Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conservapedia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:44, 15 March 2009.

Conservapedia

 * Nominator(s): Idag (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a Good Article that, despite its somewhat controversial nature, appears to meet the Featured Article criteria. Idag (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Idag, you have 15 edits to this article and my concern is your ability to address sources used. I read it quickly and ha, the sourcing issues struck me immediately. Some FA participants are currently discussing making a stricter criteria for sourcing, and this may be an interesting case. Particularly, the passage: Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[11] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.[37] Something about this passage is off. I'm not sure what it is. I am almost intellectually (and a bit gynecologically) offended that such a claim between abortion and breast cancer has been made, but why is a magazine named Splat! reporting this? This discussion gets into the esoteric so far that I'm arguing myself into utter confusion.

However, I would like to know if you are prepared to address sourcing concerns for this article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Conservapedia is that its a fringe website that doesn't get a lot of secondary coverage, so sometimes we had to stretch to get secondary sources. I've tried sourcing some of the claims that were being made on the talk page with limited success, but I'll try my best with the concerns expressed here. Idag (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would a reference to Conservapedia proper (in addition to the Splat! one) be desirable in this case? We've avoided it because it's a primary source, though arguably an acceptable one, as it's only for descriptive claims. - Nunh-huh 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Are there no more stats available for Conservapedia? Number of editors, hits, that kind of thing?
 * Generally speaking, there's a lack of secondary coverage and no reliable independent secondary sources that have these stats. The only independent source that has some stats is a wiki called RationalWiki, but, unfortunately, because it is a Wiki it is unreliable.  RationalWiki's stats come from original research and synthesis, so we can't really use them. Idag (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Schlafy is described as a "lawyer and history teacher" in the lead, but as a "social studies and economics teacher" in the first paragraph of History and overview.
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's quite a bit too much linking. Is it really necessary to wikilink Wikipedia, for instance, or encyclopedia?
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the writing is a little awkward, for instance: "Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled, high-school-level students in New Jersey by Schlafly ...".
 * Fixed that specific example. Idag (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that the Royal Society has dismissed Conservapedia is supported by a citation to a free newspaper. That's at best a pretty third-hand source, probably reporting something said in another newspaper.
 * Just did a quick search, that's pretty much the only source for that proposition. I don't think the source being a free newspaper is particularly problematic, but we could cut that sentence if its a problem. Idag (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are tons of statistics on RationalWiki; just look for the user "LArron". RevooH motnahP (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a comment on the article for Conservapedia? I do not understand this link. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki (the wiki that was linked to by the preceding comment) is a wiki whose editors like to discuss Conservapedia. It is not a reliable source because it is a wiki.  Unfortunately, it is also the only independent secondary source that keeps any kind of statistics about Conservapedia. Because of this lack of reliable secondary sources, we haven't been able to put the pertinent statistics into the article. Idag (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * There is a dab, which is a self-redirect to this article. (Found using the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.)
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS.)
 * The following refs have a capital F in the ref tag.
 * Both have been fixed. Idag (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The following ref name is used more than once for different refs.
 * Maloney
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * External links are up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs and ref formatting also found up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * External links are up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs and ref formatting also found up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 

removing my previous rant ...

I'm not an active contributor at Wikipedia, but on both RationalWiki and Conservapedia.

My opinion is that Conservapedia is too silly. Let's fix up the navel lint article to FA status instead. Hmpxrii (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia is a fringe website, but it is notable and the fact that its fringe should not keep it from becoming a featured article. Idag (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Featuring Conservapedia is not an endorsement of Conservapedia itself. After all, Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches was featured a couple of years ago, and Wikipedia doesn't endorse witchcraft... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are evaluated against the criteria, not on what people think of the topic the article covers. Budding Journalist 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments on the lead
 * Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a Biblical literalist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view. - Seems a bit POV in itself to mention the right-wing etc. bit right off the bat. If not, maybe it's the tone in which the sentence is written that concerns me. Either way, it just seems weird.
 * Most of the sources describe Conservapedia as either "right-wing" or some variation thereof, so WP:Undue pretty much requires that we mention it in the lede. However, I have tweaked the sentence to address the awkward tone and minimize the perception that its POV. Idag (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was started in 2006[3] by lawyer and social studies teacher[4] Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. - The footnotes in the middle of the sentence break up the prose flow.
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias. - Link to Wikipedia?
 * Additionally, articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as of its alleged liberal ideology. - "Additionally" is redundant.
 * Fixed. Idag (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:Wikipedia wikilink. That was previously linked but was removed after it being suggested by User:Malleus Fatuorum above: "I think there's quite a bit too much linking. Is it really necessary to wikilink Wikipedia, for instance, or encyclopedia?" Dreaded Walrus t c 08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It also seems problematic to insist on adequate and appropriate sourcing and then object that footnotes "break up prose flow". - Nunh-huh 11:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, adequate sourcing is a requirement. My concern is that the footnotes could easily be placed at the end of the sentence, but instead they're scattered amongst the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But footnotes belong with the fact they support. There's no "one sentence"/"one footnote" correspondence. Lumping them all at the end is deceptive, implying they support the whole sentence, and the reader is left to guess which note supports which fact (or forced to consult them all, rather than just one, to actually find out). Why not lump all footnotes at the end of each paragraph? each article? To do so may make people who hate footnotes happy, but is a degradation of actual information - we shouldn't be valuing form over function, and valuing form over function should be a reason to rescind FAC, not grant it. - Nunh-huh 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who mentioned anything about "one sentence/one footnote"? All I'm saying is that footnotes after every few words make the prose difficult to read, thus failing criteria 1a of WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you contend that appropriate footnoting makes an article not "well-written"? We'll just have to disagree then. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" If I can't even read the article clearly, how could I possibly consider it engaging? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One person's inability to cope with footnotes doesn't make the article intrinsically unengaging. - Nunh-huh 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/INSTRUCTOR/VIEW.cfm?int_instructor_id=7&INT_COURSE_ID=23&bln_registered=1
 * Current ref 5 (Siegel...) is lacking a publisher.
 * Either give retrieved on dates for newspaper articles or don't, but you need to be consistient. Also, you need to pick a consistent format for dates in the references.
 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/9/74238/45934/128/512434 deadlinks
 * I note the use of Conservapedia and Wikipedia as sources, which at the very least is using primary sources, but is also concerning because they are wikis.
 * Current ref 37 is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 47 is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 51 is lacking a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What a sourcing conundrum this article presents... I've been thinking about this since I saw this article arrive at FAC. The best source would be to link to a Conservapedia edit, but that does not indicate how long the (mis)information has been in the article. This is an ethics nightmare, this article... --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would oppose, but I feel bad doing that all the time. Instead, I will point out that many of the referencing concerns bother me. I don't really feel that the page is really "encyclopedic" enough to be an FA. There is a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS (such as "Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[11] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.[37]"). Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Comment - I agre with Ottava Rima, the article, while pretty good seems somehow insufficient. Perhaps that's the issue with it's marginal notability, and lack of outside sources that discuss more than individual incidents?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm a regular contributor to the article but not to the FAC, so take this as you will. The problem with the article, as Idag admits above, has always been what Rocksanddirt describes as "marginal notability and lack of outside sources."  Finding sources on CP is hard, that's all there is to it.  This makes it difficult to describe encyclopedically, and my contributions there have largely consisted of fighting edits that may be true, certainly, but are not sourced.  Fishal (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful citing many Wiki pages as it may cross the grounds to become original research. All Wiki cites need format=Wiki so they are identified as being from a Wiki. A Google search brings up many ScienceBlogs mocking the site, maybe this could be mentioned, but may be too trivial. As some users have said above, some references are missing publishers, and some are missing author names where they are available. The ref formats used are not very consistent either, while not major problem FA's should really be of highest standard of possible. For example, some refs have published dates with wikilinked dates, while others haven't. Alexa ranks in the infobox are usually frowned upon. Also where does the money come from the fund the project?--Otterathome (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.