Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 31 March 2010

Blatant lies and talk page deletion

There was a lengthy section of this talk page called "blatant lies," and now it is gone. Misplaced Pages policy states quite clearly NOT to delete any content on the talk pages. To whoever vandalized the talk page (you know who you are), don't ever do that again. Anyway, I can't remember most of what was on this section, but what I said was that in Conservapedia's two-sentence article on Rosa Luxemburg, they said she was a terrorist. This is completely untrue. A terrorist is someone who uses fear and violence against civilians to orchestrate a response from the government or the civilians themselves. Rosa Luxemburg called herself a revolutionary, and a revolutionary is someone who organizes a mass movement of civilians to replace the government. Commissarusa (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

First, new discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I took the liberty of moving this post for that reason. Second, actually,[REDACTED] policy states that anything posted on the talk page that doesn't involve improvement of the article may be removed without question. Technically, I could have just deleted your comment instead of responding to it. Third, I didn't look in the article to see what you are talking about, but if Conservapedia calls someone a terrorist, then we report that conservapedia calls someone a terrorist. It is possible to then elaborate on exactly why said person is not actually a terrorist, but to say that conservapedia doesn't call her a terrorist when they actually do would be a falsehood.Farsight001 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

The article states, "the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan, Joseph McCarthy, and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects. " Citations are Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Misplaced Pages". Los Angeles Times. and Read, Brock (March 2, 2007) "A Misplaced Pages for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education. The Brock article is a dead link but here is the original cite. Neither article mentions Joseph Mccarthy. nobs (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think COI guidelines prohibit you from fixing dead links and making other non-controversial edits. I fixed the url and removed McCarthy. Rees11 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia Project

Is Conservapedia still just an ancyclopedia project, has it not moved on to be more of a political/ideological blog? KenDenier (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that, then please put it in the article. If not, don't. if you're just wondering aloud, then please remember this talk page is not a forum. And denying Ken is futile, btw. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"brusque and offensive"

The article states, "Lenski...felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive..." Two days ago several RationalWiki editors admitted on Rationalwiki they were responsible for the "brusque and offensive" comments. This article states,"According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, 'From there, they (Lipson and his fellow editors) monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.'"

Can a neutral editor review this material to determine if it violates NPOV. (Disclosure: I am a Conservapedia sysop). Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to RW is to a quote from a Conservapedia "secret" cabal group. Not anything to do with what any Rationalwikians said. The Lenski affair was in 2008, actually after "Lipson" had ceased to edit at RW. Your complaints are groundless. SpeckledHen (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The words actually used by Lenski were: "rude tone and uninformed content" So amendment could be required. SpeckledHen (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

TY. Let me respectfully disagree. The link provided is to a discussion about leaked information from a private Conservapedia mailing list ("secret" cabal, as has been described}. A question is asked,

• Questioner: Ah, so can we say deceit was employed here, and that by some Ratwikians, hmm?
• First responder: I'd be more surprised if that wasn't true.
• Questioner: Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" ?
• Second resoponder: Yes, deceit was employed by RWians, and it was gratefully embraced by Andy, who now had an excuse to carry on with his obsession, despite being warned and knowing of where the signatories came from.
• Third responder; I should clarify that if people who are also members of RationalWiki decided to do this - via sockpuppetry or otherwise - it was their own doing. RW as a site doesn't condone this sort of thing; it's immature and counter-productive. Although I would be almost certain that anyone involved in doing this would have got their news from RW and the incident did highlight Schlafly's ego-centric tendencies very, very nicely. The fact is, Schlafly was an idiot to send the letter and this demonstrates that many of his inner circle has expressed their misgivings very, very clearly and were subsequently ignored.
• Fourth responder: Everyone knows we have off-site discussion groups to organize and plot our vandalism.
• Second responder: I propose we call our next secret site 'The Bible Blues'.
• Fifth responder: More liberal deceit from a member of the vandal site cabal. As a frequent poster on the supersecretforumwherewetalkaboutdeceitz, you ought to know that Teh Bible Blues is the name for our semisupersecretforumwherewetalkaboutdeceitz.

Summary: Five longtime Rationalwiki editors all admitting to direct knowledge of Ratikonalwiki editors "using deceit" to implant "brusque and offensive" material about Lenski.

The Misplaced Pages article states, "Lenski replied...that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit."

Direct evidence has now been submitted Rationalwiki editors, (as L.A. Times reporter Stephanie Simon reported, "From there , they (Lipson and his fellow editors) monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism), have taken responsibility for comments Prof. Lenski regarded as brusque, offensive, and deceitful. This article needs to be reviewed, once again, for factual and NPOV errors. Thank you. nobs (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Nobs01, assuming good faith, what on Earth are you talking about? Huw Powell (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Assuming good faith, I have posted these concerns at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia.23.22brusque_and_offensive.22. Please engage with me there. Thank you. nobs (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, of the five editors in the link you gave (myself, Armondikov, Nutty, CR and NU) only Armondikov was a significant member of RW at the time; CR had signed up, but does not appear to have participated much until late September. Secondly, I don't see any admissions that RWians inserted 'brusque and offensive' comments; as far as I know, RWian socks merely added their names to the list of people supporting Andy sending the letter. Andy, despite knowing where these signatories came from, gratefully accepted the signatures and used them to overrule several sysops who were having reservations about the idea. Also, looking through the Lenksi Dialog at CP I can't see any 'brusque and offensive' comments on the talk page, where the letter was discussed. EddyJP (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the Fifth Responder. My intent wasn't to "admit" anything but to make fun of you (nobs/RobS) and others who continue to assert there's some conspiracy. Why is this being discussed on WP again? -- Nutty Roux 98.226.15.58 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm totally confused. How on earth can someone conclude from a positive answer (which I even fail to see) to the question Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" that "all brusque and offensive comments were made by Ratwikikans" as the sentence Two days ago several RationalWiki editors admitted on Rationalwiki they were responsible for the "brusque and offensive" comments. implies. And how does it reflect on the management of conservapedia (which is otherwise very active) not to react on these "brusque and offensive" comments? DiEb (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The facts are correctly stated in the article

• There were "brusque and offensive" comments on the site
• Lenksi was offended by them

It is less important that not all of these comments were made by upright conservapedians, more important is that the management didn't take measures against the comments - and the commentators (at least not for their comments). DiEb (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article merely says that Lenski found many comments on CP to be offensive; it doesn't matter who made them. Anyone who edits on CP is by definition a CP editor, so any claim that the comments don't count because they were made by Rationalwikians pretending to be Conservapedians is a non-starter. Perhaps we can discuss adding a bit about Rationalwikians taking credit for some of the comments in an effort to discredit Schlafly and CP, but that might start to enter into the realm of original research. It also might plug RW more than certain editors would wish to do. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't know which comments he found offensive. We don't know if the people at RationalWiki that imply they made some comments there actually did. Now if other editors on Conservapedia disowned those comments at the time that would be actual evidence of their not wanting to be associated with offensive comments. Misplaced Pages has to work with actual real documentation not conjecture. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We do know Peter Lipson admitted to helping start rationalwiki for the purpose to engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. We do know one of Peter Lipson's first acts in RW was this screed. We know this screed has nothing to do whatsoever with the medical qualifications Lipson represented to the L.A. Times cited in this entry. We know RW vandals have a long history of sockpuppetry to vandalize and control content of this page. We know the only link to RationalWiki is in the Peter Lipson subheading. We know Lipson certainly could fit the definition of a questionable or dubious source. We know this may be self-promotion of rationalwiki and possibly Lipson. We know Lipson is non-notable, other than his own own medical practice and Lipson being cited alongside Jimbo Wales and Dr. Lenski. That certainly is WP:UNDUE for a non-notable, dubious critic. nobs (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lipson is not being cited as a source, the LA Times is. Lipson himself doesn't have to be notable to have this item included. I don't find the coverage undue but I suppose that's somewhat subjective. As the only critic who has started a satire site and admitted to vandalizing Conservapedia I think he deserves inclusion. Rees11 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the LA Times bit and that allegation looks problematic just citing it. It says:

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

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

We do not know what 'they' refers to, some editors of RationalWIki, or Lipson in particular. It doesn't say it was set up to do vandalism. And it doesn't give any evidence of all this, not even a quote. have we got better evidence? Second or third hand stuff like that is very iffy. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"They" obviously refers to "Lipson and several other editors" and the LA Times must be considered a reliable source, so we don't need any other evidence. Rees11 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ty. We've made progress. This WP entry has been protected, deleted and recreated, several times since 2007 when the LA Times article appeared. At CP, we've blocked over 10,000 accounts in three years, originating with a core of about two dozen RationalWiki users, commonly dubbed "ratvandals." And Rationalwiki documents much of this history. This current version was written by these Rationalwikians.

Early last year, a story was widely disseminated about a "Conservapedia Hit List". This was allegedly a "hit list" of US Senators who were marked for assassination in states with Republican Governors. A Rationalwiki editor at some pointed admitted he was the source (User:Tony Sidaway gives a good the summary of the incident). The same vandalism has again occurred in the Lenski dialogue. Rationalwiki editers, from the site Lipson told the LA Times was created to engage in cyber-vandalism, were the source of comments Dr. Lenski regarded offensive.

Both Lenski & Lipson are cited as critics in this article. Lenski's criticism originated with ratvandals Lipson admitted was one the purposes of starting the site. Both critics are cited alongside Jimbo Wales. What's wrong with this picture? nobs (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Lenski made it clear he thought Andy was an ignorant ass, and accused him and other editors at CP of being obnoxious morons. Whether or not some of those moron were parodists from RW is irrelevant (though certainly some were). Try as you might, you can't write this off as a Rationalwiki prank. Andy made an ass of himself, and was anxious to do so. There's no getting around that. -R. fiend (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue under discussion here. The issue is whether or not Peter Lipson is a notable or reliable critic of CP's editorial policies. Peter Lipson is the author of this defamatory screed posted on RW.

WP:COI#Defending_interests states:

• it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution

meaning an institution, not just a person, can be defamed.

• An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. (Note: This entry has been deleted and recreated numerous times, each time with socks, apparently, reclaiming ownership of the article).

Lipson's unsupported screed was posted at RW shortly after the sites creation in the timeframe of the LA Times article. Lipson has no other internet presence other than his practice of internal medicine, yet he has a celebrated ranking as an authoritive critic of CP right next to Jimbo Wales. His screed -- his real intent, has nothing to do whatsoever with the credentials cited in the L.A. Times as an authority on breast cancer. And inserting this subsection was the method used by RW to link WP to thier website. nobs (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So it does have nothing to do with Lenski. Alright then. But anyway, as someone else said, we're referencing the LA Times, not Lipson's blog. If you want to remove all references to Lipson you can try to make that case. We can start by removing any reference to RationalWiki as a vandal site. -R. fiend (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I'm asking. I can't do it myself because of COI. nobs (talk)

I'm asking the subhead using Peter Lipson's name be removed; and if reference to Peter Lipson is to remain, he not be elevated as a notable and credible source on CP's editorial policy and breast cancer. The evidence shows he a partisan political critc who confesses to vandalism, and is the source of inflamitory, and defamatory misinformation. nobs (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No sir. The evidence merely reflects that you object to his characterization of your little fiefdom, that you like using inflammatory language to describe your opponents, and that Lipson "confessed" to wiki vandalism, which is a very special case of vandalism in general. You've vandalized RW far more often by your own definition of the word. Get over yourself. 98.226.15.58 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: The record will show I am also a Rationalwiki sysop. I have tried on numerous occassions to gain concensus for the deletion of Lipson's anti-Conservapedia screed for years. I've debated major points in Lipson's essay with Lipson, and he walked away from the discussion evidently because he could not maintain his position. I've had the power as a RW sysop to delete it myself, but have not done so without concensus.

I've known virtually all of RW founders since its inception, and I probably alone among CP sysops, enjoy a civil relationship with most of them. I think many respect me because of a willingness to engage in matters of mutual importance. nobs (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the strangest opinion I've ever read; since when has "despise" been interpreted as "respect"? SpeckledHen (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there anyone, anywhere on this wiki who removes needless hate talk like above? It wasn't on-point, nor was it about the topic at hand, and lowers the level of dialog on Misplaced Pages even more. The failure to remove such comments is of itself a comment on the lack of standards here. --TK-CP (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're to harsh to Nobs! But again, let's look at the facts:

• Lenski states in the introduction of his second letter I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite.

Who wrote the second letter? It's signed Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. And user Aschlafly (most probably not a RW sock, as he is the founder of Conservapedia) made some comments which may be have seen as willfully ignorant and slanderous like

• At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy. --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data. --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--Aschlafly 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Face it: the Lenski - dialogue is a brainchild of Andrew Schlafly, who set the tone of it, too. Andrew Schlafly may have been open to encouragement from some members of RationalWiki, but he digged this hole himself. DiEb (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're not contesting the reliability of the LA Times, but rather arguing that the Lipson section should be removed because Lipson has attacked CP? I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Would you also remove the article on Charles J. Guiteau? My opinion is that the Lipson section should stay. Rees11 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has suggested that the Lipson section should go. It's factual as far as I can see. The only relevant discussion here has been about the Lenski letters being promoted by RationalWiki, which is obviously a red herring. SpeckledHen (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone from being about Lenski to about removal of the Lipson section. (Someone seems to have a hard time staying on topic.) While I don't think the Lipson section should be removed, I wouldn't mind seeing it renamed. Lipson himself isn't terribly notable or important. Maybe the heading should read RationalWiki? -R. fiend (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And about Lipson and the LA article again. I believe this is Lipson, is this true? And if so he says he did not set up RationalWiki. Is this true or is the LA article the one we should believe? If the LA article is not right on that then have we other evidence of Lipson doing vandalism? Personally I have very little time for vandals and would like this cleared up one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dmcq. You appear to see the problem. Lipson's user page says,

• "The site seems to represent something I abhor, but attracted a large number of people of all political stripes who felt compelled to inject truth into the mix. " links to this discussionon where Lipson says,
• My politics, when I either agree or disagree with something here, are irrelevant.' But Lipson finds a receptive audience for his politics with his defamatory screed at RW.

So, the section baring Peter Lipson's name, with the reference to him solely as a doctor of internal medicine makes no mention of his extreme, unfounded, and inflamitory political views. If the LA TImes is incorrect in stating Lipson helped start RW, his credentials have certainly been used to inspire an army of younger trolls and vandals who feel justified in attacking and vandalizing the site. And Lipson certainly was with RW from its beginnings.

WP:COI#Defending_interests states:

• it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution Can we pleaase get some help? Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As you seem to have moved on to the second part of your initial complaint, may I assume that you have no problem any longer with the sentence: Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit. ?

That would be a nice progress - and we could move on without the evocation of upper authorities... DiEb (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What "extreme, unfounded, and inflamitory political views"? He butted heads with Andrew Schlafly about the whole "Abortions cause breast cancer!" thing, and that's pretty much it. And in the end, Andy prevailed in pushing his view as truth.

If you feel the need to make accusations against people, give us evidence. Or are you saying that "I have always been interested in how people bend the truth to suit their particular needs, so when I heard about a site called 'Conservapedia', I had to check it out. I began editing, and rapidly found my worst fears confirmed, but also some of my greatest hopes. The site seems to represent something I abhor, but attracted a large number of people of all political stripes who felt compelled to inject truth into the mix." is that extreme view? Is it bad to try to stop people from completely misrepresenting matters of science, religion or politics? Please elaborate.

And in what way did RW use his credentials to inspite trolls and vandals? Wha? Your accusations get more bizarre, and it's about time you provide some substance. Right now. This isn't a public forum to vent your conspiracy theories.

RationalWiki had been a place founded by disillusioned CP members, for disillusioned CP members, period. It possibly would've dropped into obscurity if certain CP sysops hadn't announced they'd send copies of silly discussions to the FBI... or if TK hadn't just randomly banned a ton of innocent accounts around the same time. Dr. Lipson had been among the first members, just like me. Nobody of us used any credentials to lure in others or to inspire anybody to do something.

The thing that drove tons of members to us (especially after the Great Purge and once we went public with RW 2.0) was Conservapedia itself. Conservapedia sysops dictated rules, but only applied them whenever it suited them, often interpreting them in new ways or simply making up their own ones (posting them on their own user page and applying them retroactively). Another aspect that makes people assume the view that CP deserves to be vandalized is that Andy is always right by definition (see also: Jesus disproves relativity, Obama is a Muslim with mind control power, Dawkins never was a professor, etc.) and that arguing against Andy's believes or his pet projects (Lenski Affair, Conservative Bible Project) equals insubordination.

And this isn't just the view of liberal vandals - CP sysops like Philip J. Rayment or CPAdmin1 also saw these problems... and were bullied out of the group <irony>for advocating that rules should be applied consistently and for pointing out that the hostile "Follow the leader!"/"Do as I say, not as I do!" atmosphere drove people from CP to RW.</irony> Oh, and for arguing that one can be a conservative while still being in favor of gun control, in Philip's case.

Rob, you're wasting everybody's time here. You bait people with some "admission" about Lenski, then suddenly swerve over to Dr. Lipson and make wild accusations about him. Time to speak clearly: What does he do? What extreme views does he have? (Edit to add: Nevermind, I see that was yet another tangent that didn't have anything to do with anything, posted with the sole purpose of making Dr. Lipson look bad.) And what does this have to do with "brusque and offensive" comments? And please, go beyond just making assertions and accusations. This is Misplaced Pages, not Conservapedia. We actually would like to see sources and details. --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register

The Register article states,

• Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki

User:Tony Sidaway, a respected longtime Misplaced Pages contributor noted after the "Hit List" subterfuge,

It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye ...if there are people going in and deliberately inserting the most outrageous material they can, Schlafly and his adminstrators like TK can always say, with some justice, that his site has been compromised by vandals. In this case, despite my initial feelings about the matter, TK was right and I was wrong.

Sidaway goes on,

I am frustrated by this culture of vandalism and parody. My history on Misplaced Pages where we have successfully overwhelmed all attempts to cause such harm has given me a keen appreciation of the advantages of open editing, but on a much smaller wiki which is apparently already subject to quite heavy infiltration by people who mean no good, how am I to persuade the Conservapedians, as I have been trying to do, that open editing is a viable direction to take?...they are unlikely to appreciate the strength of this argument when faced with deliberate and organized attempts to embarrass them by planting parodic content.

So Lipson is more than a medical doctor as represented in this entry, and evidently Misplaced Pages itself has not overwhelmed Lipson's vandals who control the content of this particular entry. nobs (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

...what?

So we've moved from Lenski to Lipson to the Hitlist now?

Please just tell us what you would change to what in the article instead of going on endless accusation tangents. This is getting silly.

And you think RationalWiki controls the content of this article? HA! HAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAA! Quick! Put it on Bias On Misplaced Pages! --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Still not really following what you're saying. Is your beef with who founded RationalWiki? If so, it appears the Times somewhat overstated Lipson's involvement, and that he was an initial member, not founder (according to RW itself I believe). The phrasing on that as it stands seems good enough. (It certainly isn't the first time a newspaper got a detail wrong.) I don't see what your point is with the "Hit List". If it was vandalism, why did Conservapedia let it stand so long? Besides, I don't even see it mentioned in this article so I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Can you please just state clearly and plainly what changes you are proposing to the article? Or are you just here to complain? -R. fiend (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register was quoting the LA Times so it is hardly independent confirmation of the LA story. I think we have to go by Lipson's own statement since there is evidence the LA Times article is wrong in this area. I don't see how this article can credibly continue quoting the LA article, is there some wording for 'reliable sources' which state provably wrong things? At best we have the statement by Lipson that he would have been pleased if he had actually helped found RationalWiki like the Register said. Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dmcq. I think your reading of both the L.A. Times and the Register may be correct, however there is no doubt Lipson was among the first contributors who started RW. And quoting the L.A. Times is the vehicle that has been used to provide a direct link to Rationalwiki's website. nobs (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you are aware that this article and its author are directly approved by Conservapedia, right?

• Guess who provided a handy link to it on CP's article on Stephanie Simon? YOU!
• CP Main Page, September 2008: "'Palin's Entry Gives GOP Ticket Shot at Capturing the Youth Vote,' is an article in the Wall Street Journal by ... Stephanie Simon, the reporter who wrote a widely published article about Conservapedia in 2007."
• CP Main Page, January 2009: "'It's an astonishing fact that year after year, the Bible is the best-selling book in America -- even though 90% of households already have at least one copy.' So writes Stephanie Simon for the Wall Street Journal, where this talented reporter seems to be after covering Conservapedia last year for the L.A. Times."

And if memory serves correctly, at least one CP sysop recently paraded it around on this talk page to be call people "sysops of a known vandal site" or something. So it's beyond puzzling that you now seemingly oppose including this source. Just as it's puzzling that you oppose linking to RationalWiki, which has been namedropped and linked several times by now - often by you. I'm not endorsing or opposing you right now, mostly because I'm not sure anymore what you want or why you want it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the discussions around the decision to speedy delete RW entry here, nor care to engage. My focus is on the qualifications of Peter Lipson to be cited along side Jimbo Wales in the "Reception" section after Lipson published a defamatory screed on a website Misplaced Pages cites was founded by him. At a bare minimum, the Lispon section violates NPOV for not stating his political views, and only qualifies him as doctor of internal medicine. It should be unproblematic to defend an instituition defamed by Peter Lipson. nobs (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So you wish something that is NPOV and backed by a RS removed on the basis that the person quoted wrote something you don't like somewhere else? The source doesn't say anything about Lipson's political views, wouldn't that be OR then? -- Nx / talk 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The section echoes what is covered by a reliable source. You seem to want to include Original Research. I admit I'm not the most active or rule-versed editor here, but I believe there is a rule against this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another issue regarding the factual accuracy of the L.A. Times and Register articles; there are issues developing for the restored RationalWiki entry. surely, at a minimum we can conclude this Peter Lipson subsection is in dispute. As per my declared COI's, and WP policies in place to protect living persons and institutions from defamation, I should be able to get a neutral administrator to rehang the dispute tag in this subsection while these issues are civilly discussed and sorted out. Thank you. nobs (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the defamation you object to? -- Nx / talk 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lipson, founder of RationalWiki according to Misplaced Pages, is the author of this defamatory smear of Conservapedia. nobs (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that "smear" located on Misplaced Pages? -- Nx / talk 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lipson criticism is more than that as a doctor of internal medicine, as this entry states. And we have reason to beleive, per WP:RS, Lipson likewise, is more than a doctor of internal medicine. nobs (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This article does not state what kind of criticism RationalWiki provides. -- Nx / talk 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article only qualifies Lipson as a doctor of internal medicine. If Lispon indeed is the founder of RationalWiki, as the L.A. Times, The Register and Misplaced Pages all state, his second entry on his user page in Rationalwiki under "Why Am I here" outlines his defamatory screed later cut and pasted into essay form. His agenda clearly is political, and not just "refuting crank science" as RW maintains. nobs (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the Misplaced Pages RW article to reflect what the LA Times article actually says (IIRC, fixing such errors is allowed even with a COI): That Lipson is one of the first members of RW and that he "started" RW merely in that sense, just like Andy's homeschoolers "started" CP. (I "started" RationalWiki in the same sense, are you going to call ME the founder now?) Notice how this article doesn't say that CP was started by homeschoolers, it says that it was started by Andy Schlafly. This article also doesn't say that Lipson is the founder of RationalWiki. Lipson's RW profile explicitly says that he's not the founder of RW. Nobody on RW says that it was founded by Lipson. The Register article, the (to the best of my knowledge) only source for your claim, wrongly paraphrases the LA Times. It's just you who suddenly wants to make this personal by including Original Research to assign a completely unnecessary political label. Lipson's conflict with Andy - who has no medical training I am aware of - was over medicine, not politics. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

TY. The changes made til now, including the renamed subhead & POV tag are appreciated. I'm taking a break for a few hours. Again, thanks to all. nobs (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - Peter Lipson

I've hung the {peacock} tag in the ==Peter Lipson== section, although it refers to "article;" the alternative would be the {hoax} tag which says, "article or section." I'm not certain which to use. Thank you. nobs (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found the correct tag {POV-section}. nobs (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your gripe with that section? The LA Times states

Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate."

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

The section almost completely echoes this and was a RS last time I checked. What would you change? --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

nobs: If you could sum it up in 20 words or less I would appreciate it. And please refrain from editing the article directly except for non-controversial edits like fixing dead links. Rees11 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register article states,

• Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki

Tony Sidaway states,

• It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye to... people going in and deliberately inserting the most outrageous material nobs (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you suggesting we quote Tony Sidaway as a reliable source? -R. fiend (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Register article incorrectly paraphrases the Times. Lipson didn't enlist anybody, and he didn't start RationalWiki. He had been an early member (from what I recall - this is three-year-old stuff), and that's it. And you once again bring up the Hitlist, which had been implicitly endorsed by CP sysops (they had edited it and didn't find fault with the content, IIRC) and had only been erased the moment someone shone the spotlight onto it. Oh, and it isn't part of the article and has nothing to do with Lipson. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Template tag has been reported to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia.23.22brusque_and_offensive.22. nobs (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't realize The Register story was bad when I added it (was looking at the wrong section of this talk, since it was linked from the NPOV report). If it's factually inaccurate we could note that he is an early participant, but not a founder with another reference. In any event, linking to the RationalWiki main page was pointless, so I wiki-linked to the article on RationalWiki. I'm not seeing a big POV issue in any event, just a potential factual discrepancy. —ShadowRanger  17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just realized that RationalWiki itself was redirecting to this section, which makes no sense at all. I've restored an earlier version of the page which appears to be okay (if a bit overly focused on the Conservapedia rivalry). Either way, it's better that a redirect to a tiny section of a article with tertiary relevance. —ShadowRanger  17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's article on RationalWiki accredits Peter Lipson as the founder. Can we get the {NPOV - section} tag, or a factual innaccuracy tag rehung in the Lipson section of this entry restored, please? nobs (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was just restored by me, and I added the factual accuracy tag myself due to the questions raised here. I'm inclined to shorten the Lipton section and remove most of the details that you disagree with; any factual accuracy issues can be hashed out at the RationalWiki article. —ShadowRanger  18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend factual innacurracies in the RW entry. It should be unproblematic to hang {NPOV - section} in this entry to defend an institution under defamatory attack by Lipson personally Can the {NPOV -section} tag be restored, please? nobs (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What does an essay posted on RationalWiki have to do with Misplaced Pages? -- Nx / talk 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI#Defending_interests states,

• In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Misplaced Pages’s interests.. This, I submit, is one such case. nobs (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that refers to material in a Misplaced Pages article. The material you object to is not on Misplaced Pages. -- Nx / talk 18:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I've put up a notice on RW to see if anybody still remembers the pros and cons for the "turn to redirect" decision. Personally, I'm really not sure about Notability, so a few extra eyes now might spare us some drama later on. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)