Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:26, 17 April 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservapedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Conservapedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2006 Articles for deletion Deleted March 4, 2007 Deletion review Relisted April 9, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept April 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed June 15, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept July 15, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept June 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 15, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Rob Mackey (2007-03-08). "Conservapedia: The Word Says It All". The New York Times. Peter Sbarski (2007-03-10). "Misplaced Pages vs Conservapedia". APC Magazine. John Cotey (2007-03-16). "Conservative Web site counters the 'bias' of Misplaced Pages". St. Petersburg Times. Jake Coyle (2007-05-08). "Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies". Associated Press. Chris Steller (2009-01-23). "Klobuchar on apparent Conservapedia hit list". The Minnesota Independent.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservapedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservapedia at the Reference desk.

citation 43

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

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

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

Mostly a note on the first part of your reply (I'm not awake enough to weigh in on synthesis concerns, sorry): You said "Now that Conservapedia has advanced beyond that point, the sources and information from them are expanding and problems with 'inaccurate or inadequate information' are corrected."

Hmmm, you're right and wrong in a way. (Beware: Incoming Original Research! The following is mostly just my take on CP's development and should be treated as a comment to provide some perspective, not as something to be included in the article (unless there are sources echoing my thoughts of course - but I'm not readily aware of any, I think). As an additional disclaimer, I'm a long-time RationalWiki member and have kept an eye on CP pretty much since the initial blog rush.)

The site did move beyond the "Andy plus homeschoolers" concept, but after the initial flood of coverage, the number of active Conservapedians dropped for various reasons until just a small group of regulars (plus a few random users that come and go) remained. And those users mostly began to focus on their favorite niches (plus politics).

This leads to a situation where simply nobody feels compelled (or has the time) to look for better sources in currently 101 articles (and this issue isn't even the worst problem resulting from the small and specialized user base).

I do agree that the issue is kinda historic in the sense that there have been (minor) efforts to fix it, and nobody is likely going to make it worse, so in the worst case, it simply stays at its current level (which is bad, but not critical). Thus I also don't think that it's necessary to cite specific examples.

However, one point of the source has actually become more of a problem: "He or she seems to think that all you need to do is put a mark on someone--"evolutionist" in this case--and then everything he or she says must be wrong because he or she says it. And anything that is opposite to the marked person's claims must be right." The only difference is that it's less about "evolutionists" and more about "liberals" and "conservatives" these days.

Lastly, the source is dated February 21, 2007, so it had been mostly right for its time - the site mostly consisted of Andy and his class (the members of which were the most active users, if I recall correctly), with everybody else being unproven newbies. It just hadn't been obvious that the site would truly move beyond the "Andy + homeschoolers" concept. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• all you need to do is put a mark on someone--"evolutionist" in this case--and then everything he or she says must be wrong

Similiar to the conservative = fascist argument propounded by a notable RationalWiki founder. nobs (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Nobs, you have to bring up RW even in sections that have nothing to do with it? Talk about petty. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

so a rewrite may be on the way?Ref ward (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think we'll have to wait until a RS reports on what Sid is saying. Yes, what Sid says is true, but no-one has reported on it in a way that is useful for Misplaced Pages yet. No real comment on the synthesis issue right now, I might go read the Zimmer source and see if I have anything useful to say. Huw Powell (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, if we want to talk about how it has changed since then we need an RS that says that it has changed (which we are unlikely to find) --EmersonWhite (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead references

I just removed this reference from the Colbert section since it gives me a 404. I tried locating the article through Google, but my best hit (for the full article) was this post in the Colbert Nation forums, which doesn't really count as a good news mirror/archive. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of dead links, the "Coyle, Jake (2007-05-08). 'Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies'" link seems to be mirrored on The Free Library and Daily News (though the latter changed the title and omits the last - non-CP related - paragraph). I dunno if either of those sites can/should be used as a cite, so I'll just post this here as a FYI. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a moot issue. The current #8 ref is a mirror of the one I just mentioned, just with the same changes the Daily News version has (title and one missing paragraph). Compare Wayback Machine version of SFGate with current #8 ref. I'll let the #8 ref cover for the dead one. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've cut out a sentence from the Reception section: "Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia." The source is dead, and while the following sources ("Misplaced Pages for the bigoted" and the 2007 Daily Show segment) of that paragraph do touch homosexuality on CP, they don't make direct homophobia accusations, at least not using this strong word. If someone feels that the paragraph needs a lead-in sentence, feel free to come up with something. --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Comedy Channel is a source for Conservpadia on Homophobia? how long has this source been in this article? nobs (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it has not, please read my comment again. The Daily Show shone the spotlight on CP's Homosexuality article, but it did not call CP homophobic, and it was not used as a source for that statement. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LA times quote

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

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

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

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

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

The BLP policy only applies to material that is poorly sourced or unsourced. The Los Angeles Times fits all the criteria of a reliable source. There is no reason that the original quote should not appear in the article.

I find Future Perfect's behavior here to be questionable and counter policy. Admins shouldn't use their tools to gain an advantage in what is essentially a content dispute.

That said, your suggestion seems perfectly acceptable and a good solution to this silly dispute. Factomancer (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer, you stated, ...poorly sourced or unsourced. The Los Angeles Times fits all the criteria of a reliable source; User:Tmtoulouse has posted below he concieved the idea of RaionalWiki weeks before a mass blocking of editors reporter Stephanie Simon reported was aegis under which Rationalwiki was founded. His posting from that link even refers to a "disinformation plant." As a Conservapedia sysop and checkuser with a declared COI and acting under WP:BFAQ#ATTACK who also blocked many of these accounts (and hundreds of their sockpuppets), I can assure we were aware of the Rationalwiki website before the time Stephanie Simon of the LA Times alleged it was founded. A RW founder has now corrobated that error on this talk page. Further, the users in question as reported in the LA Times were not blocked for ideological purposes but precisely for engaging in cyber-vandalism organized within the Rationalwiki project. nobs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? A quick look at Lipson's contributions at CP (what remains of them anyway) seems to confirm what the LA Times and this article says. Do you have a reliable source for your claims? -- Nx / talk 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement, and (aside from personal feelings) I wouldn't oppose it. Anybody feel like poking Future Perfect before somebody just goes to play in the minefield? :P --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

It's interesting to note that R. Fiend deemed it necessary to remove a non-blog reference I added for this issue based on spurious reasoning. Here is the reference: Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia. It states:

Unfortunately, RationalWiki admits it, and others, have engaged in "cyber-vandalism" against Conservapedia during which they've "inserted errors, pornographic photos, and satire"

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

That quote from The Register is yet another misquote from the LA Times article. Could we stick with the LA Times article please? Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For a paper that's supposed to try communicating with the public that little bit in the LA Times has been misquoted and misunderstood in far too many ways if we are supposed to assume it is reliable. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

But ignoring all that, I'll try and explain the content issue(s):

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

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

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

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

Proposal: remove all mention of Peter Lipson

Continuing, I propose no mention be made of Peter Lipson at all in this entry. The Stephanie Simon article can still be cited, even the section about certain unhappy users who created RationalWiki, without reference to Lipson. This should be satisfactory solution. nobs (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to make this change? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel like we would lose all the information about the disagreement between the person with medical training and a handful of people in charge with none. I feel like this event was highly important in the blogosphere, and while that fact can't go in the article without an RS it should inform what we extract from the RS for the article. That argument is well documented in the RS and on CP and I think this article would be poorer with out PalMD. --EmersonWhite (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)(to Tmt) Either Stephanie Simon got her facts wrong, or Peter Lipson misrepresented himself. Per BLP to protect both, this is the best solution. nobs (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to what part of the policy of BLP would allow original research on the part of an editor to trump a reliable source? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The discrepancy is a minor one, a matter of hours in a process of a few months. Could we reword this article so that it is ambiguous on the issue of discrepancy? perhaps we could say that Rational wiki was founded during this debate following several of the founding members being blocked? --EmersonWhite (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment got lost in an EC: My main concern is wp:verifiability, original research can't be used for this. We are safest sticking to what the RS says. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tmt, it's been cited numerous times on this and archived threads over the past two weeks.

Emerson, point is, Rationalwiki (RW) was founded before those users had thier accounts blocked. Much of this history is avilable (with thier POV) at thier website. Rationalwiki 1.0 was closed wiki of which Peter Lipson and Tmtloulouse and others had accounts. After they were blocked at Conservapedia (CP), the made it an open wiki, Rationalwiki 2.0. nobs (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed it, please link it for me again, the specific policy that allows your OR to trump a RS, please. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is cited extensively Talk:RationalWiki#Disputed, and here Talk:RationalWiki#Split_for_editing_ease, to justify this edit. (removal of reference of Lipson as founder of RW). nobs (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the policy, and what it actually says, is the BLP relies on verifiability and no original research. So that seems to suggest that your original research will never trump a verifiable reliable source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Simon claimed Lipson was one of several founders of RW. Lipson later denied or modified that claim (in RW). The BLP section used to rewrite this entry & the now redirected RW entry reads,

Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity...We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So Stephanie Simon's reporting has been called into question as well. nobs (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times is a high quality reliable, third party source. Lipson was a founder of RW. As far as I am concerned there is no reason to make any changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's get EmersonWhite to weigh in, here Emerson says, "the wording of the tertiary source you have is consistent with lipston not being the founder but simply being a member who recruited others." (comment posted 09:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)). Talk:RationalWiki#Disputed nobs (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that we are dealing with a semantic shell game. If we say that PL is one of the founding members of RW then we are both being honest and repeating what the RS says. If we are saying that PL was the founder of RW then that is a different thing entirely and not supported by the RS (the other source leads one to believe this more, but that is based on that authors misreading of the RS we have in the LATimes). --EmersonWhite (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing mention of Lipson would seriously damage the story. The whole point is that Conservapedia refused to believe someone who actually knows what he is talking about, because it did not suit their agenda. The contrast between the qualified doctor and the unqualified POV-pushers of CP is the whole point. Removing Lipson's name looks like an attempt to whitewash CP and make RW look as bad as possible. Just state the facts, including Lipson's name. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP article also doesn't echo the claim Nobs is actually poking here (that RW was founded after Lipson got banned). It says that Lipson was reverted and banned (true) and that several editors, including Lipson, started RW (also true). There is no mention that one came after the other. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe personal blogs are allowed on Misplaced Pages when used to quote a personal statement where a person contradicts an article about them. Therefore we could reference Peter Lipson when he says he didn't start RationalWiki. That way the reliable source isn't just interpreted and hacked by us. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is if we have to quote it or if we should just keep his statement in mind when writing the article. Right now, the WP article doesn't concern itself with who is or isn't the founder of RW, and his non-"the founder" status is of no real importance to the article or the section, so this issue strikes me as a bit constructed. Which is also why I asked above where Nobs wanted to go with this since his two issues seem to go beyond what the article says, anyway. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SNALWIBMA above, while Lipson's name isn't important, ( he's not notable ), that he's a doctor and that we express this without being weasely ( eg some argue that Conservapedia is xyz ) is the goal. As it is, the section is well-written and clear. I don't understand the BLP argument. As the wording is right now, I think it does a really good job of only saying what we know, and not implying anything. The only problem with the section would be to change the "cyber-vandalism" comment, which isn't clear (to me, an outsider) what that means, even if it is a direct quote. Pirate 23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If RationalWiki were an entity you might be able to quote it directly explaining the context of cyber-vandalism. It is not, so I think we are best left with using the quotes directly. I think the section is pretty good right now, and I think that is the general consensus. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a problem: the underlying WP:RS uses the language "malicious editing." I watered it done to "vandalism" and was reverted.

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

I'm sorry, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous. As has now been pointed out by several editors, all of whom show no signs of acting in anything but good faith and for the good of the article, the contents of the section in question (Rationalwiki) and what is stated in the cite given matches. The cite is from a RS, and no cite from a RS has been given to contradict what has been stated in the Rationalwiki section. Nobs, I can't see why you repeatedly call for Lipson's name removed from the article, or for the article to be otherwise altered. The use of his name isn't libellous, his name is mentioned in the relevant section of the RS, and, as at no time has Peter Lipson requested that his name be removed from the article, privacy concerns about the person in question do not seem to apply. I also find your (repeated?) requests for this discussion to be held privately to be....curious. The purpose of this talk page is for these type of discussions to take place so a consensus can be reached with minimum difficulty. As far as I can see a consensus has been reached in this matter and the current text in the Rationalwiki section meets that consensus.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, what would a private discussion accomplish? Even if editors were to consent and then a change was made, there would be nothing to prevent editors who were not involved to later revert those changes, and doing so could be acceptable. Public discussion hows why changes were made.Gomedog (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Include information about Brian Macdonald

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

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

(3) What does any of that have to do with your attempt to remove all mention of Dr. Lipson? You mention privacy concerns even though we simply cite a LA Times article. Where is the privacy issue? (4) No, Misplaced Pages content discussion should not be done behind closed doors. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sid, for NPOV purposes, why don't you reinsert the references to Brian McDonald with the improvements you suggest using "vandalism" instead of "malicious editing" and we perhaps can move forward. nobs (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to Sid to put in what you want to see. Instead you need to tell us the changes you want, and why you want them. Right now consensus is against your edits, you need to give us a reason why you want a change, not just keep saying to change it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a "consensus" here, unless you mean 2-4 editors. --TK-CP (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal: Include information about the "Hit List" scandal

The Lipson reference really should be removed. The WP:RS cited is an LA Times article about Conservapedia, not Conservapedia critics. The RationalWiki subsection lacks NPOV, says nothing about Conservapedia efforts to limit "malicious editing" to make Conservapedia "look wacko". A RationalWiki editor after this LA Times article appeared did precisely this in the notorious "Hit List" scandal which this article strangley is silent on. While some might consider allusion to murder of United States Senators to be a joke, others I can assure you do not share that view. And this does not serve the Misplaced Pages project well, nor the privacy concerns of individual editors associated with RationalWiki named within the source article. nobs (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying the LA Time article says what the article claims it says? As per the rest of your post, you cite no reliable sources and once again moving into attacking editors and away form content. All of which needs to be ignored by other editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Limiting myself to the subject set by the headline: Nobs, the article is "strangely silent" about the Hit List because nobody has suggested Reliable Sources. Tony Sidaways blog is no RS, I think. In fact, the list of stuff that links to it consists only of his userpage and four instances where you linked to exactly this article. Find a RS, then we can talk. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That reference is just some blog and they're normally not counted as reliable sources. It would need to be more widely reported. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs of reporters often are counted, however. Seregain (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal probably gives RW more attention then they deserve. Seregain (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal: Interview Peter Lipson

Maybe we can arrange an online interview with this character and get the facts straight. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 17:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And Stephanie Simon to determine what information was represented to her. She maybe interested in doing a follow up story now. nobs (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research and not part of what is allowed on WP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with tmt. If by some miracle you can persuade a reliable source to interview and publish such an interview, that would be fine. If you somehow get in contact with Lipson and get him to publish information on his blog or some source that is obviously his own, that would be sketchy but might be useable. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lipson's name is being passed around enough at this point, as well as what I think are suppressible edits and edit comments, that he deserves to know of the situation. I am going to pass him a note, if he has something to say we should hear it out, if not I, and others will keep a watch on this page to maintain standards. If Rob doesn't stop trying to link Lipson's name with the word "vandal" every time he shows up though, it may require upping the ante on this whole discussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to clarify what I can, but wouldn't that be OR?PalMD (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pal, thanks for stopping by. The way I understand it, if you make a statement someplace, your statement can sometimes be used in an article as a quote for what you have to say on it. It is a primary source, and couldn't be used to draw any conclusions or meta discussion, but could be used as a way to quote you. The problem is not so much OR but issues closer to undue weight and what not. One of the big issues is Rob's continued thumping of this idea that you, I, and others are admitted vandals, and trying to link us up to anti-Semitic vandalism, or the senator hit list. I think a lot of the confusion surrounds what "vandalism" means in context. Since adding factual scientific information to CP articles often got you blocked for "vandalism" its a term that doesn't translate well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Welcome Mr. Lipson. On 29 March 2007 2 postings were made to User:ColinLR's talk page in Rationalwiki 1.0 by User:PalMD. Stephanie Simon of the LA Times reported you and other became involved in Rationalwiki after you were blocked at Conservapedia in mid -April 2007. Did you have any involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 prior to being blocked at Conservpaedia? Thank you. nobs (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather not waste Dr. Lipson's time with your pedantic detailing, this question is easily addressed by anyone, the information in the LA Times article is about the public open wiki RW, colloquially called RationalWiki 2.0. Which was started after CP blocked us all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times article is referenced a lot of times in the article. I think it would be in order to reference a personal blog or user page on RationalWiki by Peter Lipson if he wishes to qualify something that seems to be said about him in that article. I don't think just removing his name fixes the problems with using the LA Times as a citation. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I've never seen someone try to set-up original research on a Misplaced Pages talk page. There's a reason for the rule. Pirate 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea at the time. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is walking a real thing line, but there is plenty of precedent for quoting someone directly from a blog or similar resource when there is content about them. If Dr. Lipson wants to clarify anything about what he said in the LA Time, then the discussion can go from there about whether it is undue weight, or if there are other issues. Until we know IF he wants to say anything, and what it is about it is premature to declare it invalid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to present evidence through a private channel per Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues of several Rationalwiki editors involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 before their accounts were blocked which runs counter to the story given to Stephanie Simon that Rationalwiki was founded after the mass blocking of Rationalwiki editors. Let me once again request, removal of references to individuals from this article could solve this problem. nobs (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your original research doesn't matter, even a little tiny bit, and in addition to that I have all ready explained your confusion. The website "rationalwiki.com" was created as an informal private discussion group while many of us were still active editors on CP. But we were all blocked, at that point, after we were all blocked, we started what is now RationalWiki, an open wiki. Equivocation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I spoke with a reporter, using my name can hardly be considered a violation of my privacy. I am a prolific writer online (writing for scienceblogs, sciencebasedmedicine, and forbes) and my writing pretty much speaks for itself, is quotable, as I can hardly stop someone from quoting my public statements. That being said, the LA Times article was a bit misleading. I have a lot of respect for stephanie simon as a reporter, but "vandalism" is a problematic term in this context, as many of us who were editing conervapedia and rationalwiki were adding content to public wikis, not "invading" or what have you.PalMD (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Something seems fishy. Couldn't someone start a 1.0 site and have it do function A with users X and then change it to do function B and call it 2.0 but still have users X on the site? Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's fishy about that? Unless you are implying that site 2.0 will still do A because of users X. -- Nx / talk 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They Did A in the past, so shouldn't that be there? Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not there? -- Nx / talk 23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

RW was created because people were being blocked or leaving the site, in fact the "idea" for RW, the first twinkle of it occurred right here on WP . That was the motivation right there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So, according to you, the founder of Rationalwiki, Stephanie Simon, a WP:RS, was wrong; Rationalwiki was not started after several user accounts were blocked, but rather before. nobs (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One simple solution would be to add a line such as "Lipson denies the allegation of vadalism" or some such. It has the advantage of being a statement of fact, rather than opinion. PalMD (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Just shut up already

Whereas people are picking and choosing what information from a source they think should be included based upon what they personally like or dislike, and
Whereas people are convoluting a plain reading of material from a source, and
Whereas we're getting to the point where gross (and insulting) assumptions are being made about a reporter's ability to construct written material and present facts, and
Whereas people are proposing violations of WP policies and guidelines, and
Whereas this is all getting us nowhere fast,
I propose that the bickering and proposals end now. RW is a minor, low-traffic, low-impact website that does not warrant all this attention here (or anywhere else on WP). Let's put the disruption of WP over this website to rest. It's just not worth it. Seregain (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to participate in lengthy discussions about an issue that you feel is a non-issue, then you don't have to. But please don't try to shut down conversations that other editors are obviously interested in perpetuating. If it isn't discussed and resolved now, someone will just bring it up later. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that this has been going on for three weeks (on Monday) now, and everybody is pretty much bending over backwards to assume good faith and trying to engage Nobs in content discussions, even when it's transparent that he's simply trying every possible action to remove, smear, or cripple the RationalWiki section.

What makes this worse is that several of his issues have nothing at all to do with the article content, that he keeps accusing RationalWiki editors of whatever he feels like, that he's never sticking to one approach for longer than a few posts before sliding to another one, and that he repeatedly tried to drag a Misplaced Pages content discussion off-wiki or even behind closed doors. Oh, while at the same time threatening RationalWikians with ArbCom.

Sorry, Fizz, but this is getting way out of hand. I know I linked you to the backstory on your talk page - have you read through it? Can you honestly say that this here is a good-faith attempt at improving the article? People here are only engaging Nobs because they fear he'll try to steamroll over the article while claiming that the lack of protest equals consensus. Nobody but him (and his fellow CP sysop TK at times) is actually interested in this discussion, and he repeatedly fails at going beyond pure assertions and accusations (Like the assertion that citing Lipson's name from the LA Times suddenly violates Lipson's privacy and that we should thus remove all mention of him. Or the assertion that RationalWiki caused vandal waves just by placing a "If you want to complain about CP, don't do so here and instead go to CP itself." box at the top of this archive. Or the accusation that we control the article and that RationalWikians were the ones who inserted anti-Semitic vandalism into CP.).

Nobs is admin and "Director of Internal Counterintelligence" on a site that actively censors all mention of RationalWiki and whose admins would like nobody to know we even exist. He has been trying for almost three weeks to remove all mention of RationalWiki from this article or, failing that, to smear it both on this talk page and in the article. I honestly don't know how much longer anybody here is supposed to pretend nothing is wrong here.

I fully support Seregain's call for an end of this. RationalWiki is not the big bad. We're not CP's biggest problem. A three-week campaign over one tiny section is absolute overkill. And the arguments are getting sillier and more obscure with each day. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nobs" is a CP admin, "Nobs" is an RW hater, "Nobs" this, "Nobs" that, but what about the many RationalWiki admins that are just as guilty? Anybody at RationalWiki (except people like Ed Poor and TK) is pretty much a Conservapedia hater, and most people from Conservapedia is likely to disagree with RW, and it seems that most of the comments on this page are people who are active at one of those two sites, or have a strong opinion of them. Without more contributions from neutral parties, a heated feud will persist until eventually ArbCom has to step in and start handing out topic bans, and a solution where both sides are mutually satisfied will never be reached. Drama, drama, drama, drama, how sad it is to see this bickering in RC. PCHS-NJROTC 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Beach Drifter has made a good point

As Beach Drifter said here in his edit summary (Reverted to revision 355004430 by Future Perfect at Sunrise; overcoverage, not relvant to the conservapedia article. (TW)), RationalWiki is not relevant to the Conservapedia article. Well, it is relevant, but probably not notable. Indeed, they do have an opinion of CP, but if they're not notable enough for their own article, then how is their views of CP notable enough to mention at CP's article? People who search for RationalWiki are taken to Conservapedia's article, yet the section is actually a subsection of the Reception section. RW should either meet WP:N for it's own article or be removed from CP's Reception section. PCHS-NJROTC 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:N itself, notability standards for articles are not the same for article content. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But is RationalWiki a notable, respected, or even reliable source of criticism? Why does their opinion matter? If, for example, I were to make a similar Wiki about debunking Obama's policies, would it warrent a section at Barack Obama's article? Just as one parent's concern on Greatschools.net does not make it a commonly-held belief, one group of protesters does not make it a notable, commonly-held belief (quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charlotte_High_School_(Punta_Gorda,_Florida)&diff=340535774&oldid=340428582). PCHS-NJROTC 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article does not state that RationalWiki is a reliable source of criticism, nor a commonly-held belief; As far as I can tell, it is a section referring to how a conflict on Conservapedia resulted in the creation of a wiki that sort of acts as a "counter-wiki", if you would like to state it that way. If you were to make a similar wiki debunking Obama's policies, who knows if it would be included; but I would think that, if it were to gain notability from outside coverage, then yes, it would be included, and especially if it created some sort of conflict between the wiki and the government. RationalWiki seems to be have just that; it has outside coverage (enough that I think makes it notable enough for the article, but not its own), and it is creating a conflict between the two wikis. It is directly related to the reception of Conservapedia, which is the section that the information is located in (and as such, saying that Toulouse is the owner has nothing to do with the reception). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki passed its RFD, editors determined a consensus to merge and redirect to CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@Tmtoulouse, notice the number of RationalWikians and Conservapedians that voted in that AfD. If it could go through an honest AfD with zero RationalWikan votes and zero Conservapedian votes, then a neutral consensus could possibly be reached. PCHS-NJROTC 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a deja-vu feeling here - didn't Nobs and TK (and then Nobs again) make the exact same argument before? I know it's hard to keep track of every removal-attempt made during the last three weeks, but come on, people, this is getting silly. Should we make a FAQ? --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that TK or Nobs previously made any similar arguements. I guess intelligent minds think alike? PCHS-NJROTC 02:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but no. I wish you would have taken the time to read the history before escalating this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, without at least a little humor and sarcasim, this place would be rather dry and boring. PCHS-NJROTC 03:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was an attempt to let you know that we are all very aware of the thoughts behind your contribution to the RW section. It was a clear attempt to create more of conflict that you so thrive on. You can't continue to play both sides of this argument, to both create problems and call for a stop to any "sad bickering". Wherever that uninvolved admin is, this thread is ready to be collapsed. Beach drifter (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we are with your assumptions of bad faith again. Frankly, I ought to start an RfC on your admitted, never ending violations of WP:AGF, but that would be like feeding a troll. PCHS-NJROTC 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That'd be terrific, really. Beach drifter (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kansas evolutionary hearings

Was it Andrew Schlafly who caused that editing controversy? Because I looked on the history and found the user - Schlafly. After reading his user and talk pages, that user is most defniately Roger Schlafly, the brother of Andy. Did Andy also edit the page, or is this a mistake? 72.93.241.60 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit history - Aschlafly is Andy Schlafly, so if that name is there, he edited it. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was originally created by user:Andysch; perhaps that is the user you are looking for? Is this request related to improving the Conservapedia article? Papa November (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, it is technically related to the article.

It currently reads "Schlafly became concerned about bias after Misplaced Pages editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings", so people were of course curious what his edits said. The thing is that User:Schlafly is apparently Andy's brother Roger, and nobody figured out under which name or IP Andy had edited it, so there is no indicator if Andy's initial gripe with WP was justified or not.

But the big picture is that this isn't likely to result in improving the WP article since any "detective work" here would be OR and couldn't be included anyway. It would just lead to some closure, I guess, but that's kinda it. Bottom line is that we have a RS that reports that he tried to edit and was reverted, so that's what the article will say until we find a better RS. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My oops - I thought Mr 72 was talkking about COP's article, not WP's. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Conservapedia/RationalWiki Dispute

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a lot of on going controversy at the Conservapedia article. Most of those involved have a WP:COI. I feel unable to be completely neutral in the matter due to my own WP:COI. Currently, there is disagreement on the notability of RationalWiki. The general consensus seems to be that it is not notable enough for its own article. Some propose that RationalWiki redirects to Conservapedia. Others express that this is not appropriate as RationalWiki is not absolutely related to Conservapedia. Some propose that information about Peter Lipson be removed as it is off topic. Some object to the inclusion of information about Trent Toulhouse, RationalWiki's owner. Some, including myself, question whether or not a section about RationalWiki be included at all since their section is a subsection of the reception section, and if the site is not notable enough for an article, then how is the site's opinions notable?

There are also other disagreements, such as neutrality, and whether or not CP and RW users should be promoting their sites or bashing each other in their userspace. I would really like to see some neutral parties provide their input and help seek resolution. PCHS-NJROTC 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. All of a sudden, Nobs seems like a halfway okay guy again. The wonders of perspective.

1. There is absolutely no problem with being an editor on CP or RW as long as you stick to the rules. The COI Noticeboard explicitly said so.
2. RationalWiki's deletion discussion ended with Keep. Afterwards, editors followed consensus that it would make sense for the moment to merge it into the CP article.
3. If "some" or "others" feel that RationalWiki shouldn't redirect here, then "some" or "others" can bring it up on that article talk page.
4. Lipson is mentioned in a RS about Conservapedia. His struggles on Conservapedia as a doctor of medicine trying to discuss a medical issue with a lawyer, were highlighted. How is that off-topic?
5. When did anybody bring up the suggestion to include Trent in the article? Did I miss something? (And why do people have so much trouble spelling his last name - it's in his username, you could just copypaste it!)
6. See above, RationalWiki was officially deemed notable enough for its own article, but a content decision was made to merge it here for now. That doesn't make it non-notable.
7. WP:NNC - Even if RW wasn't notable enough on its own, its connection to CP is covered by a RS. That's enough.
8. We repeatedly asked Nobs to detail his neutrality concerns, and his answers didn't really move beyond assertions that there are neutrality concerns. Since you know enough about this situation to file the RfC, you can surely summarize his arguments for us, right?
9. What does userspace have to do with this?
10. We already got several neutral editors and even an admin involved. What more do you want?

And here I was hoping that this mess would finally come to a slow end... --Sid 3050 (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to see some completely uninvolved and experienced contributers provide some insight on this without a million RationalWikians trying to "debunk" the request for comment. Can't you let the thread remain virgin to bickering and allow neutral editors to provide insight through their own research instead of a million rebuttals? PCHS-NJROTC 03:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to jump in real quick, PCHS. You say that, "...if the site is not notable enough for an article, then how is the site's opinions notable?" Once again, WP:N only sets the notability for articles, and not article content. Not being notable enough for an article does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Second, it's not the opinion of the site that is notable; it's how it was created and the conflict it has caused due to its relation with Conservapedia. This perfectly fits under the reception section as I see it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been spilled over to numerous boards, an AfD, maybe an ANI, and an attempt to interview involved parties. Why are you, PCHS-NJROTC, saying RationalWiki's opinion isn't notable, and then trying to expand the Rationawiki section with info about the site's owner. If you are trying to prove a point, it is not going to help make the article better. The paragraph on rationalwiki is intentionally short to prevent WP:undue. It is covered because it is a non-trivial amount of the coverage of Conservapedia we have from reliable sources. All parties should ensure that they are trying to help create the most accurate article base on the sources we have. Pirate 03:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is misleading; it implies that Peter Lipson is the founder of RW. Indeed, an apparently notable source is listed, but I thought briefly mentioning the ownership to be important as it makes clear that Lipson is not the founder or owner of RW. PCHS-NJROTC 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does say "Several editors, including Lipson...", so it is not implying that he is the sole founder, but it was rather created by multiple users. Or is this incorrect too? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is just what we need. To plaster this across even more unrelated boards, we all ready have several administrators involved in this dispute, have had a range of feedback from the COI board, an ANI board, wikiquette board, etc. We have an uninvolved admin that who is over seeing the discussion all ready. This just seems like dropping gasoline on a fire that was finally starting to smolder down a bit. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the RationalWikians here give a false sense of consensus because there's no fewer than ten RationalWikians active in these debates whereas there's no more than five Conservapedians involved in it. When you attack anyone who questions your beloved website, they are ganged up on and tagged as a trouble maker, so what do you think the uninvolved parties are going to say? If you would just let them decide for themselves instead of littering these threads with drama, then maybe a fair resolution could occur. PCHS-NJROTC 03:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to take your rhetoric down several notches, at least, your making some nasty allegations against long established editors that have a history here at WP well beyond CP and RW concerns. We are WP editors first and have a right to edit here without being hounded by our participation at other websites. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For once, I actually agree with you. Conservapedians and RationalWikians alike should be allowed to edit here without being hounded so long as they follow the rules. PCHS-NJROTC 03:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming in from the RFC, the breast cancer spat in my opinion can very well be mentioned under "reception", as it relates precisely to how Conservapedia has interacted with other entities. I don't think Rationalwiki needs a separate subsection/title here, the main point is the disagreement on the causes of breast cancer and the related blocking of an account to suppress the mainstream view from Conservapedia. I don't see a problem with mentioning as an aside that a site called Rationalwiki was created partly as a response to the blocking. --Dailycare (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That simply is not true; Rationalwiki existed before the mass blocking. nobs (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, I am here (I am one of the "millions" of RW editors swarming this page) because Nobs01 listed me first on some meta-page here as having a COI. However, he has never actually pointed out an example of COI editing. Huw Powell (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Since Pirate mentioned it (and since I already made a similar list for B Fizz a few days ago), here's an overview of how I wasted three weeks of my life how far this thing has spread. It's long (so damn, damn long), but I urge people to read it anyway. This list is likely not 100% complete, but these should be the major pages

• Talk:Conservapedia (filed under "duh")
• Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_15 (pretty much the entire thing except for the first short sections)
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia (will likely be archived in a few days)
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:Conservapedia
• Talk:RationalWiki (starting with the "Reverted redirect" section)
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 41#RationalWiki
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki
• (Plus minor stuff on Misplaced Pages user talk pages and stuff)
• Talk:WIGO @ RW
• My user talk page @ RW
• Tmt's talk page @ RW
• Nobs' ArbCom draft @ CP (created March 30 and last edited... today?)

As a note, several of these pages saw action simultaneously. I ordered them mostly by grouping the links into theme blocks (1: Talk:CP, its archive, its Noticeboard, its Wikiquette alert. 2: Talk:RW, its Noticeboard, its AfD. 3: Stuff on RW). Sid 3050 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not WP:GAMETYPE/5.cherry pick the facts,

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_41#Conservapedia
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#Conservapedia_edit_war
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2#RW_on_Conservapedia
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#Battle_of_Conservapedians_and_RationalWikians
• Rationalwiki:Downloading_RW/Backup nobs (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have doubts about the relevance of these links to the current discussion, but I'd be really interested to know what the RW forum discussion about site backup has to do with any of this. -- Nx / talk 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I compiled my list mostly based on where I was involved. The first link you gave does seem to be connected to this three-week marathon (though I guess it's also linked to from one of the links I gave). Two of those links are date pre-2009, and one link is just PCHS-NJROTC hyping his idea of a great battle. And like Nx, I'm dying to know what the last link has to do with anything. --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wonder why this mention of me was not paralleled with a courtesy message on my talk page that I was being discussed. Huw Powell (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Winding down RW chatter

There is concern about the seemingly endless debate betwixt RW editors and CP editors regarding the RW section of the article. So let's lay out exactly what our concerns are, and try to get a finite list of talking points. As a starting point, I ask you to respond to a simple survey of the quality of the RW section of the article. Let's use the first four of the WP:Good article criteria (five and six don't apply well at the moment). Please actually *read* the description of each criteria before blindly answering the survey, and try following the format I've presented.

Survey

Quantify your assessment of the section by answering with an integer from 1 to 10 for each criteria. 10 means there is no possible way it could be better, 1 means there is no possible way it could be worse.

Response - User:B Fizz

1. Well-written - 8
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - 7
3. Appropriate proportion of coverage - 9
4. Neutral - 8

Response - User:Tmtoulouse

1. Well-written - 7
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - 7
3. Appropriate proportion of coverage - 9
4. Neutral - 9

Response - SakuraNoSeirei

1. Well-written - 7
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - 8
3. Appropriate proportion of coverage - 9
4. Neutral - 9

Response - TheClerksWell

1. Well-written - 7
2. Factually accurate and verifiable - 7
3. Appropriate proportion of coverage - 7
4. Neutral - 8

Comments

Please do not expound on your responses in the section above. Rather, do so here. Once a good number of people have taken the survey, we will decide how to best proceed with addressing specific issues.

I rated factual accuracy/verifiability a little lower since we only have one (overused) non-primary source. A counter-statement (or clarifying statement) to the vandalism quote could boost neutrality. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues and WP:BLP names should be stripped out that are cited in the WP:RS, Stepahnie Simon of the LA Times (note: this reverses an earlier position I took that a CP sysop should cited by name who fended off "malicious editing."). nobs (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In general I think its fine, I think it suffers from a few issues, it is a bit clunky because of the need for careful wording and direct quotation. I think there are some accuracy issues with it, but it is "close enough" and any issues with it can not be corrected since they are non-verifiable. I think given all the variables it is about as NPOV and verifiable as WP will allow. Coincidentally, it is pretty much exactly what we started with. The page, and pages, and pages of discussion have failed to produce anything but a few minor wording changes. I agree its time to wind this down and be done with it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The WP:DR, WP:BFAQ, WP:BLP issues are yet to addressed or in process; it's too early to attempt WP:CON on WP:NPOV. nobs (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you keep bringing up WP:BFAQ. It's a faq, not a policy. Beach drifter (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, DR and BFAQ are not issues in and of themselves. They are suggestions and ways of dealing with issues. So the only concerns you are really expressing are BLP/privacy issues and NPOV. Please take the survey and we'll go from there. We're not closing down discussion right now, but we are working towards identifying and resolving a finite number of issues. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BFizz. I am working on the sensitivity and privacy related issues now and will attempt to post up a brief summary outline of the a specific issue as it relates to the ==RationalWili== subhead in its current form; please, if we can avoid claiming a WP:CON per WP:NPOV emerges from this survey before these privacy concerns are addressesd would be most helpful.

I cannot propose specific NPOV language to changes in this current form until the names of individuals is removed from the article. The WP:RS refers to "malicious editing," so obviously you can see the problem. nobs (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, according to the survey, 4/4 people find the RW section to be quite neutral. I don't see any reason to postpone claiming consensus, unless we see further survey participation. If you have any specific suggestions for making it even *more* neutral, then by all means let us know. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My tuppence ha'penny:

• The section in question is accurate to the source given. The source is a RS.
• Privacy: To quote from WP:BLP:

"Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies:

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)

* Verifiability (V)

* No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

In this case i) NPOV - The opening sentence that contains Lipson's name is a statement of fact that; ii) meets the criteria for verifiability as it matches the information given in the source, and as has been mentioned repeatedly, there is no question that the source doesn't meet the requirements for being a RS. This means that section in WP:BLP dealing with contentious material about living persons doesn't apply, the statement isn't unsourced or poorly sourced. iii) There is no OR in the sentence that mentions Peter Lipson, nor is there any OR in the section in question. As such I cannot objectively see how WP:BLP applies in this case or, if WP:BLP is applied, how any article in Misplaced Pages would avoid having all names contained within stripped out.

• I think it would be helpful to define what vandalism means in the context that it is used in this particular matter, but I would imagine that the definition would be very difficult, if not impossible, to source. It also has the potential to be an unending font of bickering on this talk page.
• Another bone of contention seems to be when Rationalwiki was founded. Again, what is written in the section is accurate to what is written in the source. Nobs seems intent on inserting into the section that Rationalwiki was formed before Lipson et al were banned at Conservapedia, but cites no sources beyond OR. OR carries no weight in determining what does and does not belong in an article on Misplaced Pages. There also seems to be a push that the section includes a statement that Lipson and the other founders of Rationalwiki used Rationalwiki to vandalise Conservapedia. The term 'vandalism' and it's generally associated meaning, can be associated with specific criminal charges. As such any specific accusation of vandalism, beyond that already used and sourced in the section, must be sourced to the highest standards, if not it runs the very real risk of being libellous. To date no source beyond a statement made based on OR supports the claim made within these talk pages that Rationalwiki specifically and deliberately vandalises, or endorses the vandalism, of other sites.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I really like SakuraNoSeirei's summary. We can't address Nobs' concerns unless he has a proposal for an improvement to the article. Vague complaints will only cause drama. Nobs' last preferred version did not improve the article. Pirate 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I will propose better language. ty. nobs (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the responses were from people with a possible WP:COI btw. Not making a big deal of it though... PCHS-NJROTC 21:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

*headdesks* --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My intent was for more people to respond to the survey... ...comments? ~BFizz 01:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Concern: privacy

Whether or not I have issues with the quote, it's a real quote from a real source, and therefor I can't really ask it to be removed...unless someone changes it and quotemines it to create a different meaning. I certainly don't agree with Simon's characterization, but I can hardly change that.PalMD (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LA Times not a reliable source?

Per user:Hipocrite, The LA Times is not a reliable source? nobs (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The LA times is reliable. However, lambdadelta.wordpress.com is not. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Vandals routinely insert pornographic photos"

This is fairly outdated and basically not true anymore since the site introduced "Upload rights" on May 29, 2007 (see this part of the user rights log between the start of the site and June 2007). This means that only trusted users get the right to upload anything. So other than Admins, only these 22 people have specific Upload rights. Out of those, one account is a test dummy, two accounts are Admins anyway, and at least one person has been banned for five years (but not for image vandalism).

So while the above is OR, it's not terribly accurate to leave that sentence in its current present-tense form. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case or how to rephrase it without including the above OR, so I'll leave it as a comment for now.

CP does mention this on their site, but I'm equally not sure if this can or should be regarded as a source for this:

• "Due to heavy vandalism, only users with the Upload privilege can upload images"
• "Again to avoid vandalism, the right to upload images is restricted (at all times) to particular editors."

Input appreciated, I won't touch it until then. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When the site exposes its own policy or proceedure, it is, in my opinion, one of the best sources for such information. I generally agree with everything you've said here, just make sure you don't give undue weight to these factoids. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been reworded since my post. I lost track of who fixed it, but right now, it simply reads "had inserted", so I think we can consider this resolved. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sid 3050 here, although I wasn't asked, and he has already decided it is resolved, so I hope this won't be branded trolling or some MYOB, creepy post. Since CP implemented the upload rights I don't think anything pornographic has been uploaded, although vandals still insert links to such porn, and that might be noted. --TK-CP (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Macdonald, Administrator?

Nobs, since you reverted my edit and declared Brian Macdonald a CP Admin again, could we see your source? He's not listed in the part of the article that deals with admins (the "elite group" bit only seems to cover Terry Koeckritz and Tasha D. Jones before the articles moves on to things like RW, and Macdonald is mentioned after that), so I'm curious.

Simon evidently interviewed quite a few people, including admins and non-admins, and the only info we get about Macdonald is that he spent several hours per day in 2007 reverting vandalism. Thats not something only admins do. Everybody did that.

No admin on CP currently self-identifies as "Brian Macdonald" (googling for that precise name on CP gives no results, and the same goes for a user and user_talk search using CP's MediaWiki search), and I honestly don't know if your word is a good enough source to apply such a label. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted myself per your objection. We could say, "editor with revert powers" perhaps; or anyone visiting the site can see him listed on the Admin list. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. nobs (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Regarding your non-struck suggestion: Everybody can revert vandalism. The MediaWiki power you're thinking of would be "Rollback" (which uses "reverted" in its edit summaries, though), but that power isn't mentioned in the article. Besides, the article currently says anyway that he spent hours daily on reverting vandalism, so it'd be a tad redundant in my eyes to say that he has the power to do what he does. :P --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was informed that Tasha never was a CP admin, so I struck that part. Apparently, the paragraph with her name was not connected to the "elite group" one that mentions the other name. --Sid 3050 (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Sounds like beating a dead horse with OR. Right now, I've been informed there is an unresolved Oversight request on two pages per unresolved privacy concerns. Let's please deal with one issue at a time. Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In a way, it kinda was. I just added to it as a final self-correcting note before this thing gets archived, and the outing issue is running behind the scenes, anyway (though I honestly don't think anything will happen). --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Added what, and to what, this "self-correcting note" ? --TK-CP (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I guess you could just check the diffs to find your answer. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"In a way, it kinda was. I just added to it as a final self-correcting note before this thing gets archived" Is what I was asking about, as I fail to see such a note, either on this page or the article page, is all. I just wasn't clear on what this "note", "self-correcting" was, is all. --TK-CP (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was about "I was informed that Tasha never was a CP admin, so I struck that part.", which I posted after this section was marked as resolved. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Glad you were willing to take that information I gave you, in good faith and make the correction, Sid. --TK-CP (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfair

I think CP is ridiculous but parts of the article is very similar to the unfair way media treats Misplaced Pages. Imagine we say in the Misplaced Pages article: "according to Misplaced Pages orange is not a fruit" and then source a news piece by someone who does not understand how wikis work. I find this is similar to some parts in this article like this part: "Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is accepted by Conservapedia, but inaccuracies are present (for example, it claims that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle causes Brownian motion, which is not the case)." Sole Soul (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole section in the Misplaced Pages article which deals with the realiability of information and a whole separate article. There's no problem with that, and it definitely is not unfair to point this out. Colinpendred (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference for that statement is directly to Conservapedia. That seems shady and, especially for contentious subjects, we should point out criticism meted out by reliable sources, instead of synthesizing our own judgement. No, I'm not arguing with the factual accuracy, but, frustratingly, finding the truth is not the goal, merely summing all of human knowledge. Pirate

To Colinpendred, I think a better analogy is seeing a factual error on the Whitehouse's website, and then trying to add it to the Barak Obaba article. That probably isn't going to fly. Pirate 19:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirate, interesting point. Several years ago I went to great lengths researching that Richard Nixon's now infamous quote, "I am not a crook" had absolutely nothing to do with the Watergate scandal. For a time, the correction was made, but I'll be damned if the quote is back in there out of context once again. Now while it would be interesting to revisit the history of a wiki battle fought, won, and lost again, these points are moot. Right now we have a privacy issue marked "Resolved" that was not resolved, and inaction on an outstanding Oversight Request that is holding up mediation. nobs (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Barack Obama?" And yes, that's a good point. PCHS-NJROTC 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is to Conservapedia as the White House's website is to Barack Obama? That aside, it's a difficult issue. If the article in question is directly edited/endorsed/moderated by a prominent member of the site, I'd think such facts could be mentioned; simply referring to the page, on the other hand, would allow any edit to be cited as "Conservapedia's" viewpoint. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, some clever responses. We don't get to decide of all the things on Conservapedia which is significant enough to mention in the article. Also, we don't get to decide of all the things a politician has said which is significant enough to mention in their article. I apologize if I made a poor analogy. Yes, Barack Obama. Nice catch, sorry if it wasn't clear who I was talking about. Nobs' seems trollishly obsessed with privacy concerns, we should appreciate his laser focus, but one issue shouldn't preclude the other one from being addressed. Pirate 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If not the editors here at Misplaced Pages, who does decide what goes into the article? --TK-CP (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources. Pirate 01:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, once the privacy, bullying and outing disputes are adjudicated, which I am certain they will be expeditiously, we can move on to what is actually "reliable" and not. Seems a few things in the article are based on supposition and/or semi-reliable sources at best. I don't see any reason to hurry through the issues here, after all they have been discussed over and over, for some time now! --TK-CP (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sources in particular do you consider to be of questionable reliability? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out that citing Conservapedia itself seems a little shady since there will be a selection bias. I'm sorry I got involved. You guys have fun, let me know when the privacy issues are successfully adjudicated. Pirate 04:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be cautious when citing Conservapedia itself (and probably need to trim some out of the article), but it's not rule breaking or anything. Primary sources can be useful if used intelligently and backed by reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Wisdom89. Although it seems as if plenty of questionable sources have been allowed, as I said. At some point with newer websites, one must be willing to allow things that might not be allowed with more established entities, but how that is done within the rules here still baffles me. --TK-CP (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, lets all just put everything on pause and wait for the mysterious privacy concerns to be adjudicated. Rob and TK can go worry about that, and get back to us sometime next year maybe? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Privacy and civility revisited

Privacy issues? Right here. This proves Rationalwiki founders lied to Stephanie Simon not only about who the founder of Rationalwiki was, it proves they lied about when it was founded. That puts the whole story they gave to Stephanie Simon in question; Lipson and Rationalwiki editors were not blocked for ideological conflict, they were blocked for being part of a coordinated vandal cabal.

WP:BLP says, We must get it right. The non-public information needs to be reviewed independently to determine if, in fact, Rationalwiki editors who have written and controlled this article for several years now, did in fact mislead Stephanie Simon, a WP:RS. nobs (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-CP (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BLP We must get it right. This page & Archive 15 are loaded with evidence to support the claim Rationalwiki editors misrepresented the facts to Stephanie Simon. Here, a WP talk page is used for recruiting into the vandal "cabal." Here in Archive `15, the claim is made Rationalwiki had a lone vandal, user:Icewedge; at User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#Plot Icewedge states, "I hear theres a plot to destroy Conservapedia you posted on my friends user talk page. Your sending him an E-Mail or somthing. Good luck. ". nobs (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we find a new home for this section (newly-refactored by me) other than this talk page. The assertion that Nobs makes that "The non-public information needs to be reviewed independently" has nothing to do with our work here at Misplaced Pages. If a reliable source does such an independent review, great. We'll use it. Until then, Nobs' accusations regarding a "coordinated vandal cabal" are not only original research, they also defame living persons (though most of them are pseudonymous). ...comments? ~BFizz 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the point was to get a ruling on the privacy violations of Sid 3050, before we can proceed, since no Admin here seems inclined to remove that material, I wouldn't want to enable sweeping it under the rug (literally) by moving it elsewhere. Sid has repeatedly said he didn't intend to do such a thing, so where is the conflict in removing what he posted here and on PappaNovember's page? It seems almost impossible to discuss any objections here because doing so always leads to an attack on those of us who seek fairness and change, and the dragging in of extraneous material, which the Admins are reluctant to remove until things get out of hand. I say cut the baby in half, have two articles and then let leading editors with a proven record of fairness merge the two. Possibly not the usual method, but I am open to a better idea. --TK-CP (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this section connected to your privacy violation accusations against me? I haven't even been mentioned so far. And it's true that I didn't intend to violate anybody's privacy here. What's also true is that I didn't violate anybody's privacy here, so why should I remove or censor my posts? This would just set an odd precedent where certain names from a public source are forbidden from being mentioned just because the mere act of quoting from the source would violate someone's privacy. I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen until the Oversight Panel says so, and I sincerely doubt that it will. What the source says is public, and if I merely mention information from the source, then I'm using public information. And that's not a violation of privacy.

Also, could you please elaborate on the last part? You seem to suggest a full rewrite of the entire article... If so, please make a new section for it since it's a major suggestion to say the least. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BFizz, I respectfully disagree with some points you've made. You've been most fair in a thankless task, and I thank you for it. But I do not believe I'm discussing or proposing OR.

As to civility & privacy, let me restate, these concerns have always been uppermost in my mind and hopefully my actions. I did not come here to embarass individuals or anything like that. I've asked for private mediation for close to a month now. I've intervened on behalf of several Rationalwiki founding editors on behalf of their privacy rights several times and have been slapped down for it. I think we can proceed in an atmosphere of civility to get it right, (although my original proposal to strip out the names of all persons from the Stephanie Simon LA Times article should still be considered).

For now, using WP:V which is policy not guideline, I most likely carry the issue of Stephanie Simon reporting misinformation she recieved from Rationalwiki editors to the WP:RSN, and there, per WP:BLP and Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues we can get independent examination of Non-public details (although enough public details may already exist to show the unwitting errors reported by Stephanie Simon).

A further option is available, users with COI who may have mispresented facts to Stephanie Simon and are actively attempting to continue using a Misplaced Pages mainpace to perpetuate that misninformation, in the interest of privacy, may now see the point in stripping out all names from the LA Times article. Thanks to all for their hard work and attention. nobs (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More of the same.......Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility with me, Nobs. When you say "non-public details", that seems equivalent to saying "details that are not documented in a reliable source". Whether or not RW editors lied to Simon, there's no way to verify that unless we have "public details". I've slightly reworded the RW section to more closely adhere to Simon's description of what happened, and to take a more objective view of the whole situation. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:DR#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues lists four examples disputes involving sensitive or non-public information (note: per this policy, an Arbitrator, Checkuser, or Ovedrsighter does not have to be directly engaged because it states, "and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature." For example, whether or not users who misled a reputable mainstream journalist are activiely continuing the ruse against Misplaced Pages). Several examples cited may apply nin this case, but this one i cite:

• Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link; ...

The Non-public details are pages retrieved from RationalWiki 1.0 which show collusion of cyber-vandalism among several active Misplaced Pages editors who also are Rationalwiki founding editors and several who have edited this mainspace and other Conservapedia/related articles. This collusion dates from a time prior to statements made to Stephanie Simon regarding when, and under what circumstances the Rationalwiki website came into existence.

Enough information exists in public sources, here in Misplaced Pages, and in Rationalwiki, to give reasonable cause to the assertion Rationalwiki founders made false statements to Stephanie Simon of the LA Times. These same Rationalwiki founders have actively edited this mainspace for several years.

Here's a simple example of the cause that shows Peter Lipson was involved in Rationalwiki prior to the time he represented Stephanie Simon that he did. From the Rationalwiki website:

• RationalWiki#History:

• The original wiki was wiped and RationalWiki 2.0 was created as an open editing wiki, on May 22, 2007.

In an article about the mass blocking of editors, PalMD weighs in with a comment about sockpuppetry a week before Rationalwiki supposedly was founded:

• Great Purge#That's it:

• I hope youre wearing socks, cuz aren't you permabanned?PalMDtalk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

There's is more avaialable from public sources. nobs (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations have been addressed repeatedly, repetition doesn't gain you anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful, nobs, you are verging on slander. By which I mean, calling good faith[REDACTED] editors "liars" without any evidence whatsoever. Huw Powell (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not verging, he is calling us liars and vandals. He is equivocating two different websites and trying to draw some weird synthesis that has no baring on anything at all. Its an attack on on his fellow editors, with no content discussion what-so-ever. All of his posts should simply be removed from the talk page till he drops this idiocy and discusses content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The veracity of reliable source information can be tested particularly where there is cause to do so. nobs (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not mean one should ignore evidence of bad. On this page a WP Admin posted that sometimes one must take as evidence what is posted on a website as to policy, etc. In the interest of compromise and conciliation, I would be ready to agree that RW no longer has such a vandalism policy, if RW's editors here are prepared to own its past activities, or at least its encouragement of such. We all live and learn, hopefully, and I don't be the one to say anyplace remains static....doesn't change over time. --TK-CP (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few further changes. The article now states that

Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki...

The article (now) makes no definite assertion of what happened first. It leaves open the possibility that they were blocked because they started RationalWiki, though it does suggest (as the LA Times article, the only RS we have on the issue, suggests) that the block came first. The phrase "started RationalWiki" is also sufficiently vague to allow the interpretation to be that they "started RationalWiki as we know it now, aka RationalWiki 2.0". I don't see this as a big issue, Nobs. The article, as it stands, has no BLP issues, as we have previously discussed. It doesn't cast CP into terribly negative light. Nobs, you don't seem to have any privacy issues so you should feel free to bring up any content disputes that you like. But you really should stop the wikilawyering. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Conservapedia is one of many conservative and Christian-themed Web sites such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch which have adopted the format of popular sites in order to provide a conservative or fundamentalist Christian alternative. Critics around the world have accused it of bias and inaccuracies.

This is more of a question than a complaint. What is the idea behind comparing CP with those other sites, and why is criticism introduced so high up, when it seems telling what CP is should come before introducing criticism. And does the wording imply CP isn't popular as compared to those that are? --TK-CP (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TK asked "why is criticism introduced so high up...?" The lede is a summary of the entire article, and so it is indeed appropriate to mention the existance of criticism here imho. You say that "telling what CP is should come before introducing criticism", and in our summary lede, the first paragraph does just that. However, I agree that this wording of the lede's 2nd paragraph feels intentionally slanted against CP and needs to be revised. (For example, the "critics around the world" statement, or its recent predecessor, "both inside the US and out", is unnecessary, sketchy, and slanted). If no change has happened by tomorrow, then I'll give it a go myself. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As it is now, it says "Conservapedia, like Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch has adopted the format of a popular site in order to provide a conservative or fundamentalist Christian alternative." When I read that, I thought, "Which popular site?" The previous version said popular sites, but I think that's confusing in its own way, because on the face of it, it doesn't seem to be saying anything. It seems like that phrase could be in an article about any blog or news site, for example. I know what it's trying to say, that these sites are structured similar to and as alternatives to other, more mainstream (?) sites, but I'm not sure it says it very well. Still, I can't think of a way to say it better, and this article has been rather contentious as of late, so I thought it best to bring it up here, rather than make any changes. Then again, it's possible that I'm the only one reading it wrong, and it's a non issue. TeejIV (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clarify. Does that help? For future reference, I support editing boldy to make fixes that you don't think will piss off the other "side," and wait for them to revert - then discuss, as opposed to reverting back - see WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why compare Apples and Oranges at all? GodTube would compare to YouTube, but not a wiki. As B Fizz said above, the words used now are a clever way of casting the site in a bad light. If the language said something along the lines of "Conservapedia is one of several (U.S.) Conservative, and Christian-themed Web sites and has adopted the wiki format to provide a conservative and Christian alternative encyclopedia. Like most projects, Conservapedia has received both praise and criticism, with some critics accusing it of bias and inaccuracies." that would be factual and yet maintain a NPOV, IMO. --TK-CP (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I like Hipocrite's version. I don't see how that sentence casts it in a bad light. I think it's a rather good analogy, really. Conservapedia:Misplaced Pages::GodTube:YouTube (though apparently, GodTube doesn't exist anymore). However, I'm not addressing the second sentence. I'd prefer not to get involved in that debate. TeejIV (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually find any praise for it though, apart from a few random youtube videos? The reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. (I am glad we are finally discussing specifics, at least.) -R. fiend (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Comparing it to Misplaced Pages doesn't cast it in bad light, especially since CP sees itself as a competitor to WP. -- Nx / talk 14:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem comparing Apples to Apples. Both WP and CP are wikis, and I don't understand anyone missing my point, but snarks, R. fiend, as Papa November has made very clear, aren't at all helpful. The idea isn't to tally some list but to remain neutral. To state the reaction has been this or that belies the point of making all articles neutral. Misplaced Pages has no mission to be the arbiter of of deciding how many say its good or bad, but to state what is factual without editorial embellishment. Right? --TK-CP (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For once it wasn't snark, but a legitimate question. Where is the praise for Conservapedia? -R. fiend (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, since the overwhelming majority of sources discussing CP are critical, the article should reflect that. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you TK. I still don't see why comparing CP to GodTube is bad, and it's backed up by the sources, so it's not original research. -- Nx / talk 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find the entire second paragraph, sans the criticism, to be wholly irrelevant. If the lead is indeed supposed to be a summary of the body (which it is), then it is glaringly missing its mark here. I propose that we do away with it altogether and simply summarize Conservapedia's development and functionality. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To state the bit about "popular" sites is denigrating and misleading, and I still don't understand why we are dragging in those other sites. I don't object if someone wants to say CP sees itself as an alternative to WP, they are both wikis, but we should avoid patronizing other sites, because there isn't going to be any site as popular, in the wiki format, as WP. Rpeh, please provide a notable and verifiable source that quantifies what you state, or let it be, okay? Nx, someone just posted that GodTube doesn't even exist anymore. --TK-CP (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To say they copy elements of more popular sites is accurate and NPOV. If the word" popular" bothers you, keep in mind that according to Alexa, Misplaced Pages, youtube, and Facebook are among the top 5 most visited sites in the US. Conservapedia, Tangle, and QubeTV are very, very far behind. Hardly misleading. -R. fiend (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I NPOVed "popular" to well-known and mainstream. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Good to be "someone" I suppose. Clarification: apparently, GodTube is Tangle.com now, as stated in this article and its own, which is like facebook. The article doesn't really compare Conservapedia to GodTube, it compares it to Tangle. TeejIV (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TK, the article already contains links to several such examples: this, this and this are the examples from the second paragraph, and let's have this from a conservative.

NPOV doesn't mean what you think it does: it's a mistake I made when I first joined too, and I know others have made the same error. Can you provide reliable sources that praise Conservapedia? --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Tangle isn't an encyclopedia project, but a social networking site, according to the WP article. I am taking my leave for work now, which is opportune because the same pattern of turf warring has started up again. I suggest everyone read what B Fizz said above, and try to work within the spirit of NPOV, and not dragging in extraneous comparisons to other sites. I will check back in several hours...you guys have a good whatever it is where you are! --TK-CP (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read more carefully. No one is saying Tangle is an encyclopedia. It says that CP is part of a trend to take popular sites and make Christian/Conservative versions of them. Tangle did it with Facebook (or myspace, the same basic idea), QubeTV did it with youtube, and Conservapedia did it with Misplaced Pages (something Schlafly freely admits). Nothing POV there. -R. fiend (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TK, firstly please don't use an edit summary in the way you did here. As WP:ES says, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." You should also refer to the section of WP:NPOV I already provided, because "Neutral" is used the way I described and not the way you imply. As I said, it's a common mistake but it's a mistake nevertheless. Now, can you provide reliable sources that praise Conservapedia? If not, the line about criticism is entirely fair and balanced according to site policies. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rpeh, editors here have been warned several times about injecting personal comments to other editors. You are not the appointed town scold here. Yes, I will be adding laudatory comments about CP, never you worry. If you have complaints about my actions, I invite you to go to the proper page, and leave them off this one. Thanks. --TK-CP (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you twice and now ask for a third time: please supply sources that offer positive criticism of CP. If you cannot do so, stop misusing WP:NPOV. This comment, as with all my others, has been an attempt to improve the article - I am trying to elicit sources that you claim exist having already proved my point by supplying the sources you requested. If you add "laudatory comments" without sources, they will be deleted in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. In relation to your other point, none of what I have said is personal: it is simply pointing out the relevant policies of which a self-confessed new user may not be aware. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the second paragraph is grammatically unsound. I'm not sure what it is trying to say. Highlighted the parts that need to be rewritten - "Conservapedia's attempt to provide a conservative and fundamentalist christian alternative to Misplaced Pages by adopting its format has also been used by sites like Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, adopting the format of the more prominent Facebook, Youtube and MySpace, respectively." Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the wording was a bit clumsy, I have attempted to clarify it some. My issue is, that while I think the point is interesting, and sourced, it belongs lower in the article why is it "lede" worthy? I say move it down to a more appropriate section, attach the last sentence to the opening paragraph and that's our lede. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to quit pussyfooting around and propose changes or shut the hell up

This has gone on far too long. If someone has an actual proposal of how they would specifically like to see the article changed, state what it is here. Propose specific changes in wording, not vague references. Do not make absurd claims like "we have to deal with privacy issues before we can propose changes to the article," do not post irrelevant links to talk pages making spurious claims they prove people are liars, do not go off on some tangent about some other topic. Show exactly what your proposed changes are so that we can discuss them. Until this happens, there is really nothing to discuss. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, I agree with the sentiment but not quite the way it was expressed. Could someone please tell me what's wrong with the article? Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See the section above for a reasoned dialog, and watch this page for more in the coming days! --TK-CP (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Adopted the format of a (BLANK) site

I'm trying to find a word that describes what is similar between Misplaced Pages, Facebook, Youtube and Myspace that is different than Conservapedia, Tangle.com, QubeTV and MyChurch. Right now the article says "popular," but I don't think that's the word. I think it's more like well-known and mainstream or well-known and general interest or something along those lines, but I recognize that's wordy. Any compromises anyone can come up with? Reference revert - . Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem with "popular". I think it is a very fair description of the most visited sites on the net. Would anyone ever say that Conservapedia and Tangle are more popular than Misplaced Pages and Facebook? -R. fiend (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Popular" lacks a good metric, I think. Neither is all that popular amongst 7 year olds. Conservapedia is far more popular amongst young-earth-creationists than Misplaced Pages. There's got to be a perfect word that describes the key difference (Which is not just popularity, but rather a percieved liberal slant?) Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be reading into this a bit much. Google, for example, is the most visited site on the internet, and therefore I wouldn't consider it unfair to refer to it as the most popular site. Misplaced Pages generally hovers somewhere between 8th and 5th; Conservapedia is lucky to break the top 60,000. One is certainly more popular. Likewise even among YECers, Misplaced Pages is likely to be the more used reference as a whole. CP simply isn't used as a general encyclopedia by anyone, as far as anyone can tell. Most people haven't even heard of it. I'm not sure what percentage of the US population are Young Earth Creationists, but I'll wager it's somewhere around 25%. CP is not more popular than WP among 25% of the population. -R. fiend (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Successful, main stream, prominent, sane...Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

prominent! Any objections? Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's likely the most descript. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Prominent" seems to work well. I still don't really like the sentence structure, though. Is there a way to make CP more obviously the subject, and Tangle.com, QubeTV, and MyChurch more like an afterthought comparison? ...comments? ~BFizz 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia's attempt to provide a conservative and fundamentalist christian alternative to Misplaced Pages by adopting its format has also been used by sites like Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, adopting the format of the more prominent Facebook, Youtube and MySpace, respectively."

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this editorial comment? nobs (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of the comment do you dispute? Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources are in the article Rob, this was merely about wording. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Boldly edited on to main page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. And I see in the intervening hours those with an agenda have not given up. Tmtoulouse your inserting the "sane" comment falls under the specific warning Papa November gave you on your talk page, IMO. What is the reason for comparing sites of great difference, social networking, posting boards, with a wiki encyclopedia? That they somehow all have some connection to Christianity? Is Misplaced Pages making the same or similar comparisons in all of its articles? I don't think so. --TK-CP (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 citations sitting in the article right now. If you really require me to go to the page, click the citation, copy that information, and paste it here, I suppose I can do it...but wouldn't it be easier to go see for yourself? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Article do not need to be modeled after other articles. This comparison may not be necessary, but there's nothing wrong with it. Conservapedia is a Christian (among other things) alternative to other sites, just as those detailed, isn't itGomedog (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ gomedog. The comparison is useful, though like I said, it should be afterthought-esque. The changed wording lessens the importance of the comparison. Why was it removed? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't, it was just moved down into the Reception section. -- Nx / talk 03:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking for a place to put it outside the lede that makes since, it could also be put into overview sections. While interesting, I just don't think it is important enough to include as lede material. I am willing to be convinced otherwise of course. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh*. --TK-CP (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" label

Ed Poor changed the label under editorial policy section to a criticism section. On tertiary read through it really isn't a criticism section, just like the other sections under that general header it is mostly descriptive of what CP is doing, with a few point-counter-point thrown in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see more separation between simply describing CP in terms both supporters and critics can accept, and outright criticism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Separation of criticism from the article in general used to be a popular WP technique, ala the infamous "criticism" section. That is something WP is now trying to move away from, interweaving criticism through out the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you link me to that official policy, TMT? --TK-CP (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a policy or consensus that states whether or not criticism should appear intertwined within the article or separately sectioned, as far as I know. If one way is better than the other to be used in the article, then that's the one that's used. So either way works and there is no favoring as long as it's done properly. As said at Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Evaluations_integrated_throughout_the_article, care should be taken when intertwining criticism in the article as to not disrupt the general flow of the article. Creating separate sections usually makes criticism easier to handle, considering that it is all centralized and easier to fit into the article's flow. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is criticizing

TK has now removed multiple times source information about who critics are of the project. It is not just the "main stream" press but it much more wide spread. The article talks about multiple prominent political and religious leaders who have criticized the project. Below is the text that was reverted:

The project has generally received negative reactions from the Mainstream media, as well as multiple prominent political and religious leaders from both ends of the political spectrum.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can plainly see below I didn't remove so much as was not aware of the changes, because you were editing and changing so fast, and I was editing the main section. Isn't this a rather petty charge to make? Is there nothing that can please you, TMT? --TK-CP (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To edit the "main" section, copy a section edit link, paste it into your browser's location bar, and change the number at the end to "0". This minimizes edit conflicts, and makes your preview shorter if you use it. I still don't know why Misplaced Pages hasn't started using the "&edit&section=0" tab at the top, but that isn't what this talk page is about. Huw Powell (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Race on?

TMT, can we go back to discussing rather than boldly edit without talk? Otherwise I am prepared to dedicate the entire weekend, 24/7 to attempting to bring balance here. It wasn't me who added retired....check the diffs. --TK-CP (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I never accused you of adding retired, I removed it based on your suggestion. As well as another sentence. Talk is cheap, if there is something to edit, edit. The bold, revert, discuss cycle requires active editing. If something gets reverted a cpl times I will pull it out to the talk page. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "retired", and I agree with TMT's removal. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Since one cannot see who else is editing an article, TMT, I suggested going back to discussing to avoid sections like the one you added above. Thanks, Ed, I can see now from the history, which I couldn't see while editing, slow-poke that I am, the revisions were too fast for old fingers...... --TK-CP (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Protip: If you are curious about a "history" issue while in the edit window, open "history" in a new tab or new window and figure it out. I'm assuming you are using a fairly recent (>2006?) browser. Huw Powell (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

fn 36

1. Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Misplaced Pages right". The Star.com.
2. Dreher, Rod (1 October 2009). "Conservatizing the Bible". Crunchy Con. Beliefnet. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
3. "Conservapedia.com's Conservative Bible Project aims to deliberalize the bible". New York Daily News. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2009.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Engineering and technology good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• GA-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment