Jump to content

Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I got a nobs01 letter too

[edit]

I got an email from nobs01 with information about the early days of RationalWiki. I haven't the foggiest idea what the purpose was, I believe it probably just contained the same stuff as a link above. I had a read through and I didn't see anything that would change anything in the article. Personally I would much prefer everything was done out in the open and without side communications please, wp:canvassing can be a problem in Wikipedia when people are trying to build a reasoned consensus. Well actually they didn't say anything about why they sent it or what they wanted so I'm rather in the dark about what the whole purpose was. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was inresponse to your request here, [1] " If nobs can't express himself/herself properly could someone else please try and make an effort to explain what they think the concern or desired changes or actions or whatever are. They've put a lot of effort into whatever it is and I can't figure out what it is all in aid of."
You question had been hidden from the page befiore I could respond (again). So you recieved a copy of Rationalwiki 1.0 in wiki format that Guy Chapman, David Gerard, and evidently the functionaries list has recieved.
If you care to revierw the material and have questions I'd be happy to assist.
Everyone please note, this private correspondance has nothing to do with whatever is happening in the above subhead. My thanks to all. nobs (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archival

[edit]

I propose that, about 24 hours from now, we move all of the preceding talk page sections to the archive, unless a new section is created that specifically requests that we continue to address an unresolved topic in a particular section. This talk page is getting very long and its hard to see which discussions, if any, are still active and unresolved. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the "Old Criticisms" section (immediately preceding this one), which is too recent to archive. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be appropriate to archive the RFC when so far few uninvolved editors have commented. Weakopedia (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of these discussions are now 7 days stale, so I'm going to just let MiszaBot clean those up (tonight?) and go from there. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That will nuke about a third of the page which should improve the readability - in 3 days another third will go unless anyone is interested in them. Weakopedia (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just do it manually instead of tweaking the robot's instructions? Huw Powell (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is tweaking instructions (or at least I haven't noticed anything) - the bot automatically cleans up sections that have been idle for seven days (check the history). The "tonight?" comment likely implied that the bot patrols a ton of pages and that it'll take a while until it gets here. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B Fizz changed it to five days a day or two ago. Huw Powell (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - I had just looked at the last Bot comment without realizing that the setting had been changed between said archival and your comment. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'll leave it that way till the talk page is back to a slim size, but if anyone wants to put it back at 7 days or longer, I won't protest. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps you have good reasons, I just see no need to stuff things away as fast as possible. Delete junk, sure; and manually archive completed discussions (maybe leaving undated summaries?), but when the talk is hot and heavy, let it ride until it settles down. That's my opinion, anyway. This thing always loaded fine for me. Huw Powell (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to 10 days for the benefit of those of us who cannot possibly edit wiki's 24/7, and have outside commitments that preclude us from checking in on this particular article several times daily, or even daily. Given the consensus seems to be there is no need to archive so often, which I agree with. --TK-CP (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to 7 days. Coming from someone who above offered to edit 24/7 over an entire weekend, I find you plaint amusing. Also, you never did come here with the laudatory RS comments about Conservapedia that you promised. oh well, we all get caught up in our work, etc. No big deal. Anyway, as I said, I put it back to seven days. Huw Powell (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it isn't a big deal, Huw, so I changed it back to ten days. Please leave your digs on RW, and away from here. Somehow you think you are an admin here, and can just breeze in and change it after a week? Sorry, that isn't going to fly. I am traveling now, in New Mexico, and can't check in so often. And in case you need to refresh your memory, it wasn't my complaint, it was yours. --TK-CP (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the insulting comments and arrogance elsewhere. So you prefer it to be set to ten days for your personal convenience? I'm fine with that. Huw Powell (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps you have good reasons, I just see no need to stuff things away as fast as possible. Delete junk, sure; and manually archive completed discussions (maybe leaving undated summaries?), but when the talk is hot and heavy, let it ride until it settles down. That's my opinion, anyway. This thing always loaded fine for me. Huw Powell (talk) 8:44 pm, 19 April 2010, Monday (10 days ago) (UTC−7)

Whose arrogance? Let me guess, its your turn tonight to blow up the attempt at conciliation up? Epic fail. --TK-CP (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the archive counter back to where it was before BFizz lowered it to 5 days and you raised it to 10 days. Stop being a jerk. If I assume you are typing in good faith, it causes me to wonder about your competence at expressing yourself. If I assume competence at expressing yourself, I find you are not a good faith editor but simply a single issue concern troll. So I have to go with the former. Huw Powell (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the wording from the source

[edit]

In the sections above TK seems to imply that the current wording in the article is some how obfuscating the wording in the Simon article about the circumstances around which RW was founded. All the original research aside, whether it it my own personal knowledge, Rob's original research, or TK's recollections we are limited to what is reported in the article. As far as I can see we are doing an accurate job parsing that information in the article. Since this is a specific content issue perhaps TK would elaborate in this section. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how quoting the website is original research, Trent. Isn't it true that the Admins have stated already that using what is on a site is okay? --TK-CP (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what information do you wish to quote? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What specific edit to the article are you proposing? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the name of Dr. Peter A. Lipson. nobs (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no compelling reason to do so. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tmtoulouse here. If the RW editors here on Wikipedia wish Dr. Lipson's name to remain, I have no objection to that and neither does Mr. Schlafly. As to the information I would like to include, and quote, it would be some of what Nobs has proposed, taken from both the CP and RW sites, as posted by some of the very people currently involved with this discussion, but in all cases active editors on the respective sites. --TK-CP (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute between the good doctor & Mr. Schlafly was not over breast cancer rates & abortion. It was over his insistance on creating articles like gonorrhea and genital warts after Mr. Schlafly told him CP was intended as a resource for homeschoolers whose parents didn't want thier kids exposed to the curricula of public school sex education classes. Lipson wrote about this in his infamous essay at RW slamming CP with, what I consider to be, defamatory attacks. I would have loved to have engaged Lipson at the time with Thomas Sowell's book, The Vision of the Anointed, an excellent refutation to claims that sex-education reduces teen pregnancy and STD's, but my hands were full with cyber-vandals (taking the bait) on the New Ordeal and Reparative Therapy. nobs (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute between the good doctor & Mr. Schlafly was over breast cancer rates & abortion, because that's what the source says. Your claims are not only OR (where does Lipson say that he was blocked for trying to write articles about gonorrhea and such? I couldn't find that in his essay), they are a violation of BLP. -- Nx / talk 18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RationalWiki's and Andrew Schlafly's off-WP opinions have no bearing on this Wikipedia article. What is it that you would like to include? Please be specific. Huw Powell (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP, privacy, NPOV, and use of a dubious source (covered in WP:RS & WP:V, I think). Beleive it or not, other policies may apply as well. Wanna try WP:MEDCAB? Thank you. nobs (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed and no such issues have been observed. I can't believe this is still going on. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to engage in either formal, semiformal or informal mediation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was actually to tmtloulouse and has been a standing offer at least as far back as here. [2]
As to user:Hipocrite, in what capacity, as a neutral WP admin or editor in dispute? nobs (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It's obvious I'm part of the dispute. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure; I thought you were a WP neutral Admin. Perhaps you can persuade tmtoulouse on which form of Mediation to pursue. I basically would prefer some form of private mediation with a neutral WP volunteer. This process may take some time, and personally I think the fewer disputants involved the better.
Now, having declared a position, could I request of you to stop performing Admin tasks such as closing discussions on content and policy that are still in progress, please? Thank you. nobs (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll close discussions that are not related to the article. If you think one of my closings is in error, please feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page, or seek neutral review of it, or undo it at your own risk. Further, this is now no longer related to content, so if you wish to discuss it with me further, you can adress me on my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing to do with content Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We will have to move this forward to the appeals process since no one here seems interested in stopping RW Admins from "owning" this article. --TK-CP (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like a RFC? Mediation? AN/I? All have been done, no one has found a COI, article ownership issue, or any significant issues with the content of the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well like everything in life, Tmtoulouse, it always depends upon who does the judging, doesn't it? Before your fellow RW editor hid the productive threads here, I had been speaking with Andy Schlafly and was ready to make some agreements, if you had been willing to do the same, but that seems down the tubes now, because of continued arbitrary and judgmental actions by editors who (just coincidentally, and with good faith I am certain) are also Admins at your wiki. But I don't think bad intent should be rewarded, and sooner or later I will find others here who agree, because while all might be equal here, it is clear some are more equal than others, at least in their own minds. --TK-CP (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Time to stop trolling. Really. -R. fiend (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than make still more personal insults, R. fiend, where you were cooperative earlier, now you revert yourself, you also being a RW administrator, editing here in good faith, which I do not question, of course. --TK-CP (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dude, you lost me. Perhaps you meant to link to something else? A page I actually edited, perchance? Listen, all this talk is useless until one of you two does the following:
  1. Explain what you think is wrong with this article
  2. Explain why you think it is wrong, in terms of WP policy (and don't start up your game of policy roulette again, nobs, randomly linking to any policy page with the remote hope it might somehow be relevant)
  3. Propose specifically what you'd like the change to be, and why, without resorting to original research.
Once those very basic steps have been taken, we can proceed. "Remove mention of Peter Lipson" does not suffice. Most people, whether they edit at RW or not, seem to think this article is decent. Let's face it, it's about the most fair shake Conservapedia gets on the web. The impetus is on you to justify alterations. -R. fiend (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apology for getting my users mixed up, R. fiend. It seems to me, in the threads arbitrarily removed by another editor who then threatened me when I objected to their removal, we were cooperating and being courteous, and working some things out. Maybe I am being delusional about that. Before that editor blew it all up, I was about to propose some things, and was prepared to get this whole thing settled by the weekend and be done with this constant bickering and tit-for-tat. But what happens? More outting on RW, more inflammatory off-WP comments and disgusting name calling. Even a Wikipedia Admin calling me an idiot on RW....saying I assume good faith but turning that into a link to Hanlon's Razor [3]...surely that isn't condoned by the Bureaucrats here. So I am afraid that bad behavior cannot possibly be condoned, and this dispute is headed elsewhere, sorry to say. Have no doubt with the press now interested, I will find additional fair-minded people to help. --TK-CP (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happens off WP has nothing to do with WP. What were the improvements you were going to suggest before your feelings were hurt elsewhere? Huw Powell (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong, Huw. Editors have and continue to be blocked for their actions elsewhere. It goes to credibility and an editors ability to assume good faith here. --TK-CP (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caution, TK. Nuttish (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, TK-CP, what happens elsewhere has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I have no idea why you think I'm wrong. Also, once more, we aren't discussing improving the article. Huw Powell (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"written from a Christian...point of view."

[edit]

I know there's a lot going on w/this article right now, but there's something about the opening sentence that bugs me: the description of the project as taking a "Christian" point of view. As the article goes on to point out, many Christians have taken issue with important elements of Conservapedia, notably the Bible re-write, and many of the core elements of Conservapedia's stance--certainly the YEC thing, but others as well--are by no means reflective of a lot of Chrisitans' worldviews. I'm afraid that as written, by associating some controversial ideas that are part of the CP party line, this article is doing to much to let the particular Conservapedia approach to Christianity define a broad and multifaceted set of beliefs. Is there some sort of modifier that might sort this out? "Fundamentalist" is too judgmental in tone, though some might say appropriate; "self-described" might bring home the idea that this is but one particular, and arguably non-mainstream approach to Christianity. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Tmtoulouse's administrators? Theory, I changed the wording and was reverted by yet another RW administrator, in an effort of conciliation and accuracy, as you suggest. Check the history. It was instantly reverted. --TK-CP (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Another of Tmtoulouse's administrators?" TK, please leave the personal suppositions/accusations that have nothing to do with Wikipedia out of this discussion. I like "self-described", is there a general precursor to this sort of phrasing on WP? Huw Powell (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm a RW user (as stated on my user page), and I understand ToP's concerns but I disagree with them. Christianity is quite a broad collection of beliefs and practices, so I don't see it as being problematic to describe CP as being written from a Christian point of view. I don't see a need for modifiers unless a group is demonstrably ignoring core tenets of Christianity (i.e. claiming that Christ was a space robot or a vampire). Also, please lets keep the allegations of conspiracy out of this discussion. The goal here is to help build an article that fits within the framework established by Wikipedia. I'm sure that the article can be developed without the need to assume bad faith so long as contentious additions are supported by adequate references. If CP truly presents a highly unorthodox view of Christianity then it should be described in such a way that does justice to their beliefs and informs readers of the alleged serious divergence from orthodox Christianity. ---Concernedresident's butler Not butter or putter 09:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that pretty much every RationalWiki user who sticks around gets sysop powers. (Pretty much everything a sysop does on a MediaWiki installation is reversible.) The equivalent of a WP sysop in social power at RW is bureaucrat - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see where TK-CP changed the wording and was reverted but there's been a lot of vandalism recently. Anyway I think the wording is fine - Christian American conservative conveys a fairly accurate picture when all three are put together like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the comma between "Christian" and "American" that's throwing things off, because Conservapedia isn't specifically written to a broad "American conservative" perspective either, but rather a subset of same. Perhaps "Christian American conservative" or some other variation of the 3-word combo? American Christian conservative, maybe?--Sir Temperance (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the diff TK is referring to, but it was not "reverted" by Tmtoulouse, as TK said, although he did reinstate the word and link to Conservative Christianity. So the introduction to the article is talking about CP having a Christian viewpoint, but the link is to Conservative Christian, a small distinction maybe, but the two are not the same. Colinpendred (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"written from a Christian...point of view" appears to be WP:OR; nothing on CP's Main Page or the Conservapedia Commandments mandate that. Can anyone supply a RS to cite that claim in the opening sentence here? nobs (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is described as christian in secondary sources. You're not actually denying it has a strong conservative christian leaning with its daily Bible quote on the front page for instance and it talking about Jesus in its 'Commandments'? Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, it is still a bit of stretch to say "written from a Christian perspective..." without a cite. Without a cite it's called OR. nobs (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The leader for an article should describe the topic and summarize the article, a full description is given in WP:LEAD. I'm not very keen on citations in the leader as it should not be introducing unique content - its citation should be article itself. If you feel the statementbis not supported by the article then the arrticle should have support and a citation but just sticking it into the leader without such support in the main article itself would be wrong I feel. Do you think that the statement is unsupported by the statements in the section 'Editorial viewpoints and policies'?, or do you think the statement is dubious? Personally I think there is already too many citations in the leader as I feel they distance it its purpose in summarizing the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia maintains a list of external articles that mention them. The Christian Post does explicitly state [Conservapedia is] putting a conservative Christian spin on the idea of web-based, user-controlled encyclopedias and “Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America,” the front page of its website reads. Is Christian Post a RS? KenDenier (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strawpoll

[edit]

Perhaps it's time to run a strawpoll [4] and forge a consensus on the question,

  • The question is simple, Did the LA Times & Register err in material facts about the founding of Rationalwiki? Peter Lipson denies he's the founder, [7] as reported in both reliable sources. User:Flippin, an interviewee for the LA Times, gives a different scenario likewise as to several material facts in his published interview. [8] nobs (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad question. How many times do you need it explaining? The LA Times article says "Lipson and several other editors .. started their own website" (my emphasis). That is not a claim that Lipson started RW. 87.74.75.128 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so the LA Times is in error. Full quote: "After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other ...started their own website". User:Flippin, who published his interview [9] with the LA Times, says "[another founding editor] would go to user pages and invite people one at a time to join him for a discussion about CP. The site he led us to was Rationalwiki....a CP sysop (we think TK) found his way to RW and learned who all of us were. He returned to CP and began systematically banning us from the site...we settled on creating our own site..." nobs (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, you want to declare the source inaccurate just because the reporter didn't go out of her way to make it clear that this refers to RW 2.0, the first public site and the one that had been live by the time she wanted to do the interview? What the article describes is the mass banning and RW's subsequent evolution from tiny private discussion place of a few disillusioned Conservapedians to public site. For all practical intents and purposes, RW was created then. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you stated Rationalwiki existed before the time the LA Times reported it came into existence. Can we get a consensus then on the accuracy of the LA Times? nobs (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus appears to be it does not matter, move on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs, your stated purpose in creating the poll was to "forge a consensus on the question". It's quite clear that there is consensus, so now all you are doing is SHOPPING for a policy that fits. The BLP issues have already been raised and dismissed and there is no point bringing them up again. It's time for you to move on. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, there is a consensus on inaccuracies of the LA Times reporting. So, which inaccuracies do we report? Do we cherry pick "facts" we wish were facts, or do we examine the whole context for other inaccuracies? nobs (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs, you need to stop this. It has been agreed by everybody except you that the LA Times article is accurate in all salient details - just read everybody else's comments in this section alone. At this point, reopening the same debate for the nth time is simply exasperating and will need to be dealt with at a different level from this talk page. I'm not 100% acquainted with WP policy but some kind of RFC would seem to be in order. Perhaps one of the admins watching this discussion could advise? --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking if there is a consensus and then immediately saying consensus doesn't matter is poor form. And once again, fails to propose a single specific change to the article. This section is irrelevant now and should be collapsed. --69.196.170.188 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lipson, that would comply with BLP and other policies. But there is lack of consensus on that. Let's establish the consensus on the accuracy of LA Times reporting first. nobs (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nobs, as has been pointed out, repeatedly, for quite some time, there IS consensus. It's just that you don't like what that consensus is. If the LA Times is inaccurate, it is in an entirely inconsequential way that has no real bearing on the salient facts. So, if we were to address this 'issue', it would be solved by simply making a minor edit that consisted changing, 'Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki...' to, 'Lipson, plus several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators started another website, Rationalwiki 2.0 (a wiki evolved from an already existing private discussion group formed by dissatisfied Conservapedia editors)...' However, even to do this much, we would have to grant you considerable leeway regarding WP:RS, as you simply have failed to provide one. For your WP:BLP claim, the consensus is, basically, that your 'issue' isn't one. As for your claim of Rationalwiki members wanting to promote Rationalwiki, I fail to see how that could be the case when there used to be an entire Rationalwiki article, and this was deleted and redirected to the this article into here, due to it not being notable enough for it's own article, partly at the urging of Rationalwiki members.[10], including Sid3050 (even though the AfD was erroneously closed as 'keep', before being changed to a redirect, as that's what the consensus actually was). You should really know this as you voted in that AfD to delete before changing that to delete and/or redirect. Now that you got what you apparantly wanted, it seems you're trying to remove as much information about Rationalwiki from here as possible. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but, given your actions, I'm finding it difficult. Zmidponk (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Nobs, there IS consensus. There has been consensus for THREE YEARS. Stop trying to react to every statement as if it's some candid admission. It's not. Yes, there had been a site called "RationalWiki" before Karajou infiltrated it, shared his account info with you and other CP sysops in the Special Discussion Group and then proceeded to send copies of it to the FBI. And this existence was mentioned in the interview. Simon apparently decided that covering the entire history of RW would shift the weight away from CP, so she focused on the creation of the public site and omitted the part where "RationalWiki" was just a fancy name for "buncha guys telling each other in private how much they don't like CP". If you want it spelled out for you: It's easily accurate enough. RationalWiki, the public site with its anti-science refuting mission and all that, had been created after TK dished out the mass bans. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good analysis and detailing of background facts. So (A) misinformation has existed in Wikipedia for three years; (B) Simon apparently reported another interviewee (other than USer:Flippin's) telling of events as to who started Rationalwiki, when Rationalwiki was started, and why Rationalwiki was started.
So it's fairly obvious Simon's source is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources, who personally denied the factual accuracy at Rationalwiki. A WP#Questionable_source are websites and publications expressing views that are ...promotional...and.. generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. It would not be so bad if, even after three years, this context of Lipson, breast cancer, & abortion, is still the only way Rationalwiki can promote itself here with a Subhead in this article and a link to its own website. nobs (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must be so happy, you found yet another policy to shop. When did this become about RW "promoting itself" anyway? --69.196.170.188 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a consensus that a reliable source is factually in error, has been so for three years, and was placed here by users with a COI to promote themselves is unproblematic, huh? Nevermind NPOV, or BLP, which applies not only to members of organizations that have been smeared, but to the privacy of an alleged hoaxer as well. nobs (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged smear (I'm assuming you mean Lipson's essay) is not on Wikipedia, so it's completely irrelevant, and complaining about it here won't help you. -- Nx / talk 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Nx has said, to address your privacy concerns, this is a freely available article being published online by a newspaper taht isn't exactly a small local rag. If Lipson, or anyone else, have a problem with the content of the article, or any names or personal details being published in it, they should really take that up with the LA Times (and/or the Register, for that matter). Zmidponk (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question, allow me to present to you a Nobs quote from March 23 (check Archive 15), taken from a discussion that was about (brace yourself) removing Lipson's name from the article and the question if the LA Times is accurate: "And quoting the L.A. Times is the vehicle that has been used to provide a direct link to Rationalwiki's website." Sorry, 96, but you got sucked with us into Groundhog Day. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs, it's obvious that it doesn't matter what anybody says here since in the end, you will simply take everything as a confirmation that your conclusion is correct. So... whatever. I'm taking this loop off. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, here are the two passages from the interview and the LA Times: "At some point, a CP sysop [...] began systematically banning us from the site. [...] Finally we settled on creating our own site as a direct response to CP’s propaganda. We think of ourselves as watchdogs for this crazy outfit." vs. "After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia." --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I see that I got it wrong - you claim that Lipson had nothing to do with the founding of Rationalwiki whatsoever. The problem that you have is that the user page of another wiki is not really a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. However, assuming, for a moment, that was not the case, what Lipson denies is being the 'father or midwife' of Rationalwiki, which is not the same thing as being involved in its founding, in some manner, which is all that the LA Times article actually indicates. Now, this is actually WP:OR, so cannot go into the article, but, simply browsing around Rationalwiki, and putting a few things together, it seems that the incident described in the LA Times article happened in March 2007. The original version of Rationalwiki (termed Rationalwiki 1.0, according to their history) was set up in the same month (in fact, a couple of weeks or so after that incident)[11][12], and he's certainly been around since the creation of 'Rationalwiki 2.0'[13][14]. This certainly means that, at the very least, Lipson is one of the earliest editors of Rationalwiki, and there doesn't seem to be anything that actually disputes Lipson being involved, in some manner, with the founding of it. If what Sid 3050 has said is correct, and Rationalwiki 1.0 was merely a small, private discussion group for then Conservapedia editors to blow off steam at what they saw as stupidity going on at Conservapedia, and only became a wiki, per se, with the founding of Rationalwiki 2.0, then that would seem to completely back up what has been said in the LA Times. However, again, that is WP:OR, so can't be put in. But, of course, Nobs, for your dispute, you have failed to provide a reliable source, so your dispute seems to breach Wikipedia rules, as well as simply being wrong. 92.9.236.56 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92, if you go through the archives here (starting with #15) plus a few other talk pages, you'll see that this has been covered back and forth. Nobs knows all this. He's the one who started this mess several weeks ago, and we told him several times what was what. At this point, I can practically cite that part of the LA Times article in my sleep. Lipson's user page refers to the Register article, not the LA Times one (see the link in that section). The LA Times makes no claim who The Founder is while the Register explicitly claimed that he was The Founder. Nobody denies that Lipson was part of the first generation of users, and that's all the LA Times says. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I suggest Nobs goes and has a good, long, hard read of WP:POINT, and, especially considering the sheer number of different WP policies and procedures he has cited and/or instigated, WP:PS as well, and everyone else simply ignores him until he actually presents anything new (a reliable source for the claim that Lipson was, in no way, involved in the founding of Rationalwiki, for example). (Oh, and before Nobs points it out, as he no doubt will, yes, I know WP:PS isn't an official Wikipedia policy, but it is worth a read, anyway, as it's good advice for editing on WP.) 92.9.236.56 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lipson was not banned for a dispute over breast cancer as represented to the LA Times. He "officially retired" from Conservapedia on 28 March 2007 [15], the same day of his first edit in Rationalwiki [16] He told Ed Poor right here [17] why A Schlafly warned him on his editing. The LA Times is factually inaccurate. nobs (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did a user talk page on another wiki become a RS? --69.196.170.188 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has longtime been established Lipson denied on his user page being the founder of Rationalwiki. [18][19] nobs (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are allowed to use a bit of sense in assessing reliable sources. The main point here though is that any discrepancies seem to be of a minor matter. If there was something major in dispute it would be worth making a fuss about and checking further but there isn't. Dmcq (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is major; the breast cancer dispute is bogus. It is alleged Lipson and others accounts were blocked over a legitimate dispute regarding increased risks of breast cancer tied to abortion, when in fact thier accounts were blocked for trolling and vandalism. [20] Lipson's dispute was over teaching contraception and sex eduaction to home schoolers, and the evidence from Rationalwiki shows he resorted to sockpuppetry before the time reported by the LA Times thier user accounts were blocked. nobs (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, I know people are itching to respond, but I think its best to ignore him. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many stories are you going to tell, Nobs? And is any one of them going to be the truth? Do tell. Nuttish (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone on for six weeks, and I see no sign of him stopping anytime soon. He'll keep going until he gets his way or gets (topic-)banned. Whatever happens first. And if it's the latter, he'll tell his tragic tale on CP's Wikipedia article and on the "Bias in Wikipedia" list. All without mentioning RationalWiki by name, which should be a pretty good writing challenge for him. ;) --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad Question:Just stumbled across this, and looking through the extensive discussion...well, all over the place, really, and, whilst I can't be sure, as Nobs seems very vague in what the problem actually is, as far as I can make out, it is that he wants to claim that Lipson, alone, started Rationalwiki. The LA Times article claims that Lipson was one of several people that started Rationalwiki, and the only thing that the Register article claims that some people say is not actually the case is that it was Lipson who 'enlisted other disgruntled editors' to start Rationalwiki. From the wording of the Register article, however, it would appear to be basing that on the LA Times article, which doesn't actually say this, so there's a large question mark over the accuracy of this claim. Therefore, what Nobs actually needs to do is find a reliable source which makes the claim that Lipson started Rationalwiki alone. Even then, it could only be put in the article in a 'some sources claim X, others claim Y' manner. 92.9.236.56 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question has long been agreed to by consensus that the LA Times was in error on Lipson founding Rationalwiki; the question now is on three more factual errors in the LA Times, (1) that Rationalwiki was founded 'before' the time Lipson allegedly joined; (2) that Lipson and others were engaged "by thier own admission -- in cyber vandalism" before they were blocked; and (3) that Lipson was blocked not for a dispute over breast cancer, but rather for engaging in cyber-vandalism. nobs (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs, if you want to be taken seriously, at all, pick one story and stick to it. If you jump from story to story to story, it just makes it increasingly obvious you're editing in bad faith. As for your latest story, leaving aside the source you provided is simply about as far from a WP:RS you can get, your logic states that Lipson left Conservapedia in March 2007 after being banned for events that were only began being discussed and planned on 24th April 2007. April follows March, remember - it doesn't come before it. Zmidponk (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than these three errors, the LA Times is accurate, AFAIK. There's plenty of other source material in that article that could be referenced if people insist on using it, so why the insistance that the most questionable and problematic passages be used? It does not serve Wikipedia well, and it does not serve the good doctor well, either. nobs (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The question has long been agreed to by consensus that the LA Times was in error on Lipson founding Rationalwiki..." This is actually not true. It was determined that your interpretation of the article was incorrect, and that the Register incorrectly summarizes this section of the LA Times article, but not that the LA Times itself is in error. I believe the discussion of this can be found in archive 15 or 16. TeejIV (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TeejIV, back on 23 March in Archive 15 User:Dmcq & me had this short exchange (Line 222 section) where I said User:Dmcq's reading was correct. This discussion was interupted by an RfD on the Rationalwiki entry, various noticeboards, etc. I believe I've put forward a consistent argument throughout. And that link also answers a question on WP:PS and RW's self-promotion, "the L.A. Times is the vehicle that has been used to provide a direct link to Ratkionalwiki's weebsite." nobs (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of these points are new, and Nobs knows that (after all, he was the one who brought them up way back in those archives... several times). He just wants to assert truth and consensus by repeating his claims over and over again even as people point out how they are wrong or utterly irrelevant for the article. Even the founder of Conservapedia and a fellow senior admin from CP by now disagree with him, but he still keeps going. Don't let him suck you into his little time loop. I speak from six weeks of experience when I tell you that nothing good comes out of it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question unclear or not even wrong - uh, what? - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly Factual. The Los Angeles Times article is about as factual, sans the grammatical mistakes, as any article that passes for "reporting" today. Lipson was indeed among the original founders (for lack of a better word) of RW. Although I know the progenitor of Rationalwiki was up and running before I blocked most of the original users, the article is close enough to the truth in that regard. Dr. Lipson was blocked and unblocked by others - not me - several times, so establishing exactly when "he left" or was "blocked" (which time?) is subjective. As I started to say in another thread which was arbitrarily removed by another editor, I spoke to Mr. Schlafly about this, and he is satisfied with the basic accuracy of the Times article, and so am I. We need to move on from this. --TK-CP (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move that this pointless strawpoll be collapsed, or better yet, archived. Also, as an aside, who cares what "Mr. Schlafly" thinks, unless he turns up here to say what he thinks? Huw Powell (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it would have mattered in areas where the article makes explicitly wrong statements about Andy or CP's early days (keep in mind that officially, the question was about general accuracy, even if the focus had been on the RW section). Granted, this would have been fairly unlikely (since the article came out three years ago and had been advertised on the CP main page), but it still would've counted, I guess. And if he had had some startling new evidence that blows all of this out of the water (again: unlikely), then it may have complicated things to say the least. However, it's a moot point since even Andy is satisfied with the basic accuracy, which pretty much matches the widely held opinion here. So I'll build up on what TK said: We should move on, and all things considered, we safely can. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the line?

[edit]

In the light of Nobs' latest attempt at finding flaw with the LA Times article (asking PalMD to "disclose the contents" of his interview), I really would like to have an official word on where the line between "trying to improve the article" and "trying to push a personal agenda" is - especially after his strawpoll showed that he alone is pushing the "LA Times is inaccurate!" position, arguing even against the opinions of Andy Schlafly and one of CP's senior sysops.

Tomorrow is the six-week anniversary of this little agenda, and to be quite honest, I'm getting tired of this (and I doubt I'm the only one). How far is too far? --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at this point, the best thing to do is for everyone to just ignore him. I tried engaging him directly, tried breaking the repetitive wheel of him just posting the same irrelevant personal attacks over and over again. But nothing worked. Don't feed him, and if he still keeps spamming the same stuff, we go ahead and move forward with a user misconduct case. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor whose followed this discussion, I concur. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just try holding yourself back a little from immediately replying to things here and remind yourself that there's life besides Wikipedia. It doesn't all have to be fixed now this instant. If there's something useful you can contribute then by all means do so but try leaving a good long time before answering. I wouldn't bother wasting time on RfC's or anything like that - do something more productive elsewhere before looking here again. That way things don't become overheated and you don't become depressed by silliness and bickering. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent OR accusation

[edit]

Could someone explain to me the reliable secondary source that makes this not OR? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me with the OR accusation. Yeah I'd like to see why a citation isn't necessary. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of questioning Dmcq on just what the problem was, when Nuttish and Hipocrite stepped in. We don't need any revert wars or anything.
I think that what I originally posted was clearly supported by the referenced pages themselves. I've looked through the material on what constitutes OR, and there's nothing about it being OR to say that "web page ABC says XYZ", and such a stamentent, with the link to page ABC, strikes me as perfectly reasonable. The main thing the the OR policy talks about is drawing unwarranted conclusions from the cited text, or citing two things and drawing conclusions about their connection.
For the record, I take mathematical and scientific truth extremely seriously, and I was appalled when I looked around and found the "counterexamples" pages, especially the one on relativity (and its accompanying discussion.) The material in that section on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" and the use of Jay Wile's homeschool textbooks don't begin to do justice to the extent of Conservapedia's dismissal of real science. Furthermore, the material relating to Jay Wile, the Royal Society, Metro, and the LA Times, are 2nd person commentary. The "counterexamples" pages are directly on the wiki under discussion.
Perhaps my citation of specific statements from the "counterexamples" pages constitutes OR. Readers can see for themselves. Also, my wikilinks were apparently not in the standard "reference/footnote" form. There are many footnotes that directly link to conservapedia. How about if I just mention the existence of the three pages, giving each one a numbered footnote in standard form? Is that a correct citation?
William Ackerman (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is complete and utter original research, and in bulk to boot. If the information had other references it would be appropriate/satisfactory to use conservapedia as a reference. However, that is not the case. I have removed it. I implore that discussion take place and consensus reached before it is reinstated. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Somebody here reading conservapedia and noticing something about it is original research. If that had been written in a newspaper or book then we'd be able to cite the book or newspaper. It is a bit restrictive but the alternative would be Wikipedia publishing a lot of primary original research which just isn't what it is into. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reinstated it, albeit in extremely curtailed form, before I saw the above comments. It is not my intention to get into and edit war. But what kind of "other reference" would one need for the existence of these pages? There are no outside references to the existence of the Conservapedia Commandments page, or the "Bias in Wikipedia" page, or its "Theory of evolution" page. You don't need to read a newspaper to find out what's on the web.
I will take a break from this now. William Ackerman (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Much of that comparison with wikipedia section should be removed if secondary citations cannot be found. Wikipedia should not cite itself unless a secondary source does so. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require a secondary source citation for every point, particular here where Conservapedia is an adequate source on itself. RS recognizes the appropriateness of this, and so far nobody's even addressing that, preferring instead to merely assert (incorrectly) that reporting the contents of website is OR. It's just not. Read and re-read RS. Nuttish (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of this falls under the umbrella of common sense and restraint. Some observations, such as what's on the main page, are informative and acceptable to mention without a secondary citation. They're trivial. However, it becomes a question of "where do we draw the line?" How many times do we commit to making an observation about a particular conservapedia article, give a brief overview/use it as an example for something, and finally link to it? Also, I don't like this idea that "if it already exists in some form, we can keep doing it" Kinda reminds me of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the OR/trivia again. Without relevant comments from another source, there's no inherent reason why those three articles are more notable than any other of the hundreds of articles at Conservapedia. ωεαşεζǫįδ 17:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm sure any of the RW editors here could come up with many CP articles which would raise an eyebrow more than those in question here, but that's not the point. WP isn't here to point out examples of CP articles which we think are important, noteworthy, or interesting. We're here to report what secondary sources are saying. Hence the requests for sources. If we have secondary sources bring up those three articles as, say, examples of anti-scientific viewpoints on CP, then fair enough. Otherwise, us WP editors deciding to just arbitrarily include links to something which we think deserve attention is OR. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Well stated. We do not have the authority to determine which articles demand scrutiny. That's the gist of it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research extrapolated from Blast magazine which includes factual errors from the LA Times

[edit]

(unindent) Yes, and how many times is the "proven" link between breast cancer & abortion to be mentioned? the source, Blast magazine (1) does not use the word "proven," and (2) says "Lipson created RationalWiki, which like Conservapedia wears its bias on its sleeve, with three main ideas: Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas, and people; Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas,” and “explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." [21] Without the "like CP wears it's bias on its sleeve" phrase, this is nearly identical language RationaLwiki editors placed in this article, and the same language from it's own site. We've already dumped The Register for the same error about Lipson, Blast magazine should go, too. nobs (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to create a new section, with a header that would make what you are talking about or suggesting clear? Since it has nothing to do with the above OR section. Which leaves me as confused as ever. Huw Powell (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Wisdom89 said, How many times do we commit to making an observation about a particular conservapedia article. And the claim of a "proven" link between abortion and breast cancer is OR. And how many times do we have to debate the factual accuracy of a source that says Lipson started Rationalwiki, the guy who supposedly is the source of this breast cancer claim. The Register, The LA Times and now Blast magazine all got it wrong, yet here it is again. nobs (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the associated article, nothing else. It is not for personal rants. Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq, This is not a personal rant. Improve the article by removing the cite to Blast magazine. The reason? Blast magazine contains the identital misinformation it has been determined by consensus existed in The Register. A second reason: Blast magazine is redundant to the same information cited elsewhere within this article. Thank you. nobs (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs, having read through the various discussions that have gone on all over the place, it seems pretty obvious to me that you have an axe to grind against Rationalwiki. As such, you are trying to get as much information and as many sources referencing Rationawiki out of this article as possible, on any excuse you can muster, much to the annoyance of people who are actually trying to improve the article. I would guess that this is so that, if you succeed, you can then say, 'the Rationalwiki section is inadequately referenced, so I'm going to remove it.' That being the case, I would suggest that everyone simply ignores Nobs until and unless he actually comes up with something legitimate. 130.64.148.186 (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining what you wrote. It would make it much simpler if you put new items into a new talk section rather than an unrelated section and if you put in the explanation first rather than some cryptic roundabout reference which isn't to the point. If you would in future explain exactly what you want to do and why it would really help. As to this instance as far as I can make out the bit that might be relevant that you are saying is that the LA article would be a better citation for the statement in the article "Conservapedia asserts that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer" that currently cites Blast. Is that right? I have read and compared the two articles and the Blast article gives more details about this that I can see so I would reject such a claim. Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "proven" is Original Research. Conservapedia does not say "proven," nor the LA Times, nor Blast magazine. Secondly, two references to the controversial breast cancer claim is redundant, especially given Blast magazine cites the LA Times as its source. Blast magazine only adds this claim:
"the assertion that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer is not footnoted, and this omission prompted the creation of another wiki with a bias.
"According to the Los Angeles Times, “Dr Peter A. Lipson, an internist in
"Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia’s claim that abortion raises a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. The site’s administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate.”
"Lipson created RationalWiki..." [bolden added].
The context here has little to do with the breast cancer/abortion debate, and everything to do with the creation of RW. True, CP's [breast cancer] entry still does not footnote the claims and has not been edited in two years [22]; the [abortion] link from that page has an extensive section on this debate with nearly 25 footnotes [23] including this one that supports the claim there is indeed a valid scientific and professional debate on this subject. Blast magazine is again in error claiming CP does not allow original research, however that is not the issue here. The citations could be easily moved from one page to the other if need be to make the three year old Blast article more obsolete.
Bottomline, there is no reason to retain a redundant, factually in error citation, or two references to the breast cancer/abortion debate. nobs (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cites is not the same as totally based on. Are you denying that Conservapedia is factual when it says "Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer"? Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Blast magazine article is essentially a criticism of original research in Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, and Wikipedia. The only details Blast offers is that [breast cancer] lacked footnotes at the time. It goes on to state this was the cause for creating Rationalwiki -- evidently to refute the "anti-science movement" with original research.
Abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer is a legitimate - albeit, controversial dispute (similar to global warming, for example). Lipson et al refute it with original research as "crank science," which is their right -- at Rationalwiki. But now I see someone has raised this same issue with the mainspace ==Conflict with science== subheading in the NPOV section below. nobs (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_19&oldid=1136636318"