Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 11

PNAS reply

Also regardin the Lenski dialog: CP sent a letter to PNAS, requesting a review of Lenski's results. a transcript can be found at Wikisource [1]. I think this is also worth mentioning. Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PNAS have since replied,[2] but so far only CP and RW have mentioned it. 12:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Totnesmartin (talk)

Myers has just written it up on his blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/andy_schlafly_writes_another_l.php

--82.18.14.143 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, but hasn't escaped the blogosphere yet. Needs moar. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but while blogs are generally shunned as unreliable, if they are from an expert in the relevant field, they might be usable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama as a Muslim

I think that the fact that Barack Obama is listed under "Muslims" (and an explicit statement of Obama's supposed Muslim beliefs) was placed on the talk page by Schlafly would be a good example of the site's political ideology. I'm confused with the formatting issues involved in citing this, else I would do it myself. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We generally ask for third-party references for adding material like this. Hut 8.5 06:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the article, Andrew Schlafly's talk page comments are considered acceptable sources, so I don't see why this would be different. CopaceticThought (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he say that it's an example of the site's ideology, or is this your own conclusion? WilyD 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd say to use Schlafly quotes minimally. There is a real danger of getting carried away with instances of "Check out what this crazy guy said." There is already a wiki dedicated to doing that, and this is not it. If, if, if we are to use his quotes at all, then use them to illustrate or illuminate points made by outside sources, not to draw new conclusions. Fishal (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but can we remove the facts from the article that use Conservapedia talk pages or actual pages as citations? CopaceticThought (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another EL

Would this video originally broadcast on The Hour be suitable for inclusion as an External Link? Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The copyright should be OK since it was uploaded by The Hour itself. Creepy though. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

Despite the fact I believe his page would become a vandal magnet, I do think that we should make a page on Andrew Schlafly himself. Some of his achivements include

1. An unsuccessful run for U.S House of Representatives (11% of the vote) source
2. Homeschooling and his later education (and achivements?) in Harvard
3. Founding of Conservapedia (currently, Andrew Schlafly redirects to the Conservapedia article)
4. Homeschooling courses (apparently, he has taught 135 students)
5. Legal representation for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and televised appearences relating to such. source

Additional input is welcomed, and I look forward to the community consenseus (damn, I hate spelling...) Javascap (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of that list, the only thing that's notable is Conservapedia, and that's already mentioned in the Conservapedia article. Plenty of folks do homeschooling, go to Harvard, and lose a House of Representatives race; those are not notable. Idag (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact we once had a page on Andrew Schlafly. It was nominated for deletion four times. The discussion appears here and here and here and several other places you can access from those links. Oddly, the 4th and last nomination was a "keep" - Nunh-huh 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a merger discussion on the Andrew Schlafly talk page, with a clear consensus to merge. The little important information available should be here. – Toon^(talk) 22:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the pages I linked. But two further discussions have taken place since that one, so I wouldn't say there's a clear consensus for anything at this point, only disagreement. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Has he done anything notable apart from Conservapedia? Idag (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions differ, as prior discussion has made abundantly clear! I think his work as an anti-vaccine propagandist might make him marginally worthy of an article, but I don't think it's an essential article. - Nunh-huh 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:Notability, the subject must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added). A Google search reveals that Schlafly has only received significant coverage with regard to Conservapedia. While there is mention in a few articles of some other stuff that he did, that coverage does not qualify as significant (especially because most of the articles that mention Schlafly's other stuff focus on Conservapedia). Since Schafly's contribution to Conservapedia is already discussed in this article, there's really no need to create a separate one. To cut my long-winded rant short, I agree with you, Schlafly would, at best, marginally clear the requirements of WP:Notability. Idag (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

His AAPS work is notable as he has debated vaccines several time and serves as a face of the organization. Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a brief, one-paragraph biography of Schlafly in this article's History section? It would mention who his parents are, his run for Congress, his AAPS work, and finally his teaching, which led to the founding of CP. Fishal (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But then the problem we'd have is that this is not really relevant to Conservapedia, and also, folks trying to find stuff on Schlafly would have to hunt through this article for the information. I was thinking, since he's apparently notable for his AAPS position, why not just put the relevant AAPS information into the AAPS article? Idag (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the four deletion discussions and the merge discussion found at Talk:Andrew Schlafly, it sounds to me like a lot of editors were simply not able to find decent sources about Schlafly that were not mainly about CP. Fishal (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, I have probably been one of the most vocal and proactive editors for deleting/merging the AS article. The problem is sources not notability. If we get the sources to write the article I will be their helping write it. But after struggling with the AS article through multiple incarnations the sources are just not there to write the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the discussion so far, I do agree that perhaps it is not for the best to recreate an article that, even though it had exactly what I commented on above, was deleted. (Can't think of anything else to say) Javascap (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia and its fixation on homosexuality

“ Around May 2008, 7 of the top 10 popular pages of Conservapedia were homosexuality-related. ”

This is just hearsay; perhaps someone else can find a reliable source. I am pretty sure that the hilarious Statistics page screenshot of Conservapedia (showing 7 of the top 10 most popular pages as relating to Homosexuality) was created by some prankster using a web-bot to inflate page views. « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a courtroom, so if something is reliable, it doesn't matter if its hearsay. Second, do you have any evidence that this "hilarious" Statistics page is phony? Idag (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble parsing your post at first, until I realized that you misinterpreted me. I thought you were being rude and dismissive, but now I realize what you meant. When I said "This is just hearsay;" I was referring to my assertion that the statistics were faked, not the facts in the article. Sorry for not being clear! « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 01:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't phony but it was created by means of click bots. This has been discussed elsewhere. See for example Seth's analysis [3] and the discussion in the comments thread here. Seth is respected enough that his blog for this sort of thing might be a reliable source. Not sure. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is in the form of blogs, which doesn't satisfy WP:V. Idag (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Seth might be. He's a well thought of reporter on internet issues who writes regularly for a variety of publications. We used to have an article at Seth Finkelstein but he repeatedly requested deletion until it got deleted. Seth's opinions on such issues are generally notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the "7 of 10" fact itself appears to be from a blog. Not that I disagree with the gist of the statistics, as they more or less accurately reflect 50% of the activity on Conservapedia, but as Seth's blog points out, the lack of evolution/creationism-related articles in the top 10 list is a dead giveaway that the statistics are faked. « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question about them being faked, yes they were faked, no doubt about it. Beyond that the question is what can and should be said in this article? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's removed, it will probably be re-added at some point. Should it just be mentioned that someone conducted a prank DDOS-like attack against the site and a screenshot of the result was circulated? « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourced to what though? That is the problem we face, the "best" sources that discuss this don't mention the fact that it was a prank, and the fact that it was a prank doesn't matter to wikipedia if there isn't a source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Seth seems to mention it was a prank, and he may be a decent source. In any event, I'm not sure it matters. We're talking about a minor prank. That hardly seems terribly relevant enough to bother including in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know, and I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. I just figured I would bring this to everybody's attention. « plushpuffin (talk//contribs) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we do this: Instead of citing the sources for authoritative statements, we can say something along the lines of: "A number of blogs have stated that 7 out of the top 10 mostly viewed articles on Conservapedia deal with homosexuality. Other blog writers have questioned the veracity of this claim." ... This is probably not the perfect language, but by acknowledging in the main text that we're talking about blogs, I don't think we need to worry about WP:V, since we're not citing them for an absolute authoritative proposition but merely for a summary of what they say about Conservapedia. What do you guys think? Idag (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's no secondary, reliable source, we leave it out of the article. We don't report what we ourselves can plainly observe ("Conservapedia has an obsession with homosexuality"), and we don't report what unreliable sources, such as blogs, have observed ("Conservapedia has an obsession with homosexuality). We only report what reliable secondary sources say. - Nunh-huh 07:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Poe's Law" see-also.

Per NPOV, the see-also section of a page is not to be used for editorial comments. The reference to Poe's Law, given as "Without a blatant indicator such as a smiley, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof," does not add anything to this article -- except support for Mr. Schlafly's argument that Wikipedia is a liberal website in which neither conservatives nor conservative arguments can get a fair hearing. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia; let's try to stay that way. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

monitor

The article states:

Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor, criticize, and often lampoon Conservapedia.

However, the LA Times article, A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia, states:

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

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, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: “Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants.”

The vandalism aims “to cause people to say, ‘That Conservapedia is just wacko,’ ” said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.

The wikipedia article does not seem to line up with the source. Or is there another source that got deleted? Meanwhile, I changed the article to match the LA Times source. The wording could probably be better, though, so feel free to help me out here. Ann arbor street (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "monitor, criticize, and organize vandalism against Conservapedia." I think the fact that RW criticizes CP is evident from the source... as well as plainly self-evident by any account. Fishal (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lenski dialog

Was Conservapedia's role in the Lenski dialog covered by any mainstream press? Ann arbor street (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New source added to article.

I've added a source which cites Conservapedia's assertion that Obama may be the first Muslim president of the US if elected. I'd like to try to gain some consensus about whether this link belongs here or not.--ParisianBlade (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Patriotmissive a reliable source? It seems like a generic blog to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to include this type of information, I would ask you get a better source. I personally don't think this article deserves such an inclusion in the first place, nor do I think such an assertion necessarily amounts to bias on Conservapedia's part. I say get rid of it. meinsla ^talk 08:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.--ParisianBlade (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the post-Election Obama page, I'm convinced that Schlafly is having a nervous breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.234.228 (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution Page

On the evolution page it has a picture of Hitler at the top some quotes from Mein Kempf and an out of context quote from Dawkins that made it seem like he supported Hitler. Is this appropriate for the article or not? Father Time89 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it it could be worth pointing out within a certain context, but some users may disagree, as this edit was reverted just a little while ago.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

cyber-vandalism

I agree with JoshuaZ. That cyber-vandalism was orchestrated by rationalwiki per the LA Times source Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia. This meets WP:V (verifiability).

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And – by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.^{(Simon 2008)}.

Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA times source does not elaborate on the claim that Lipson or the editors who founded RationalWiki personally orchestrate vandalism on Conservapedia. I wouldn't be surprised if the site does receive vandalism from RationalWiki users, but the source does not elaborate on any specific admission that Lipson or the site's other founders personally organize vandalism against Conservapedia. The statement is much to vague to be taken that literally, and making a claim like that about Lipson wihtout any specific evidence seems to be a violation of WP:BLP.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What do you think the phrase "by their own admission – engage in acts of cyber-vandalism" means? There's nothing vague about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If this were common knowledge, the LA Times source would be able to cite a quote by Lipson and the other editors in which they made the admission. As such, the article contains no such quote, and should therefore not be considered a reliable source in this particular issue. And based on this reversion in which you discreetly removed the internal link to the RationalWiki article, it seems that you and the other user are attempting to insert an anti-RR bias into the article at the expense of WP:BLP I've brought this up on WP:AN, so feel free to discuss it there.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA times was confident enough to write that without fear of a libel suit. ALso, see [4], [5], and [6]. Ann arbor street (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So every time a newspaper makes an assertion without a direct quote we need to assume that it magically doesn't become a reliable source? Huh? Also, I removed the link because if I'm not mistaken external cite linking of that sort doesn't fit with the WP:MOS. Having it as a footnote link or having it in the external links section would be fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree again with JoshuaZ. Also, common knowledge and "by their own admission" are two different concepts. The LA Times and indeed most newspapers aren't in the habbit of providing evidence for each and every statement they make. If it is a question of meeting WP guideslines, I agree with JoshuaZ. If it is a question of wording, what other wording do you recommend, ParisianBlade? Ann arbor street (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find a reliable source on the internet, but if that paper is the only source in the world that seems to know of that admission yet can't even cite a direct quote, then allowing it to be presented as fact in this article that Lipson personally organizes vandalism of Conservapedia is libelous. Also, the link you removed was an internal link to Wikipedia's RationalWiki article, not an external link (and this wasn't a natural part of the reversion you cited in your edit summary).--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's only one source for the claim because not many people care about either Conservapedia or RationalWiki. The LA Times is a standard reliable source. You are just repeating yourself. If there's any libel issue go get Lipson and co to sue the LA Times. I didn't notice Nuh-uh intervening edit for some reason and so didn't see that he had added an internal rather than an external link. (Incidentally, I thought there was a consensus not to have a Wikipedia article on RationalWiki since it doesn't meet WP:WEB but that's a discussion for another page). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, the timeout on the protection is 3 days, but if you guys settle this before hand (perhaps with the help of some outside opinions) drop me a note or do so on WP:RFPP and we'll get this article unprotected.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed the RationalWiki article for deletion, as it was expanded from a stub a few days ago by a Conservapedia editor and contained an extremely biased wording. I reworded it to remove the bias, and afterwards noticed that it had been expanded without consensus. The claim by the LA Times is not reliable in that area my opinion because it is the only information on the web that can be found on that subject, whereas there are many other sources which verify the rest of the article.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:V. One source is more than enough for this sort of fact. Again, it isn't like many people care about RationalWiki or Conservapedia so it shouldn't be at all surprising. If you think it is wrong then talk to Lipson into getting a correction from the LA Times. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a stalemate, unless 2:1 is consensus. SHould we seek outside views via RFC, as Tznkai suggests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann arbor street (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I've read both WP:V and WP:RS, and just because the LA Times source says it doesn't make it fact. The LA Times doesn't elaborate enough on its assertion in order for it to be taken as verifiable and is the only source on the internet I know of that makes that claim. The insertion of this claim into the article is potentially libelous, and the argument that "most people don't care so it's unlikely he'll sue" isn't a good one.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "fact" is what is required by WP:V. Ann arbor street (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that was the case, but JoshuaZ stated in an above post that it was a fact. As such, the assertion is unreliable as it is the only such source that makes it and doesn't elaborate on it at all. As you're a Conservapedia user by self-admission, this seems to be an attempt at defamation on your part.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The above accusation is false, as I am not a conservapedia user, and I have made no claim to be one--unless you consider me very rarely viewing one of their articles a conservapedia user. Please see WP:AGF. Ann arbor street (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Parisian, please assume good faith about other editors, please don't engage in needless personal attacks and please, please don't make accusations that border on legal threats. You are moreover misinterpreting or putting undue emphasis on my use of the word fact. The point would have identical wait if I had used the term "claim" rather than fact. Now, can you please explain what part of Wikipedia policy say WP:V or WP:RS you are using to conclude that having a single source making the claim is somehow problematic? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The cyber-vandalism argument notwithstanding, upon re-reading the section, I do think the information needs to be added to a different section. In context, the disputed information is in the section religion and science. If rationalwiki is noteworthy, as the LA Times article seems to make it vis. a vis. conservapedia, it should be worked into the article better, in a different section, probably in the reactions and criticisms section. ParisianBlade, do you concur with this? Ann arbor street (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And so, let's unlock the article, move much if not most of the rationalwiki stuff to the reactions and criticisms section, where we will include the cyber-vandalism (or wandalism as the folks at RW seem to call it) per the reliable source, the LA Times, and try to decouple cybervandalism from any specific individual mentioned in the article, to allay PB's BLP's concerns (which, I think, are a mis-interpretation). The only person that seems to object to this has an account at RationalWiki. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

{{RFCbio}}

Should "Several editors including Lipson started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they criticize, lampoon Conservapedia and organize cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia." be striken, reworded, or left as an accurate summary of an LA Times article? Simon, Stephanie (June 19, 2007) A conservative’s answer to WikipediaLos Angelous Times Ann arbor street (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty accurate summary of the section of the article concerned. The article could be interpreted as saying that RW is not actually used to orchestrate vandalism but that the group of people who vandalize CP and participate in RW is connected. -- Nevard 07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki again a redirect

I decided to Be Bold and change the RationalWiki article back into a redirect to this page, although I agree with an above post that it should redirect to a different section (not "Science and Religion"). Fishal (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please change the interal link to RationalWiki in this article back to an external link? (Right now it links to the Conservapedia redirect.)--ParisianBlade (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links advises against inserting a link in the main body of the text. At the same time, adding a link to RW in the "External links" section could seem like an endorsement of the site. I think I'll try it in a footnote. Fishal (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with having it as an external link. External links frequently contain critical links as well as positive links. There shouldn't be any reason this one would seem more like an endorsement than any other. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki is fairly tangential to the subject of Conservapedia; there's no need to link to it from here. If the RationalWiki article reappears, that's the place for the link. We don't link to places that provide commentary on a subject unless we're using them as references. Thus the Eagle Forum gets an external link in its article, and not this one, and so should it be with RationalWiki. - Nunh-huh 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, its a critical website that is mentioned in the article. Once we are mentioning the site we should at minimum provide a courtesy link in a footnote. Given that it is a website which was founded in opposition to Conservapedia and has been discussed in reliable sources, I don't see why we shouldn't link to it. And WP:EL seems to agree. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be an EL at the least. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-wording what JoshuaZ said, there is definite consensus that there are not enough reliable sources on RW to warrant its existence as a separate article. On the other hand, there are enough sources to warrant its mention in this article, and IMO if we mention a site, it is helpful to include a link. I still feel that a footnote is more appropriate than a spot in the Links list: the link provides more insight/info on a single section, not on the entire article. Fishal (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source, it should have its own article. If it's not a reliable source, it shouldn't be cited. We don't link to every website we mention: Wikipedia is not a link farm. - Nunh-huh 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding link farm, external links on wikipedia automatically have the html attribute, rel="nofollow", added, which means that search engines ignore the link for purposes of calculating search engine rank. "Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings." Consequently, there is no advantage, as far as search engine ranking goes, to getting an external link on wikipedia. So, I think the quesiton is whether or not a link to rationalwiki is useful to somebody reading this article. It is, so I support adding an external link to this article. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That links are no-follow means only that a RationalWiki link here won't raise its Google ranking, but a link here would certainly be expected to produce traffic to RationalWiki, as we are a much more popular site than it is. As to whether that is the primary intent for the addition, I cannot say, but it would certainly be the effect. Adding an external link to RationalWiki's article would be a service to our readers; adding an external link to RationalWiki to Conservapedia's article, would, I think, not be. Again, if it's a reliable source, it should have its own article. If it's not a reliable source, it shouldn't be linked to.- Nunh-huh 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While wikipedia is a very popular site, I doubt the article on conservapedia is a popular page. I think the criteria for stand alone article, WP:Notability, is different than the criteria for mention of an external link in a related article, WP:EL, no? If not, you're right. But if the thresholds are different, and the fact that there are two different policies suggests the thresholds are different, an EL here to Rationalwiki makes sense to me. (Indeed, a quick read of the summaries of the policies indicates that I am correct.) Ann arbor street (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Being listed an external link has little to do with whether or not the link is a reliable source. If a something is notable enough to mention it should be notable enough to be linked to regardless of what we think of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Exactly: RW simply is not notable enough (and more importantly, does not have enough sources about it) to have an article of its own. And its link would not be as a source - it's not a source on anything; it really is more of a community of sarcastic people from all I've seen. But I think everyone agrees it warrants a mention. I think that a link is natural if it is mentioned, but then, Nunh-huh makes a good point that it could be seen as unnecissarily promoting the site. I'm willing to concede that a link is not called for, but I believe RW should still be mentioned as a fairly notable response site to Conservapedia. Fishal (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

\could be worth pointing out that RW seems to be the only site automatically blocked by Conservapedia's "spam filter". This was clearly brought to light during CP's "lenski dialogue", where Prof. Lenski linked to an article on RW and it was removed, leading many editors to question why. 144.32.180.65 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My proposal regarding the cyber vandalism statement

Instead of stating that Lipson and other editors personally organize vandalism of Conservapedia as though this is common knowledge, I think a better solution would be to say - According to the LA Times, "(Lipson and the other editors) by their own admission, engage in acts of cyber vandalism".

In other words, include the quote about Lipson and cyber vandalism in the article, but present it strictly as a claim by the LA Times rather than a well-known fact.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fishal (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable compromise. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can go with it, but I think rationalwiki belongs in the reactions section, not the science and religion section. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I know conservapedia has too many unintentionally hilarious articles to mention them all, but I think some comment on Barack Obama is called for. Almost the whole article is an attack, with most of it claiming he is a Muslim. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that too, but I'm not sure how you would do it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the criterion for including something in the article is not unintentional hilariousness, but whether it is mentioned and discussed in reliable sources. I said something unintentionally hilarious to my wife the other day, but I don't get to write about it in Wikipedia :-). Fishal (talk)

"Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols." Just wanted to share that with you Disco (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then we all need to get our tin foil hats out! ;) Brothejr (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ALL politicians do that. The ones who do it better are the ones who get elected. Although that still doesn't account for George Bush getting elected twice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, I have read the aforementioned article on conservapedia myself and I agree with you that the article is an attack, and most of it is purely paranoid speculation; but I don't think it holds merit to be included in the wikipedia article. It has been mentioned that conservapedia is right-wing, and that is enough information.

If you are still interested in the finer moments of the Conservapedia experience, be sure not to miss gems such as 'liberal friendship' and 'overcoming homosexuality'. I would also encourage wikists not to get too wound up about Conservapedia - it is really just another attack site, which uses wiki clothing. I back this statement up from the gatherings of Conservapedia itself which indulges the reader that not all its pages have legitmate content. Joshgreenw00d —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Some of the articles border on the libellous - and "politically incorrect" directs to politically correct. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A reminder that this isn't a discussion forum about Conservapedia. This is for improving the Conservapedia article... JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

is it worth noting that Andrew Schlafly and Barack Obama were in the Harvard Law Review at the same time? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be worth quoting from the Obama article per WP:Obvious. Especially the gem about his mind control powers. Idag (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the treatment of Obama is surely notableJQ (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, according to Wikipedia's operational definition, something is "notable" if it's noted in a reliable source. Has any reliable source reported on the ridiculousness of Conservapedia's article on Obama? Until someone does, we really can't include it. We have to say "X says Conservapedia's article on Obama is ridiculous", not "Conservapedia's article on Obama is ridiculous". - Nunh-huh 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a reliable source on itself, and its views on the President-elect of the US are notable, not an isolated piece of silliness. We can't say "Conservapedia's article on Obama is ridiculous", but we can say "Conservapedia's article on Obama says he is a secret Muslim mind-controller" and let readers judge for themselves whether this is ridiculous or not.JQ (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can say that if and only if a secondary source points it out. For us to select various ridiculous parts of Conservapedia to point out is classed as original research, and frankly would be an overwhelming task. So, tempting as it is to point out that Conservapedia thinks Obama has super-seecrit powers, and that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust, we really shouldn't be doing it, if no reputable source has noted it. - Nunh-huh 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)\

These aren't cherrypicked points selected to make Conservapedia look silly. The text I added was an accurate summary of the lead of the Obama article - the claim that he is "an apparent Muslim" is in the first para. Our article as it stands misrepresents (by omission) the key points of Conservapedia's views on the question. They could reasonably claim that we are censoring their views. .JQ (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And why is it appropriate for us to mention this one particular viewpoint as opposed to any of hundreds you could have picked to add, then? - Nunh-huh 07:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article currently cites a Conservapedia statement, picked out seemingly at random from a stream of invective, that Obama "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" along with a rebuttal from a student newspaper. I can't see how this is more appropriate than a point made in the lead of the article, and expanded at length in the body, which has already received plenty of attention from blogs like Daily Kos (not that I think this point is relevant, but clearly Kos is a much more notable source than the Harvard Lantern).JQ (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So you'd like to argue that we should violate Wikipedia policy in the article because we already have? Daily Kos is, not incidentally, not a reliable source as Wikipedia uses the term. - Nunh-huh 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, none of the proposed edits violate Wikipedia policy. I will address your arguments one at a time

(1) Notability: According to WP:NNC, article content does not have to be notable. The notability requirement is only a threshold determination for whether a subject should have its own article, not what that article should consist of.

(2) Original Research: WP:OR forbids us from engaging in "interpretation or analysis" of primary sources without using secondary sources. However, quotes taken directly from Conservapedia do not involve interpretation by us, since they are just quotes. Numerous other Wikipedia articles use quotes from primary sources.

(3) Cherry-picking quotes: WP:NPOV requires us to be thorough and represent all points of view, so you may have a theoretical argument that we need to include all quotes in which Conservapedia is being ridiculous. However, your argument that, because Conservapedia has so many ridiculous quotes, we should not include any of them is specious at best. Idag (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you; we are required to source statements to a reliable source, which means a secondary published source. Wikipedian commentary on Conservapedia content is not encyclopedic. As to (3), the points of view we must cover in this article are points of view about Conservapedia, not each and every position Conservapedia has taken in its articles. My argument is not "because Conservapedia has so many ridiculous quotes, we should not include any of them", but rather "because Conservapedia has so many ridiculous quotes, we should include only those that have been commented on elsewhere in a reliable source". That's the principle that had governed the article until the recent addition, and it is a principle that was generally agreed with on this talk page (and its archived portions). - Nunh-huh 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, that is not what the policy says:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [the policy goes on to prohibit synthesis and interpretation of the primary source without secondary sources]" WP:OR. A quote directly from the primary source w/ no interpretation does not violate this policy.

Regarding "because Conservapedia has so many ridiculous quotes, we should include only those that have been commented on elsewhere in a reliable source." This would go to WP:Undue Weight and we should certainly give more weight/elaboration to content that has been commented on by secondary sources. However, the policy does not mean that we cannot make ANY mention of other quotes. We shouldn't elaborate b/c that would violate policy but a quick "this is what Conservapedia says:" followed by a quote would not be undue weight. Idag (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. I also noticed that Rene Descartes was listed as an atheist. Most of the Muslims were terrorists (eg; Osama bin Laden), whilst most atheists seemed to be vile dictators like Stalin. This has to be the funniest 'encyclopedia' I've ever seen! :-) The flying pasty (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

<bias>The trouble is, by Idag's reasoning, we'd have to include the whole site.</bias> TheresaWilson (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that we need to include the entire site, but a few representative passages from the site would give the reader a flavor for what goes on there. While I certainly like gems like the one about Obama's mind control powers, there's probably more representative passages we could use. Idag (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my response is: no. Not until an outside source reports on it, thereby establishing notability. Otherwise this is a collection of "things that amuse me." Is there any evidence that people outside the RW crowd find the CP Obama coverage notable? Fishal (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, because outside of RationalWiki and a few blogs commenting on it, Conservapedia itself is (thankfully) utterly insignificant. How much more significant does commentary on it have to be? --67.166.52.168 (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia Locked?

At this point one certainly can't register for an account, only log in. Too much vandalism?

I defend this on the grounds that their editorial practices are newsworthy - do they need to be included in the article? That's for other users to decide. Jezze (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I got banned when I signed up a long time ago so it doesn't surprise me that they are still blocking outside opinion. Also damn near every article is only editable by administrators.--WhereAmI (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dembski on CP's atheism article

Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski shortly mentioned CP's article on atheism (their article of the year), describing it as "wide-ranging".[7] Is this good for inclusion in the Reactions section? Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic for inclusion of anything that could be positive, but Dembski really didn't say anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Dembski recently deleted the entry. The link returns a "404 not found", so I'd doubt including Dembski's blog. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This really needs a mention

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident Vunecal212 (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other reference? TheresaWilson (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the FBI on Conservapedia is good for an insta-block, as a look at their histories will prove. Does that count? --67.166.52.168 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it needs to be reported in a mainstream news outlet per WP:RS. – Toon^(talk) 01:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did'nt see this "also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam." But i think it should be explicitly said that they used to report or still do acts of vandalism to the FBI. Considering its a crappy website that nobody looks at and wikipedia, one of the most popular websites ever just leaves a note on the vandals talk page saying use the sandbox if you wanna try stuff out i think its definantly worth mentioning. Vunecal212 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual proof that they, or more accurately Andrew Schlafly, ever reported anyone. Sure, they claimed to, but A.S. is a lawyer and would know that they hadn't a leg to stand on. I think it's this "calling the bluff" that gets mentioners blocked. Don't think it has any possible truth. TheresaWilson (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly: History Teacher?

I know that's how he promotes himself, but the man has no creditionals to call himself a teacher. SirChuckB (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, another RWian! I'm a bit ropey on US education law - are credentials necessary to teach history, or can anone do it? If the former, doesn't that undermine the whole ethos of home schooling? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it varies by state and school. Generally if you teach in a public school you'd need some sort of accredition, but in a private school it isn't necessary. Jrssr5 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that most states have some type of licensing/accreditation system for home schooling. Though, unless a secondary source has discussed this, we can't put it up b/c it would be original research. Idag (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Eagle Forum University, he's teaching [sic] 3 or 4 courses and touting for custom to Conservapedia. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he's licensed to homeschool. The full-size classes he teaches seem to push the bounds of what a "home school" is, but AFAIK it's legal. Fishal (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are right. I only bring it up because it seems really out of place. I don't know the norm on this, how do we usually label home school and private school teachers? When I read teacher, I picture someone with the proper creditionals... Maybe private school teacher or homeschool teacher would be a better phrase. and to Totnesmartin, yes, in order to work in a government backed school (IE public school) you need a state Board of education certification. And with the NCLB, you need to be certified as "highly qualified" in order to continue working for a public district." SirChuckB (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling doesn't require licensure any in most states - I was homeschooled throughout grade school and high school and my parents don't know squat. ;-) "Homeschool teacher" would be a better phrase, as he doesn't have teaching credentials, and the unqualified word "teacher" seems to imply that he does. Graymornings_(talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically he can be called a teacher, as he is teaching. The term teacher in the US is not synonymous with credentialed. The main test would be is he conducting a class, which is true in this case. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing

incorrectly placed comment

(Anon comment removed to end of thread:Talk:Conservapedia#...And_another_thing TheresaWilson (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I see! Whereas the point of this thread--or of this section-is a bunch of Liberals arguing about just how right-wing Conservapedia is--is it really fanatical or just a little fanatical? hmmm--I'm going all off topic and pointing out how futile and contradictory it is for a bunch of Liberals to go around arguing how right-wing a site is, so they can keep a neutral POV in an article that is an obvious attack piece from top to bottom, and that furthermore is subject to an interested party, in that it is critical of Wikipedia. I get it now. --Submitted for the approval of Ms. Wilson: just, esteemed, and renowned sage of relevancy and propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanematches (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it an attack piece? Have you read previous talk page posts where we've been searching high and low for positive reports of Conservapedia to balance the article? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, instead of "attack piece", I will say "defense piece". My main beef with the article in and of itself is that it takes Conservapedia's admittedly wacky views on certain things to 11 while downplaying its criticisms of Wikipedia in the main article, only mentioning 3 of about 105. Focusing on the most extreme and absurd portions of Conservapedia w/o dealing with its raison d' etre qualifies as bias in my book.

On the rest, I will defer to Ms. Wilson & co and apologize. My beefs with Wiki in general--the main problem is that it can cite the SPLC and other bogus institutions as a legitimate source of scholarship and info, and that these errors always tend towards the Left--are not relevant here. I would edit the article except that I feel it is poorly organized and requires a complete overhaul, and that I'm not qualified to and have no inclination towards deleting the work of other people and substituting my own; that is, I lack the imperious pretensions of several Wiki editors. ˜˜˜˜

Your "little point" is off the topic of the thread and in the wrong place. If you wish to comment please observe the conventions. TheresaWilson (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Back to "Right wing"

I have undone an edit by an anon editor (68.236.194.181) who replaced Right Wing with Conservative. I think that this was unjustified as CP is extremely to the right of any Conservative I've ever met. I can't produce a reference so may be wrong. TheresaWilson (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to prefer one over the other: they're synonyms. Given Wikipedia's fetish for calling people what they call themselves, you might prefer "conservative", as they're not the "RightWingOPedia". But I don't care either way :) - Nunh-huh 05:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that, like "liberal", "right wing" has become something that people don't want to be. Fishal (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Brit, & CP is so far to the right of anything Conservative over here that it is ludicrous. (I've no objection to being called "liberal") TheresaWilson (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

British "Conservative" and American "conservative" are clearly two very different things. An American who calls himself conservative will almost inevitably be to the right of a Brit who does so. CP is certainly accurately characterized as fitting within the American conservative spectrum, which is right wing. And though Europeans can be proudly liberal, American liberals eschew the word as if it were ballot-box poison. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is very true. "liberal" and "right wing" have gone from being mere descriptors to insults in the political spectrum. I think this is why it keeps getting changed. For my money, I don't think it makes much difference. SirChuckB (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that they are synonyms. U.S. only has two political parties, so the labels "liberal" and "conservative" each cover a very broad spectrum. (E.g. compare a moderate conservative like Arlen Specter to Schlafly). My understanding is that "conservative" covers the entire right half of the spectrum, while "right wing" only covers the far end of that spectrum. Idag (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. has only two important political parties. While in theory, any entity can have a right wing (one might speak of the right wing of the left wing, I suppose), in practice, "right wing" means the right wing of the entire political spectrum...i.e., anything right of center is right wing. While some people may mean "right wing of the conservative party" when they say "right wing", they won't be understood to be saying that unless they specify it. - Nunh-huh 19:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Right wing in the USA, according to WP, covers all aspects of Conservapedia from Christian Conservatism, through Neoconservatism and Small government conservatism/Libertarian conservatism to Paleoconservatism. indeed its use would almost render other descripyions of the CP outlook redundant. TheresaWilson (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and WP also describes all those groups as "conservative", in the passage you've linked to :) - Nunh-huh 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way of differentiating Conservapedia's outlook from what I hope is the mainstream Conservative one in the USA. As far as I can see they on the extreme right of conservatism. If I'm wrong and they are representative of the US Conservatives, then heaven help the USA. TheresaWilson (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I fear you are looking for a difference that doesn't exist. What normal people might consider a mainstream conservative (McCain) was roundly excoriated as "not a conservative" by conservatives. - Nunh-huh 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, "Roll on the Rapture"! The world'll be a better place without them. Sorry - I know it's very POV but from over here (UK) they seem to be almost mad! TheresaWilson (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You betcha. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(left indent) They are clearly to the right of main stream conservatives. Even Limbaugh won't go so far as to call Obama a Muslim socialist who uses mind control. Maybe we could use the term "far-right"? Idag (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it was Limbaugh who recently declared that McCain was not a conservative. Personally, I think we really ought to call them what they call themselves; short of that, we might call them what a reliable source has called them, if it's different from "conservative". But we ought not to be deciding what to label them based on our own perceptions; that skirts "original research". CP is not particularly - how shall we say - consistent - in its political viewpoint; it mostly views the facts as "whatever Schlafley declares them to be", and takes his peculiar slant on the facts as gospel. They're not doctrinaire conservatives, they're Schlafleyites. But we can't call them that; a reliable source must. - Nunh-huh 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Schlafly is still not "far-right" in the sense of contemporary US right-wing politics. Movement conservatism isn't particularly hostile to young-Earth creationism, or any of the rest of the positions advanced by that chunk of the target demographic. I think the current labelling is sufficient to get the point across. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Far right" was discussed before, and consensus was that it conjures up images of neo-fascists working for a violent overthrow of current regimes. What term have our Reliable Sources used? If "right wing" can be cited, I say use it. Same with "very conservative" and the like. PS: I think that part of the loony factor on CP comes from the antics that go on there as much as the extreme nature of their POV. Fishal (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is described as right wing by New Scientist, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Age, and The Guardian. --TS 02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say, "right wing" should be used in the lead. Add a ref to one or more of these sources. Fishal (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I added the Guardian reference. --TS 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest understanding the difference between the words: "Conservative/Right Wing" and "Religious" as the left conflates the two. To begin with, this sentence towards the bottom of the page: "and has also seen it as part of a trend of new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch" SHOULD have the word "religious" substituted for "conservative". This is a Young Earth Creationist website, NOT a Right Wing/Conservative website. To use an analogy, imagine that an extreme vegan/environmentalist organization got ahold of the domain "Liberalopedia.com" and published bizarre and ridiculous articles about how humans, industrialization, meat eating and free markets must be destroyed by any means possible. Should a conservative be scratching his head over calling that site Liberal or Left-Wing? Call it what it is: Young Earth Creationist; I'm a conservative and they have no problem deleting my edits! - Templar January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.237.62 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It may well be YEC in matters relating to geology or evoluton, but that is not its sole purpose; there are many articles there on mathematics, politics and the arts, as well as many other topics. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They have articles/opinion pieces on subjects like gun control, homeschooling and politics; not to mention the famed "homosexual" clutch of rants, which are not really anything to do with Creationism, although there does tend to be a "religious" aspect to everything on the site. TheresaWilson (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the term "Christian right" probaby describes the site's ideological niche most specifically, but that term has become pejorative as well. Fishal (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist Christian right"? Perhaps not - that's a bit pejorative as well I suppose. TheresaWilson (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Republicans have nearly destroyed the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative", in the US at least. If radical reactionaries are "Conservatives", what can we call conservatives? --Ampwright (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)