relativity" and "relativism", and they are the decidedly idiosyncratic products of Andy Schlafley's brain, whose own brother has tried to convince him—without success—of their stupidity, and how foolish espousing them makes him seem. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I asked my question to Rationalwiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Relativity denial is rarer than other pseudoscience movements, but it does exist. I cannot provide a reference other than reading sci.physics for a long time, but a number of people seem to have an axe to grind either against the theory itself, or against Albert Einstein as a person.  The former seems to stem from a desire to vindicate Newton's laws or absolute coordinates, which are befouled by the new physics.  The latter phenomenon I do not understand.  Note that Conservapedia seems to provide examples of each.


 * You will notice upon inspection of the CP article on relativity that the authors make value judgments based on divergence from Newtonian physics, which is apparently assumed to be the "right" or "true" case. For example, alleged counterexample no. 5 is simply the fact that relativity makes a different prediction, which is therefore regarded as illogical.


 * For this reason I feel that CP's stance on relativity/Einstein deserves its own distinct paragraph, as it is one of several major areas of scientific dispute on that site along with creationism. Indeed, it may be to be one of the main reasons for Conservapedia, as Schlafly seems to take a keen interest in this subject and his list of grievances with Wikipedia includes a vague complaint about insufficient rigor in mathematical physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.203.7 (talk • contribs)


 * While I would love to see some of Andy's assertions (like the one about Jesus' healing at a distance disproving relativity, which is the current #9 point and which was even in the initial version written by Andy) highlighted in the article here, the general principle is that such stuff needs reliable sources that say so before it can move beyond the side note it currently is. You find those and we can talk. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hiya, perhaps the correct solution is for interested people to write a separate article on relativity denial as a movement, of which Conservapedia is one small facet. Specific details regarding Conservapedia's arguments may have little value here, but would be relevant there.  We would then keep the relativity issue confined to a sentence or two here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.249.43 (talk • contribs)


 * To write an article on the relativity denial movement, you would still need reliable sources. (I genuinely don't even know if there is such a movement. All I ever saw were random individuals claiming to have disproved it, so maybe I missed something? Thus I wouldn't know if such an article would meet the Notability and what-else-not rules.) Including CP in such an article would still be problematic because no reliable source covers its relativity-denial (from what I can recall right now) and because CP itself is not a reliable source.
 * Even here in the article about CP, this stance is only mentioned in passing in the larger context of its religion/science views (and I think people already complained that the article links too much to CP and not enough to outside sources or something?). On an article not about CP, you would most definitely need a reliable source to back your inclusion of CP material, especially because CP is not a major player in any sense (their three major media events were its creation, the Lenski mess and the Conservative Bible Project). They don't even have any real influence in their flagship fields, so what influence do they have there? What serious relativity-denier would say "Indeed! When Jesus healed the guy at a distance, he disproved relativity!"? They're only part of the movement by making the same basic claim, but that's it.
 * But kudos for thinking outside the box! And as a disclaimer: I'm no sysop, senior editor or even active contributor here, so my posts aren't exactly Word Of God, and it's entirely possible that any minute now, some senior/sysop will come in and say "No, you're wrong, Sid." --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link that lists some websites out there that are critical of Relativity. I hope this can be of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how - they're about relativity, not conservapedia. remember this talk page isn't a forum about Conservapedia, but a page for discussing how to improve the article, and this whole relativity thread isn't doing that. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Schafly
Does anyone else think that Andrew Schafly warrants a seperate page because I believe he is noteworthy enough to warrant one. Typing in his name will redirect here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He used to I think, but since this is the only notable thing he has ever done I guess we just moved all his information to here. I Feel Tired (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When he does something different from CP (or it becomes a lot more important than it is now) then it'll be worth having an article on him. In the meantime there are several informative articles in regards to Andrew Schlafly highly ranked on a search engine near you. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This search engine wouldn't begin with "g", would it? -R. fiend (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen! Fribbler (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"far right"
Conservapedia is far-right, stop removing that comment. Communists are far-left; I doubt any of them would object to being called that, so what's the big deal? If conservapedia isn't far right, nothing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.97.107 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Source? TheresaWilson (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The terms has some POV issues to me. It already is described as "Conservative Christian" which puts it towards the right end of the spectrum anyway. I hardly think it's misleading as it is. -R. fiend (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with R. friend. "Christian conservative" already sets the stance. Saying that it is far-right is not only repetitive, but I can see how it can violate WP:NPOV, unless it can be reliably and commonly sourced as being far right, with those exact words used. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the two above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Anyone who takes a look at their project will see it for what it is anyways, no need for us to define it too much. Beach drifter (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias?
doesnt it seem silly to accuse a conserative themed website of bias? John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The very title confirms bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.146.147 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't understand how or where this article is accusing the website it describes as being biased. Are you suggesting that the article is in some violation of WP:NPOV or that it is absurd to identify Conservapedia as biased when it openly admits that its content is written with a conservative point of view? Which parts of this article do you find to be in need of improvement? Also, in response to the anonymous user, are you suggesting that claiming Conservapedia is biased is unnecessary because the title explicitly confirms that it is biased? I can understand that in some cases it could be redundant to identify Conservapedia's open bias, but I am not finding where this article is making accusations - rather, it seems to be reiterating what Conservapedia itself states on its own internal article and on its Conservapedia:Commandments page.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)