Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 16

citation 43
could we provide some examples for citation 43?Ref ward (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, there's no need because the source itself provides examples. Second, of the examples the source cites, only two remain current. Finally, the source author fails to understand the history of Conservapedia. It was started as a project by homeschool students, so it's not the least bit surprising that some homeschool sources ended up being used for some articles.  Now that Conservapedia has advanced beyond that point, the sources and information from them are expanding and problems with "inaccurate or inadequate information" are corrected.


 * Now, that being said, I have noticed a problem with the sentence that is sourced by citation 43. It states, "Science writer Carl Zimmer has found evidence that much of what appears to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory can be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile." That smacks of synthesis. Zimmer mentions problems found by others and points out a handful of articles in which Wile was cited as a source, but at no point does he say the former is caused by the latter. The sentence should be changed. Seregain (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly a note on the first part of your reply (I'm not awake enough to weigh in on synthesis concerns, sorry): You said "Now that Conservapedia has advanced beyond that point, the sources and information from them are expanding and problems with 'inaccurate or inadequate information' are corrected."
 * Hmmm, you're right and wrong in a way. (Beware: Incoming Original Research! The following is mostly just my take on CP's development and should be treated as a comment to provide some perspective, not as something to be included in the article (unless there are sources echoing my thoughts of course - but I'm not readily aware of any, I think). As an additional disclaimer, I'm a long-time RationalWiki member and have kept an eye on CP pretty much since the initial blog rush.)
 * The site did move beyond the "Andy plus homeschoolers" concept, but after the initial flood of coverage, the number of active Conservapedians dropped for various reasons until just a small group of regulars (plus a few random users that come and go) remained. And those users mostly began to focus on their favorite niches (plus politics).
 * This leads to a situation where simply nobody feels compelled (or has the time) to look for better sources in currently 101 articles (and this issue isn't even the worst problem resulting from the small and specialized user base).
 * I do agree that the issue is kinda historic in the sense that there have been (minor) efforts to fix it, and nobody is likely going to make it worse, so in the worst case, it simply stays at its current level (which is bad, but not critical). Thus I also don't think that it's necessary to cite specific examples.
 * However, one point of the source has actually become more of a problem: "He or she seems to think that all you need to do is put a mark on someone--"evolutionist" in this case--and then everything he or she says must be wrong because he or she says it. And anything that is opposite to the marked person's claims must be right." The only difference is that it's less about "evolutionists" and more about "liberals" and "conservatives" these days.
 * Lastly, the source is dated February 21, 2007, so it had been mostly right for its time - the site mostly consisted of Andy and his class (the members of which were the most active users, if I recall correctly), with everybody else being unproven newbies. It just hadn't been obvious that the site would truly move beyond the "Andy + homeschoolers" concept. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * all you need to do is put a mark on someone--"evolutionist" in this case--and then everything he or she says must be wrong
 * Similiar to the conservative = fascist argument propounded by a notable RationalWiki founder.  nobs (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, Nobs, you have to bring up RW even in sections that have nothing to do with it? Talk about petty. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

so a rewrite may be on the way?Ref ward (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think we'll have to wait until a RS reports on what Sid is saying. Yes, what Sid says is true, but no-one has reported on it in a way that is useful for Wikipedia yet.  No real comment on the synthesis issue right now, I might go read the Zimmer source and see if I have anything useful to say. Huw Powell (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, if we want to talk about how it has changed since then we need an RS that says that it has changed (which we are unlikely to find) --EmersonWhite (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection
A request for page protection has been made in my most recent version (per WP:BOLD & WP:BLP) while a dispute bewteen User:Nobs01 and User:Tmtloulouse is being civilly discussed with the help of several Admins. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty questionable move, the consensus is against you, try and revert to a non-consensus version, and get it protected? Really? Really?? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or has nobs not managed to state what his issue with this article is in any capacity whatsoever? -R. fiend (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He has, but it's been vague with circular language.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, nobs, you do not revert to a preferred version and then request full protection. You are at the heart of this so-called dispute. A neutral party should have requested protection if anything.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have declined page protection. Full protection may be used only as a short-term solution to massive, uncontrollable disputes.  Papa November (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. nobs (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove all mention of Peter Lipson
Continuing, I propose no mention be made of Peter Lipson at all in this entry. The Stephanie Simon article can still be cited, even the section about certain unhappy users who created RationalWiki, without reference to Lipson. This should be satisfactory solution. nobs (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to make this change? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like we would lose all the information about the disagreement between the person with medical training and a handful of people in charge with none. I feel like this event was highly important in the blogosphere, and while that fact can't go in the article without an RS it should inform what we extract from the RS for the article. That argument is well documented in the RS and on CP and I think this article would be poorer with out PalMD. --EmersonWhite (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)(to Tmt) Either Stephanie Simon got her facts wrong, or Peter Lipson misrepresented himself. Per BLP to protect both, this is the best solution. nobs (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to what part of the policy of BLP would allow original research on the part of an editor to trump a reliable source? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discrepancy is a minor one, a matter of hours in a process of a few months. Could we reword this article so that it is ambiguous on the issue of discrepancy? perhaps we could say that Rational wiki was founded during this debate following several of the founding members being blocked? --EmersonWhite (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EmersonWhite, your statement about oversight is simply not correct. Could you be specific as to what that is relevant to this discussion you find "missing" ? --TK-CP (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly claiming that content has not been permanently deleted from CP? Beach drifter (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment got lost in an EC: My main concern is wp:verifiability, original research can't be used for this. We are safest sticking to what the RS says. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tmt, it's been cited numerous times on this and archived threads over the past two weeks.
 * Emerson, point is, Rationalwiki (RW) was founded before those users had thier accounts blocked. Much of this history is avilable (with thier POV) at thier website. Rationalwiki 1.0 was closed wiki of which Peter Lipson and Tmtloulouse and others had accounts. After they were blocked at Conservapedia (CP), the made it an open wiki, Rationalwiki 2.0. nobs (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it, please link it for me again, the specific policy that allows your OR to trump a RS, please. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is cited extensively Talk:RationalWiki, and here Talk:RationalWiki, to justify this edit. (removal of reference of Lipson as founder of RW).  nobs (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the policy, and what it actually says, is the BLP relies on verifiability and no original research. So that seems to suggest that your original research will never trump a verifiable reliable source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] Stephanie Simon claimed Lipson was one of several founders of RW. Lipson later denied or modified that claim (in RW). The BLP section used to rewrite this entry & the now redirected RW entry reads,
 * Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity...We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

So Stephanie Simon's reporting has been called into question as well. nobs (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The LA Times is a high quality reliable, third party source. Lipson was a founder of RW. As far as I am concerned there is no reason to make any changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's get EmersonWhite to weigh in, here Emerson says, "the wording of the tertiary source you have is consistent with lipston not being the founder but simply being a member who recruited others." (comment posted 09:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)).  Talk:RationalWiki  nobs (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that we are dealing with a semantic shell game. If we say that PL is one of the founding members of RW then we are both being honest and repeating what the RS says. If we are saying that PL was the founder of RW then that is a different thing entirely and not supported by the RS (the other source leads one to believe this more, but that is based on that authors misreading of the RS we have in the LATimes). --EmersonWhite (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing mention of Lipson would seriously damage the story. The whole point is that Conservapedia refused to believe someone who actually knows what he is talking about, because it did not suit their agenda. The contrast between the qualified doctor and the unqualified POV-pushers of CP is the whole point. Removing Lipson's name looks like an attempt to whitewash CP and make RW look as bad as possible. Just state the facts, including Lipson's name. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP article also doesn't echo the claim Nobs is actually poking here (that RW was founded after Lipson got banned). It says that Lipson was reverted and banned (true) and that several editors, including Lipson, started RW (also true). There is no mention that one came after the other. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So there are two issues regarding Simon's reporting on Lipson and RW: (1) that Lipson was a founder as opposed to the founder is more less aqreed to by WP:CON; (2) that Lipson became a founder (or "among the founding editors,") after their accounts were blocked.
 * Per BFAQ several weeks ago I requested assistance to defend an organization under attack. This discussion now is making progress to address this area. My thanks to everyone thus far for their assistance. nobs (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (undent) Nobs, I have to ask where you're going with this.
 * The Wikipedia article currently doesn't state that Lipson is the founder of RW (and neither does the LA Times), and it also doesn't state that Lipson's ban came before RW was founded. The WP article echoes the parts of the RS everybody so far seems to agree on: (1) Dr. Lipson tried to discuss with Andy, was reverted and banned. (2) Lipson and others started RW.
 * So please remind me again which part of the Wikipedia article you want to change and what you want to change it to (and why). --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If the section is causing so much trouble, can we delete the whole section and go on?Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a pretty bad precedent. Be annoying enough on a talk page and get a section you don't like deleted. Leave it and move on would be a better choice. -R. fiend (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe personal blogs are allowed on Wikipedia when used to quote a personal statement where a person contradicts an article about them. Therefore we could reference Peter Lipson when he says he didn't start RationalWiki. That way the reliable source isn't just interpreted and hacked by us. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is if we have to quote it or if we should just keep his statement in mind when writing the article. Right now, the WP article doesn't concern itself with who is or isn't the founder of RW, and his non-"the founder" status is of no real importance to the article or the section, so this issue strikes me as a bit constructed. Which is also why I asked above where Nobs wanted to go with this since his two issues seem to go beyond what the article says, anyway. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SNALWIBMA above, while Lipson's name isn't important, ( he's not notable ), that he's a doctor and that we express this without being weasely ( eg some argue that Conservapedia is xyz ) is the goal. As it is, the section is well-written and clear.  I don't understand the BLP argument.  As the wording is right now, I think it does a really good job of only saying what we know, and not implying anything.  The only problem with the section would be to change the "cyber-vandalism" comment, which isn't clear (to me, an outsider) what that means, even if it is a direct quote.  Pirate Argh!!1!  23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If RationalWiki were an entity you might be able to quote it directly explaining the context of cyber-vandalism. It is not, so I think we are best left with using the quotes directly. I think the section is pretty good right now, and I think that is the general consensus. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a [big] problem: the underlying WP:RS uses the language "malicious editing." I watered it done to "vandalism"  and was reverted.


 * Elsewhere on these talk pages I've demonstrated how Wikipedia was used as a platform by RationalWiki editors to mount cybervandalism attacks against Conservapedia.


 * Again, I propose striping all reference to Lipson out and respecting privacy rights of active Wikipedia contributors. Elsewise, further discussion should be done privately. nobs (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous. As has now been pointed out by several editors, all of whom show no signs of acting in anything but good faith and for the good of the article, the contents of the section in question (Rationalwiki) and what is stated in the cite given matches. The cite is from a RS, and no cite from a RS has been given to contradict what has been stated in the Rationalwiki section. Nobs, I can't see why you repeatedly call for Lipson's name removed from the article, or for the article to be otherwise altered. The use of his name isn't libellous, his name is mentioned in the relevant section of the RS, and, as at no time has Peter Lipson requested that his name be removed from the article, privacy concerns about the person in question do not seem to apply. I also find your (repeated?) requests for this discussion to be held privately to be....curious. The purpose of this talk page is for these type of discussions to take place so a consensus can be reached with minimum difficulty. As far as I can see a consensus has been reached in this matter and the current text in the Rationalwiki section meets that consensus.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, what would a private discussion accomplish? Even if editors were to consent and then a change was made, there would be nothing to prevent editors who were not involved to later revert those changes, and doing so could be acceptable. Public discussion hows why changes were made.Gomedog (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Include information about the "Hit List" scandal
The Lipson reference really should be removed. The WP:RS cited is an LA Times article about Conservapedia, not Conservapedia critics. The RationalWiki subsection lacks NPOV, says nothing about Conservapedia efforts to limit "malicious editing" to make Conservapedia "look wacko". A RationalWiki editor after this LA Times article appeared did precisely this in the notorious "Hit List" scandal which this article strangley is silent on. While some might consider allusion to murder of United States Senators to be a joke, others I can assure you do not share that view. And this does not serve the Wikipedia project well, nor the privacy concerns of individual editors associated with RationalWiki named within the source article. nobs (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you denying the LA Time article says what the article claims it says? As per the rest of your post, you cite no reliable sources and once again moving into attacking editors and away form content. All of which needs to be ignored by other editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Limiting myself to the subject set by the headline: Nobs, the article is "strangely silent" about the Hit List because nobody has suggested Reliable Sources. Tony Sidaways blog is no RS, I think. In fact, the list of stuff that links to it consists only of his userpage and four instances where you linked to exactly this article. Find a RS, then we can talk. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That reference is just some blog and they're normally not counted as reliable sources. It would need to be more widely reported. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs of reporters often are counted, however. Seregain (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal probably gives RW more attention then they deserve. Seregain (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you replace the misnomers "notorious" and "scandal" with the much more apt "insignificant" and "incident" you might see why it is not currently mentioned here. -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP article here states that RW editors admit to acts of cyber-vandalism. That CP makes efforts to limit said vandalism should be obvious and doesn't really need saying. As other editors have pointed out, specific mention of the "hit list scandal" is not found in any reliable source, so we'll just have to stick with the LA Times quote for that topic. The proposal to remove the Lipson reference seems to be disjoint to this concern. If you're gong to talk about what RW says it is, then using RW as a reference is certainly understandable. ...comments? ~B F izz 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead references
I just removed this reference from the Colbert section since it gives me a 404. I tried locating the article through Google, but my best hit (for the full article) was this post in the Colbert Nation forums, which doesn't really count as a good news mirror/archive. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of dead links, the "Coyle, Jake (2007-05-08). 'Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies'" link seems to be mirrored on The Free Library and Daily News (though the latter changed the title and omits the last - non-CP related - paragraph). I dunno if either of those sites can/should be used as a cite, so I'll just post this here as a FYI. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a moot issue. The current #8 ref is a mirror of the one I just mentioned, just with the same changes the Daily News version has (title and one missing paragraph). Compare Wayback Machine version of SFGate with current #8 ref. I'll let the #8 ref cover for the dead one. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cut out a sentence from the Reception section: "Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia." The source is dead, and while the following sources ("Wikipedia for the bigoted" and the 2007 Daily Show segment) of that paragraph do touch homosexuality on CP, they don't make direct homophobia accusations, at least not using this strong word. If someone feels that the paragraph needs a lead-in sentence, feel free to come up with something. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Comedy Channel is a source for Conservpadia on Homophobia? how long has this source been in this article?   nobs (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it has not, please read my comment again. The Daily Show shone the spotlight on CP's Homosexuality article, but it did not call CP homophobic, and it was not used as a source for that statement. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LA times quote
Currently there is only one clear content issue, the inclusion of the following material based on a quote from the LA Times:

According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, "From there, [Lipson and his fellow editors] monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."

The material as been reverted based on BLP issues. This is because it mentions Lipson by name. The actual quote uses "they" I propose changing it to:

According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, "From there, [RationalWiki members] monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."

Removes the BLP issues, keeps the sourced material, solves the only active content dispute on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The BLP policy only applies to material that is poorly sourced or unsourced. The Los Angeles Times fits all the criteria of a reliable source. There is no reason that the original quote should not appear in the article.
 * I find Future Perfect's behavior here to be questionable and counter policy. Admins shouldn't use their tools to gain an advantage in what is essentially a content dispute.
 * That said, your suggestion seems perfectly acceptable and a good solution to this silly dispute. Factomancer (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Factomancer, you stated, ...poorly sourced or unsourced. The Los Angeles Times fits all the criteria of a reliable source; User:Tmtoulouse has posted below he concieved the idea of RaionalWiki weeks before a mass blocking of editors reporter Stephanie Simon reported was aegis under which Rationalwiki was founded. His posting from that link even refers to a "disinformation plant." As a Conservapedia sysop and checkuser with a declared COI and acting under WP:BFAQ who also blocked many of these accounts (and hundreds of their sockpuppets), I can assure we were aware of the Rationalwiki website before the time Stephanie Simon of the LA Times alleged it was founded. A RW founder has now corrobated that error on this talk page. Further, the users in question as reported in the LA Times were not blocked for ideological purposes but precisely for engaging in cyber-vandalism organized within the Rationalwiki project.  nobs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? A quick look at Lipson's contributions at CP (what remains of them anyway) seems to confirm what the LA Times and this article says. Do you have a reliable source for your claims? -- Nx  / talk  17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an improvement, and (aside from personal feelings) I wouldn't oppose it. Anybody feel like poking Future Perfect before somebody just goes to play in the minefield? :P --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I prefer it with the BLP problem removed. I think the reference to vandalism may be misleading because in this context both Conservapedia and RationalWiki may mean something something that would be approved of by Wikipedia. I don't see an easy way round that problem though. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Simply leaving the names out of WP solves the BLP problem, Dmcq. -  Sinneed  12:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that R. Fiend deemed it necessary to remove a non-blog reference I added for this issue based on spurious reasoning. Here is the reference: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/20/conservapedia/print.html Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia]. It states: Unfortunately, RationalWiki admits it, and others, have engaged in "cyber-vandalism" against Conservapedia during which they've "inserted errors, pornographic photos, and satire"

It seems that there are a number of RW members editing here (openly and otherwise) who do not wish there to be anything negative, no matter how factual, about their website mentioned. My guess is that any mention of the fact that RW members have engaged in vandalism against CP will be removed by these people no matter how it's stated.

Seregain (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That quote from The Register is yet another misquote from the LA Times article. Could we stick with the LA Times article please? Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For a paper that's supposed to try communicating with the public that little bit in the LA Times has been misquoted and misunderstood in far too many ways if we are supposed to assume it is reliable. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Your edit was much more than just the insertion of a reference. To say that RationalWiki engages in vandalism is a) not supported by the source LA times article b) silly, since a website can't engage in vandalism, its editors can. Now, you could claim that RationalWiki encourages vandalism of Conservapedia, but you don't have a reliable source for that. -- Nx  / talk  17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (several ECs) Funny. This happened more than two weeks ago, and you already discussed it with R. fiend.

Is there any reason you bring it up again now, other than jumping onto Nobs and TK's bandwagon of accusing us of controlling the article content? The worst part is that I absolutely don't get the accusation of us trying to remove criticism of RW. An admin removed it, and RW members are working on inserting it again.


 * But ignoring all that, I'll try and explain the content issue(s):
 * First of all, the Register merely paraphrases the LA Times (and sometimes did so wrongly, which is why we prefer the LA Times as a source and not the Register), which states "In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire". The problem is that you tried to attribute all specific kinds kinds of vandalism to just RW. It's like reducing the sentence "Microsoft and Apple developed operating systems like Windows XP and OSX Leopard" to "Microsoft developed Windows XP and OSX Leopard". --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating how some people are quick to accept the LA Times reference's mention that "[s]everal editors, including Lipson, started ... RationalWiki" and the mention of their alleged experiences on Conservapedia while also conveniently dismissing the mention in the same reference that RW engages in vandalism. Do we now judge what references state piece by piece and reject the parts we don't like? Seregain (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to be the main culprit there, and it might be worthwhile to discuss it with him directly. I don't know if this user is a RationalWikian or not, but it seems most RW members have not taken issue with that statement the way he has. -R. fiend (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It gets better: The user who took the initiative to insert the sentence into the article again (after tweaking it to hopefully address the concerns of the admin) was Tmtoulouse, a RationalWikian. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Interview Peter Lipson
Maybe we can arrange an online interview with this character and get the facts straight. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 17:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And Stephanie Simon to determine what information was represented to her. She maybe interested in doing a follow up story now. nobs (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be original research and not part of what is allowed on WP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with tmt. If by some miracle you can persuade a reliable source to interview and publish such an interview, that would be fine. If you somehow get in contact with Lipson and get him to publish information on his blog or some source that is obviously his own, that would be sketchy but might be useable. ...comments? ~B F izz 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lipson's name is being passed around enough at this point, as well as what I think are suppressible edits and edit comments, that he deserves to know of the situation. I am going to pass him a note, if he has something to say we should hear it out, if not I, and others will keep a watch on this page to maintain standards. If Rob doesn't stop trying to link Lipson's name with the word "vandal" every time he shows up though, it may require upping the ante on this whole discussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to clarify what I can, but wouldn't that be OR?PalMD (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pal, thanks for stopping by. The way I understand it, if you make a statement someplace, your statement can sometimes be used in an article as a quote for what you have to say on it. It is a primary source, and couldn't be used to draw any conclusions or meta discussion, but could be used as a way to quote you. The problem is not so much OR but issues closer to undue weight and what not. One of the big issues is Rob's continued thumping of this idea that you, I, and others are admitted vandals, and trying to link us up to anti-Semitic vandalism, or the senator hit list. I think a lot of the confusion surrounds what "vandalism" means in context. Since adding factual scientific information to CP articles often got you blocked for "vandalism" its a term that doesn't translate well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Welcome Mr. Lipson. On 29 March 2007 2 postings were made to User:ColinLR's talk page in Rationalwiki 1.0 by User:PalMD. Stephanie Simon of the LA Times reported you and other became involved in Rationalwiki after you were blocked at Conservapedia in mid -April 2007. Did you have any involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 prior to being blocked at Conservpaedia? Thank you.  nobs (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather not waste Dr. Lipson's time with your pedantic detailing, this question is easily addressed by anyone, the information in the LA Times article is about the public open wiki RW, colloquially called RationalWiki 2.0. Which was started after CP blocked us all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article is referenced a lot of times in the article. I think it would be in order to reference a personal blog or user page on RationalWiki by Peter Lipson if he wishes to qualify something that seems to be said about him in that article. I don't think just removing his name fixes the problems with using the LA Times as a citation. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. I've never seen someone try to set-up original research on a Wikipedia talk page.  There's a reason for the rule.   Pirate Argh!!1!  22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a good idea at the time. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this is walking a real thing line, but there is plenty of precedent for quoting someone directly from a blog or similar resource when there is content about them. If Dr. Lipson wants to clarify anything about what he said in the LA Time, then the discussion can go from there about whether it is undue weight, or if there are other issues. Until we know IF he wants to say anything, and what it is about it is premature to declare it invalid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to present evidence through a private channel per Dispute_resolution of several Rationalwiki editors involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 before their accounts were blocked which runs counter to the story given to Stephanie Simon that Rationalwiki was founded after the mass blocking of Rationalwiki editors. Let me once again request, removal of references to individuals from this article could solve this problem. nobs (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your original research doesn't matter, even a little tiny bit, and in addition to that I have all ready explained your confusion. The website "rationalwiki.com" was created as an informal private discussion group while many of us were still active editors on CP. But we were all blocked, at that point, after we were all blocked, we started what is now RationalWiki, an open wiki. Equivocation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I spoke with a reporter, using my name can hardly be considered a violation of my privacy. I am a prolific writer online (writing for scienceblogs, sciencebasedmedicine, and forbes) and my writing pretty much speaks for itself, is quotable, as I can hardly stop someone from quoting my public statements.  That being said, the LA Times article was a bit misleading.  I have a lot of respect for stephanie simon as a reporter, but "vandalism" is a problematic term in this context, as many of us who were editing conervapedia and rationalwiki were adding content to public wikis, not "invading" or what have you.PalMD (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Something seems fishy. Couldn't someone start a 1.0 site and have it do function A with users X and then change it to do function B and call it 2.0 but still have users X on the site? Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's fishy about that? Unless you are implying that site 2.0 will still do A because of users X. -- Nx  / talk  23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They Did A in the past, so shouldn't that be there? Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not there? -- Nx  / talk  23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is there. I feel like an idiot, haha. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE! 23:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

RW was created because people were being blocked or leaving the site, in fact the "idea" for RW, the first twinkle of it occurred right here on WP. That was the motivation right there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, the founder of Rationalwiki, Stephanie Simon, a WP:RS, was wrong; Rationalwiki was not started after several user accounts were blocked, but rather before. nobs (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One simple solution would be to add a line such as "Lipson denies the allegation of vadalism" or some such. It has the advantage of being a statement of fact, rather than opinion. PalMD (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Just shut up already
Whereas people are picking and choosing what information from a source they think should be included based upon what they personally like or dislike, and

Whereas people are convoluting a plain reading of material from a source, and

Whereas we're getting to the point where gross (and insulting) assumptions are being made about a reporter's ability to construct written material and present facts, and

Whereas people are proposing violations of WP policies and guidelines, and

Whereas this is all getting us nowhere fast,

I propose that the bickering and proposals end now. RW is a minor, low-traffic, low-impact website that does not warrant all this attention here (or anywhere else on WP). Let's put the disruption of WP over this website to rest. It's just not worth it. Seregain (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to participate in lengthy discussions about an issue that you feel is a non-issue, then you don't have to. But please don't try to shut down conversations that other editors are obviously interested in perpetuating. If it isn't discussed and resolved now, someone will just bring it up later. ...comments? ~B F izz 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is that this has been going on for  three weeks  (on Monday) now, and everybody is pretty much bending over backwards to assume good faith and trying to engage Nobs in content discussions, even when it's transparent that he's simply trying every possible action to remove, smear, or cripple the RationalWiki section.
 * What makes this worse is that several of his issues have nothing at all to do with the article content, that he keeps accusing RationalWiki editors of whatever he feels like, that he's never sticking to one approach for longer than a few posts before sliding to another one, and that he repeatedly tried to drag a Wikipedia content discussion off-wiki or even behind closed doors. Oh, while at the same time threatening RationalWikians with ArbCom.
 * Sorry, Fizz, but this is getting way out of hand. I know I linked you to the backstory on your talk page - have you read through it? Can you honestly say that this here is a good-faith attempt at improving the article? People here are only engaging Nobs because they fear he'll try to steamroll over the article while claiming that the lack of protest equals consensus. Nobody but him (and his fellow CP sysop TK at times) is actually interested in this discussion, and he repeatedly fails at going beyond pure assertions and accusations (Like the assertion that citing Lipson's name from the LA Times suddenly violates Lipson's privacy and that we should thus remove all mention of him. Or the assertion that RationalWiki caused vandal waves just by placing a "If you want to complain about CP, don't do so here and instead go to CP itself." box at the top of this archive. Or the accusation that we control the article and that RationalWikians were the ones who inserted anti-Semitic vandalism into CP.).
 * Nobs is admin and "Director of Internal Counterintelligence" on a site that actively censors all mention of RationalWiki and whose admins would like nobody to know we even exist. He has been trying for almost three weeks to remove all mention of RationalWiki from this article or, failing that, to smear it both on this talk page and in the article. I honestly don't know how much longer anybody here is supposed to pretend nothing is wrong here.
 * I fully support Seregain's call for an end of this. RationalWiki is not the big bad. We're not CP's biggest problem. A three-week campaign over one tiny section is absolute overkill. And the arguments are getting sillier and more obscure with each day. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nobs" is a CP admin, "Nobs" is an RW hater, "Nobs" this, "Nobs" that, but what about the many RationalWiki admins that are just as guilty? Anybody at RationalWiki (except people like Ed Poor and TK) is pretty much a Conservapedia hater, and most people from Conservapedia is likely to disagree with RW, and it seems that most of the comments on this page are people who are active at one of those two sites, or have a strong opinion of them. Without more contributions from neutral parties, a heated feud will persist until eventually ArbCom has to step in and start handing out topic bans, and a solution where both sides are mutually satisfied will never be reached. Drama, drama, drama, drama, how sad it is to see this bickering in RC. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand, Fizz. Three weeks of fighting over one little sentence in a paragraph about a meaningless little vent site masquerading as a meaningful wiki minor wiki devoted primarily to criticizing another wiki? This issue has become ridiculous beyond the bounds of sense. Honestly, if all discussions editors wished to pursue were allowed to perpetuate, Wikipedia would degenerate into an unwieldy mess very, very quickly. I'm trying to help people realize just how ridiculous this whole discussion has become. I'm not demanding that they stop, but I'm strongly advising that they do. Three weeks of this has solved nothing. What makes you think more discussion will change anything? My gosh, this is getting to be like the endless arguments you sometimes see on blogs and forums. Seregain (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Beach Drifter has made a good point
As Beach Drifter said here in his edit summary (Reverted to revision 355004430 by Future Perfect at Sunrise; overcoverage, not relvant to the conservapedia article. (TW)), RationalWiki is not relevant to the Conservapedia article. Well, it is relevant, but probably not notable. Indeed, they do have an opinion of CP, but if they're not notable enough for their own article, then how is their views of CP notable enough to mention at CP's article? People who search for RationalWiki are taken to Conservapedia's article, yet the section is actually a subsection of the Reception section. RW should either meet WP:N for it's own article or be removed from CP's Reception section. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N itself, notability standards for articles are not the same for article content. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But is RationalWiki a notable, respected, or even reliable source of criticism? Why does their opinion matter? If, for example, I were to make a similar Wiki about debunking Obama's policies, would it warrent a section at Barack Obama's article? Just as one parent's concern on Greatschools.net does not make it a commonly-held belief, one group of protesters does not make it a notable, commonly-held belief (quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlotte_High_School_(Punta_Gorda,_Florida)&diff=340535774&oldid=340428582). PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not state that RationalWiki is a reliable source of criticism, nor a commonly-held belief; As far as I can tell, it is a section referring to how a conflict on Conservapedia resulted in the creation of a wiki that sort of acts as a "counter-wiki", if you would like to state it that way. If you were to make a similar wiki debunking Obama's policies, who knows if it would be included; but I would think that, if it were to gain notability from outside coverage, then yes, it would be included, and especially if it created some sort of conflict between the wiki and the government. RationalWiki seems to be have just that; it has outside coverage (enough that I think makes it notable enough for the article, but not its own), and it is creating a conflict between the two wikis. It is directly related to the reception of Conservapedia, which is the section that the information is located in (and as such, saying that Toulouse is the owner has nothing to do with the reception). ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * RationalWiki passed its RFD, editors determined a consensus to merge and redirect to CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tmtoulouse, notice the number of RationalWikians and Conservapedians that voted in that AfD. If it could go through an honest AfD with zero RationalWikan votes and zero Conservapedian votes, then a neutral consensus could possibly be reached. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'd be surprised if the AfD wasn't mentioned on WIGO or Saloon Bar, so in response, several RW meatpuppets swarmed in to cast their vote. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a light accusation to make. Meat puppetry/forum shopping is a fairly serious accusation. And the fact that you are saying that long established (some have been around a lot longer than you) WP editors are being dishonest. The fact of the matter is it passed. You can appeal it if you think it was the wrong decision, but for purposes of this conversation notability of RW has been established not only as an important element to this article, but for WP in general. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not meatpuppetry, then what is it? Seniority does not exist on Wikipedia, so your intimidation is moot. I have let well enough alone, refraining from repealing the AfD, attempting not to start too much drama. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, for someone complaining about violations of AGF....Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between someone thinking "hey, that person seems like he's trying to cause trouble, lets assume bad faith" and someone pointing out that nothing can be discussed about a particular website without it finding its way to a discussion board on that site where everyone reading that discussion board proceeds to deploy to the page discussion on Wikipedia. That would be like if GE monitored Wikipedia for anything involving GE, and having 15 employees defend the company whenever anything bad is said about them. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusing, prima facie, that RW editors are some how violating rules, or pushing a pro-RW agenda. If we have not violated any rules, and have edited the article keeping with all of WP policies then there is no issue, and your accusations are completely misplaced. If you think we have violated a policy lets show me. Otherwise, this kind of finger pointing is counter-productive, and hypocritical. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having a deja-vu feeling here - didn't Nobs and TK (and then Nobs again) make the exact same argument before? I know it's hard to keep track of every removal-attempt made during the last three weeks, but come on, people, this is getting silly. Should we make a FAQ? --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that TK or Nobs previously made any similar arguements. I guess intelligent minds think alike? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cute, but no. I wish you would have taken the time to read the history before escalating this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, without at least a little humor and sarcasim, this place would be rather dry and boring. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was an attempt to let you know that we are all very aware of the thoughts behind your contribution to the RW section. It was a clear attempt to create more of conflict that you so thrive on. You can't continue to play both sides of this argument, to both create problems and call for a stop to any "sad bickering". Wherever that uninvolved admin is, this thread is ready to be collapsed. Beach drifter (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we are with your assumptions of bad faith again. Frankly, I ought to start an RfC on your admitted, never ending violations of WP:AGF, but that would be like feeding a troll. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be terrific, really. Beach drifter (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kansas evolutionary hearings
Was it Andrew Schlafly who caused that editing controversy? Because I looked on the history and found the user - Schlafly. After reading his user and talk pages, that user is most defniately Roger Schlafly, the brother of Andy. Did Andy also edit the page, or is this a mistake? 72.93.241.60 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the edit history - Aschlafly is Andy Schlafly, so if that name is there, he edited it. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was originally created by user:Andysch; perhaps that is the user you are looking for? Is this request related to improving the Conservapedia article? Papa November (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, it is technically related to the article.
 * It currently reads "Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings", so people were of course curious what his edits said. The thing is that User:Schlafly is apparently Andy's brother Roger, and nobody figured out under which name or IP Andy had edited it, so there is no indicator if Andy's initial gripe with WP was justified or not.
 * But the big picture is that this isn't likely to result in improving the WP article since any "detective work" here would be OR and couldn't be included anyway. It would just lead to some closure, I guess, but that's kinda it. Bottom line is that we have a RS that reports that he tried to edit and was reverted, so that's what the article will say until we find a better RS. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My oops - I thought Mr 72 was talkking about COP's article, not WP's. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Include information about Brian Macdonald
(1) Your edit was... bad. It shoehorned pretty much every instance and kind of vandalism mentioned in the LA Times article into the RationalWiki section, it included the OR that Brian Macdonald is an Admin

(which becomes more hilarious since you then voiced privacy concerns),

it contained several redundant phrases, and it suddenly replaced mention of Lipson with mention of Macdonald (who is as non-notable as Lipson) for no apparent reason. You turned the RW section into a general vandalism section and then slapped the RW label on it. I hope you see how that is problematic.

(2) What the *bleep* does your "demonstration" (which, if memory served correctly, was simply about a custom box on this talk page telling people to go to CP instead of this talk page if they want to complain about it) have to do with the content of this Wikipedia article? Oh, wait, I know: NOTHING.

(3) What does any of that have to do with your attempt to remove all mention of Dr. Lipson? You mention privacy concerns even though we simply cite a LA Times article. Where is the privacy issue? (4) No, Wikipedia content discussion should not be done behind closed doors. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sid, for NPOV purposes, why don't you reinsert the references to Brian McDonald with the improvements you suggest using "vandalism" instead of "malicious editing" and we perhaps can move forward. nobs (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not up to Sid to put in what you want to see. Instead you need to tell us the changes you want, and why you want them. Right now consensus is against your edits, you need to give us a reason why you want a change, not just keep saying to change it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a "consensus" here, unless you mean 2-4 editors. --TK-CP (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we all go and grab 60 editors each, and then claim our point(s) have a consensus? Nobs3 has been pretty clear just above what he is talking about...what is your objection now, Tmtoulouse? Please spell out your exact objections for the benefit of all. --TK-CP (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobs hasn't been clear at all, in fact, that's been the most consistent complaint against him, his refusal to talk specifics. So far he has only made one specific change, which was reverted by three separate editors, and received no support from any other editors. He needs to come forward with specific changes that can then be objected to. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is now being more direct in what he wants, but he lacks a reliable source to back it up. The burden isn't on Tmtoulouse here. Gomedog (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it an NPOV violation to not insert some CP editor's quote about vandalism in the section about RW? Keep in mind, it's a section about RW, not vandalism in general. And of course CP editors try to limit "malicious editing" that makes CP "look wacko" (which is why they're cracking down on edits that accuse Obama of having mind-control powers or that claim that Jesus' healing powers disprove relativity - oh, wait). Not pointing out the blindingly obvious ("Editors of a wiki think that vandalism is bad and spend a lot of time reverting it. And now the forecast for tonight: Dark.") is not a NPOV-violation. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a problem with adding this quote from a Conservapedia administrator and that they fight "vandalism." It is sourced by the LA Times, and it certainly does happen. As others have said though, it wouldn't make sense to put it in the RationalWiki section, simply because they are not all vandals, nor do all vandals on Conservapedia come from RationalWiki. Gomedog (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)