| Revision as of 04:14, 7 April 2010 editTmtoulouse (talk | contribs)2,170 edits →Clarification← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:39, 7 April 2010 edit undoNobs01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,011 edits →Nobs concerns: Please cease the personal attacks and agree to some form of MediationNext edit → | ||
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
| Prover you are not trolling Nobs. This section is for you. Start by giving just ''one'' specific content issue you have with this article. Please no one else fill this section with anything until Nobs decides to actually participate productively rather than attack his fellow editors. Here you Nobs, I am waiting. ] (]) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | Prover you are not trolling Nobs. This section is for you. Start by giving just ''one'' specific content issue you have with this article. Please no one else fill this section with anything until Nobs decides to actually participate productively rather than attack his fellow editors. Here you Nobs, I am waiting. ] (]) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Please cease the personal attacks and agree to some form of Mediation. Thank you. ] (]) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:39, 7 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. |
|
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | 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. |
Moving back to content concerns
The situation between nobs (RobSmith on RW) and RationalWikians kept escalating, and it moved further and further away from discussing actual content.
Right after posting a lengthy (maybe too long, but things like "Wanna see your Username on the sockpoppet Noticeboard for the next several years" or "Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary." bring out the worst in me) reply, I mentally slapped myself.
So I'm taking things back here to discuss content.
Nobs. What are your specific concerns? You brought up a lot of them, and they go from accusing RationalWiki of controlling the content of this article to including Dr. Lipson's political views. I think it's safe to say that people lost track of what you are trying to achieve.
So please, tell us which sections of the article you don't like, and what you would want to change to what. Let's start slowly so we're all on the same page. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- More than two days have passed, and Nobs has just insisted on overriding the COI Noticeboard he requested in the related RationalWiki article while at the same time threatening me with ArbCom and claiming that he was engaging in Dispute Resolution without actually discussing content. I'm done here. I spent almost a week on nothing but this on- and off-wiki.
- Below is a post from my user talk page where I detailed to Nobs why I believe his repeatedly stated concerns about the LA Times accuracy are unfounded. The post is dated "01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)" and came in direct reply to Nobs (a.k.a. RobSmith on RW) threatening me with ArbCom unless I agree with him ("But working together begins with recognizing I have valid concerns. And those concerns basically are for the Misplaced Pages project. Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary."). He never replied to it, instead keeping up the Dispute Resolution talk and ArbCom hints while claiming that I rejected to resolve the dispute.
- I recognize that the LA Times article could be worded better, and it's been shown that it's apparently possible to read it in a way that implies that PalMD founded RationalWiki - hence the Register article and the initial version of the restored RW article.
- However, I reject that the LA Times article says PalMD is the founder of RationalWiki. It doesn't. It says (God, by now, I could recite this in my sleep):
- "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."
- "Several other editors" includes me. Does the LA Times article thus say that I'm the founder of RW? No, it doesn't. PalMD is just the only one of the initial group who is named in the article, but it doesn't say that he had a special role.
- People can obviously jump to different conclusions after reading this article, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean we should discard it. It means that we have to read it carefully and see if other sources contradict it.
- The Register merely paraphrases the LA Times. It likely didn't do its own direct research in the way Simon did (she interviewed at least two CP sysops and also communicated with one or more RationalWiki members, if I recall correctly). So where it goes beyond the claims of the original article and starts to paraphrase, I won't give it more weight than the LA Times article.
- PalMD himself states on his user page that the Register is wrong.
- Our own history page states that ColinR founded the original RW.
- I don't recall us denying that PalMD was among the first members. Considering that Simon knew of his medical qualifications and of his discussions with Andy about abortion/breastcancer, I would guess that he contacted when she appeared on CP to announce her article-writing intentions.
- From my understanding, our statements thus don't contradict what the LA Times says: "Lipson and several other editors started their own website". He was there in the beginning, and we were among the initial members to start it together.
- At this moment, PalMD's statement, RationalWiki's history page, the LA Times and the Misplaced Pages CP article agree: "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website". There is no mention of a founder in the WP articles because the one source that mentions a founder at all is the Register, which drew its own conclusions from the LA Times article that go against what the person and the site in question claim.
- Did this help in some way? Did I understand your concerns correctly? If you want to discuss this issue somewhere on Misplaced Pages, drop me a note and I'll copy this comment over. If your concerns are about something else, please tell me and I'll give you my thoughts as time permits.
- The time for wikilawyering games is over. Discuss content or stop pestering me. I'm sick and tired of this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Article issues
Rob, please provide specific content issues you have with the article here. To avoid cluttering this up and preventing us from actually improving the article please avoid personal attacks against editors, or any other various threats that keep popping up. In order for anything to be done we need to see what it is you want to accomplish. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Notability of RationalWiki
So the consensus view of RationalWiki as a non-notable source revailed at the RfD. The question now is, why is it mentioned at all this article? nobs (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think there's some misunderstanding here. The AfD was closed as keep, or no consensus. It was left up to the editors to opt for a redirect. The general opinion is that, according to WP:RS, the reference used in this article is more than adequate. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to mention RationalWiki here. Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, so a factual inaccurate WP:RS is citing a non-notable source. Ok. nobs (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly made the accusation that the LA times article is inaccurate but you have not made any attempt to provide evidence of that conclusion. --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The wording here is also mildly confusing. Article topics are subject to the notability criteria, not their sources per se, although that might just be semantics. Nevertheless, how anybody can say the LA Times does not meet WP:RS is beyond me. Wisdom89 (T / ) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, he's saying that the LA Times article is inaccurate and that RationalWiki is non-notable. Which (1) kinda ignores WP:NNC, (2) kinda ignores the outcome of the RW AfD, (3) completely ignores discussion attempts regarding the factual accuracy of the LA Times (on RW and in my "Moving back to content concerns" section above).
- Briefly summing up my longer argument from above: The LA Times article says "Lipson and several other editors started their own website". Lipson and RW's History page say that he is not the founder. From what I see, the claim of inaccuracy rests solely on Nobs' insistence that the LA Times line says that Lipson was the founder of RW. Which... it doesn't. It's possible to jump to such a conclusion (see the Register article that made the Lipson-as-founder claim while paraphrasing the LA Times article) because Lipson is the only named early-generation member, but that's not what the article actually says. The LA Times could be phrased better, but it boils down to "Lipson was one of the first members", which isn't contradicted by Lipson or RW History. Heck, I'm one of the first members, too, but nobody is claiming that I'm the founder of RW. The Misplaced Pages article right now reads "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website", which is accurate and sourced in my eyes. I don't see the problem. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, Sid. Would it be safe to say Lipson was a co-founder, or among the founding members?
- Let's reiterate what the LA Times says, Lipson and others founded RationalWiki and by thier own admission engage in cybervandalism. Is this not what Stephanie Simon reported? !nobs (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can we avoid the foreplay and you just say what exactly you want changed in the article, and how? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- RationalWiki appears to have piggybacked on this Conservapedia entry to promote itself, particularly since RationalWiki editors have included it. The L.A. Times article points out RationalWiki founders have admitted to engaging in cybervandalism. This Misplaced Pages article has been controlled by the RationalWiki founders. nobs (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can be any clearer, what we need from you is a specific statement about what you want changed in the article. Ideally put it in quotes, or hell make the change you want and we can do a edit/revert/discuss cycle. Just tell us, in some way, what it is you want done to the article. You keep saying "things" and spinning conspiracy theories without actually telling us what it is you want done to the article. Continued refusal to engage in a constructive discussion about article content will be met (at least by me, and I hope others) with simply ignoring you. For you edification. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to hang a {POV} tag without it being reverted (my only contribution to mainspace to date) by a RationalWiki founder and discussion spilling over to three pages including a week long RfD on RationalWiki which ends up with a reversion to the status quo. This should be unproblematic for an organization under attack. nobs (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't work that way, you don't get to hang a tag on an article without stating specifically what changes you think need to be made. You cant just perma-flag an article. Again, what we are lacking here is specifically what it is you want to see changed, how you want to see it changed, and even a "why" would be nice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- tmt, this is constructive. Let me hang {article issues} tag. Let's keep this on the sober & civil plane of discussion you and I have always had in the past. Many CP editors, who are also WP editors, consider this a hit piece written by RW editors. I will not edit war in mainspace, nor do I care go review editors past actions or get into inextensive interpretation of policy discussion. Both of us have time restrictions, but I think we can work together constructively to improve this article and facilitiate a pleasant editing environment.
- Bottomline, a dispute exists. I am a minority of one, it's easy to muster a mobocracy to shout me down. Let's set an example as to how a longrunning dispute between wiki editors can be used to improve the Misplaced Pages project and promote respect and civility among editors. Thank you my friend. nobs (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Until you can state exactly what the dispute is, no dispute exists. What do you want to see changed (other than adding half a dozen tags tp the article)? So you think this is a hit piece? How? I'll tell you what, do a google search for Conservapedia, and if you can find one site in the first 50 results covering CP more fairly than this one I'd be very surprised. Now state some proposed changes or quit trolling. -R. fiend (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This will be my last post to you Rob until I see you provide specific changes. Good luck. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok tmt. This article has 88 refs; each one will be reviewed. I picked the most obvious POV distortion and misrepresentation of underlying sources here Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_15#Factual_inaccuracies, cited to two sources. May as well catalogue who inserted POV distortions as such and we will proceed from there. nobs (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This will be my last post to you Rob until I see you provide specific changes. Good luck. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Until you can state exactly what the dispute is, no dispute exists. What do you want to see changed (other than adding half a dozen tags tp the article)? So you think this is a hit piece? How? I'll tell you what, do a google search for Conservapedia, and if you can find one site in the first 50 results covering CP more fairly than this one I'd be very surprised. Now state some proposed changes or quit trolling. -R. fiend (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't work that way, you don't get to hang a tag on an article without stating specifically what changes you think need to be made. You cant just perma-flag an article. Again, what we are lacking here is specifically what it is you want to see changed, how you want to see it changed, and even a "why" would be nice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to hang a {POV} tag without it being reverted (my only contribution to mainspace to date) by a RationalWiki founder and discussion spilling over to three pages including a week long RfD on RationalWiki which ends up with a reversion to the status quo. This should be unproblematic for an organization under attack. nobs (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can be any clearer, what we need from you is a specific statement about what you want changed in the article. Ideally put it in quotes, or hell make the change you want and we can do a edit/revert/discuss cycle. Just tell us, in some way, what it is you want done to the article. You keep saying "things" and spinning conspiracy theories without actually telling us what it is you want done to the article. Continued refusal to engage in a constructive discussion about article content will be met (at least by me, and I hope others) with simply ignoring you. For you edification. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- RationalWiki appears to have piggybacked on this Conservapedia entry to promote itself, particularly since RationalWiki editors have included it. The L.A. Times article points out RationalWiki founders have admitted to engaging in cybervandalism. This Misplaced Pages article has been controlled by the RationalWiki founders. nobs (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can we avoid the foreplay and you just say what exactly you want changed in the article, and how? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- What? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, so a factual inaccurate WP:RS is citing a non-notable source. Ok. nobs (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nobs seems to harbor some delusion that if something is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages at all. So basically, every proper noun should be linked, and if the link is red, the item should be removed. This is, of course, ridiculous, and deserves no further consideration. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest, per nobs's argument, that we remove all mention of Andrew Schlafly from this article, as he has no article of his own - merely a redirect. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly seems like what we have now is fair and accurate, and meets requirements of general WP policy as well as general consensus of active editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you guys are being trolled here. I've read this same discussion in 3-4 other places. I personally wouldn't be able to AGF anymore if Nobs doesn't contribute something germane to the discussion soon. Pirate 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no policy WP:Assume Mental Stability, is there? I think we can safely write off nobs as batshit insane and behave appropriately. -R. fiend (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, but there is WP:NPA. Nobs is fairly obviously trolling (his desire to remove all mention of RW is obvious) but that's no cause for insults. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, like I said above, until he comes back with a specific request for changes to the article we are probably best to ignore him. That's my plan, until he makes a change, or tells us a specific change I am done. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, but there is WP:NPA. Nobs is fairly obviously trolling (his desire to remove all mention of RW is obvious) but that's no cause for insults. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no policy WP:Assume Mental Stability, is there? I think we can safely write off nobs as batshit insane and behave appropriately. -R. fiend (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you guys are being trolled here. I've read this same discussion in 3-4 other places. I personally wouldn't be able to AGF anymore if Nobs doesn't contribute something germane to the discussion soon. Pirate 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nobs seems to harbor some delusion that if something is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages at all. So basically, every proper noun should be linked, and if the link is red, the item should be removed. This is, of course, ridiculous, and deserves no further consideration. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Removal + Threat
First of all don't threaten blocks with content disputes its bad form across the board. Second, its in the damn article read it. I don't really care, since it is actually beneficial to me to have it removed since it is a mischaracterization of the situation. But I have always been one to "do in Rome" on WP. Your policy is pretty clear that if a reliable source (I.E. the LA Times) says that someone said something, than they probably said it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Tangential, barely related material
- Once again tmt, I propose private mediation. I can not discuss content issues here (or on talk/RationalWiki, or at RationalWiki.com) without interference and personal attacks from other editors. You can email me privately. nobs (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. You have your assignment, read the section above. Until then, I am not really interested in what you have to say. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I made exactly one edit to this entry's mainspace -- hang a {POV} tag to subsection entitled ==Peter Lipson==. It was reverted by a RationalWiki editor and this disputed subject spilled over to two more pages. Net result: Peter Lipson replaced with RatioalWiki and both Lipson & RationalWiki deemed non-notable critics. So why then, does RationalWiki have its own subhead?
- RationalWiki's only claim to notability is cyber-vandalism, per the LA Times -- something tmt and I both agree on. Seems we have a basis to start a discussion on the problems of this entry, if tmt who wrote most of it would be willing. nobs (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. You have your assignment, read the section above. Until then, I am not really interested in what you have to say. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Once again you make the same recommendation with out doing the steps needed to lay the ground work. My wikiknowledge is a little weak, but does anyone else think that this threat should be reported as an abuse of admin powers? It seems like an Admin should know better. --EmersonWhite (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- EmersonWhite, please make clear whom you are speaking to. nobs is not an Admin with powers to block, and tmt was refering to a WP Admin. nobs (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was unclear. There are two issues I attempted to address. Issue number A) Nobs recommending mediation with out actually laying the groundwork to make it work or show it to be worthwhile (in effect using the process in a manner akin to a punishment). Issue number B) User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise Using threats to back up his reversions and never bothering to use the talk page. --EmersonWhite (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aye the threat was from another Admin that hasn't really been too involved that I see. It is not a big deal, just one of my pet peeves is a wiki admin who is clearly involved in a content dispute starts making threats. But that is neither here nor there as per Rob. Rob I will repeat again, you can not merely hang a tag on an article, you have to give specifics. You keep talking like there is some dispute but refuse to tell us what that dispute is.
- There are clear a few basic steps that must be met in dispute resolution. The most basic is a clear description of what changes you want to be made. I can not even "dispute" with you because you refuse to tell me what changes you want to see. If you tell me what changes you would like to see, we can see if we can compromise. If not, we can look towards formal mediation. If formal mediation fails, then we can start talking about arb com or other escalation.
- Private mediation of disputes, while certainly not against WP policy, is not a formal part of it either. And I would like our discussion to be open. I am not required to do this in private, and a request that you lay out what changes you want to see for everyone is a reasonable request. I see based on a talk page edit at RW you are drafting an Arb Com case. I am almost certain it will be refused to be heard on the grounds that it is a content dispute, and that you have made no strides towards standard dispute resolution.
- My "assume good faith" is starting to drift Rob, starting to feel as if I am being trolled. Others have said the same thing. You need to come to this talk page with specifics. You mentioned you want to review all 88 references in the article, go for it, come back with your specific issues. But trying to strong arm me into some sort of private mediation, or threaten arb com cases just isn't going to fly.
- However, I will reward you for offering the glimmer of a specific issue in your reply, which is a question of RW notability in the CP article. The RationalWiki article passed a RFD with a decision to "keep." The consensus of the active editors on the page was to merge the material into this article and redirect. Notability has been established by community consensus, based on reliable sources. If you feel the decision to merge the RW material to this article was not appropriate please explain. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tmt's had control of this article for three years; nobs hung a dispute tag a week ago over whether or not Peter Lipson was notable enough to warrant his own subhead. The dispute spilled over to three pages, nobs was shouted down by RationalWiki editors and impugned with all sorts of trash, the tag was immediately reverted. And in the end a community consensus deemed nobs question was correct -- Peter Lipson was not notable enough to warrant his own subhead.
- This sort of intimidation of an editor who cannot edit mainspace, nor openly discuss problems with the article without being vicuiously attacked doesn't spell good for public discussion.
- You yourself said on a subpage about Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, "There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it." Yet you've had an immense influence on shaping both the articles. Can all this be discussed here? nobs (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no requirement that an individual editor have a neutral point of view on an article that they work on. Only that what is written meets NPOV and RS standards. All of my edits to articles on WP have been on material that I have a strong view point on. If editors with strong feelings about a topic were band from editing on those topics no one would write anything. I know nothing about fly fishing in southern Ireland so could probably be pretty neutral, but I am not going to spend my time writing articles about it.
- What you would have to show is that my edits to the article violated NPOV or RS standards. In order to do that you would have to bring up specific examples of material in the article that you think violate those standards. Others can then review your specific claims and see if they have merit, and if so make changes. So far you have said you brought up an issue, that issue was resolved in a way that you feel was supportive of your original assertion. Well then great, progress was made. Now whats your next assertion? Do you see the pattern here? Do you see what I keep asking for, over, and over, and over, and what you fail to provide? Specific issues with article content. I can't believe I got suckered back into this with you. This whole discussion is massively diluting an otherwise legitimate and specific content dispute. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- " And in the end a community consensus deemed nobs question was correct -- Peter Lipson was not notable enough to warrant his own subhead." Wrong, there was no such decision. RationalWiki was deemed not notable enough to have a separate article, but the notability criteria for articles is not the same as the notability criteria for article content. -- Nx / talk 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- tmt, you hung a homemade template on this article which read, "to address complaints about Conservapedia, please visit Conservapedia.com" with a link to the external site. You edit warred to keep that template in this article. As one of several founding editors of RationalWiki, who per the L.A. Times, "by thier own admission engage in cyber-vandalism," can you cite a WP policy to support encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website? nobs (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Next time, please provide a diff with your accusations instead of forcing other editors to search through the history.
- The template was put on the talk page, not the article, here it is: . It was later replaced with a standard template that says essentially the same thing , not removed because it is inappropriate.
- Also, "complaints and questions" are not vandalism. -- Nx / talk 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It does not. The selfmade template has a direct link to Conservapedia "to address complaints," and was placed on this talk page. This was at the sametime RationalWiki editors were inserting anti-Semitic vandalism and parodic content into Conservapedia -- and that subject was being discussed on this talk page by several editors -- including RationalWiki parodists. nobs (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You know what Rob, do it, there comes a time and a place where you gotta "put up" or stop talking about it. Your refusal to address content issues, and continued insistence that this needs to turn into a personal condemnation about individual users means that you don't really want to get any thing improved on this page, but rather malign editors. Start your Arb Com case, or go away. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It does not. The selfmade template has a direct link to Conservapedia "to address complaints," and was placed on this talk page. This was at the sametime RationalWiki editors were inserting anti-Semitic vandalism and parodic content into Conservapedia -- and that subject was being discussed on this talk page by several editors -- including RationalWiki parodists. nobs (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nx, this is a little like trying to figure exchange rates in your head or translate a language you don't know so well, so I forgive you for getting it wrong (you know better!). "Complaints and criticism" seem like normal activities to most of us, but going to Conservapedia to raise "complaints and questions" is at the very heart of what the other sysops there consider "vandalism." That's what Nobs is saying, and I believe he's absolutely correct to point this out. One should not go to Conservapedia to address content concerns on that website. It's just not done. Nuttish (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- That Conservapedia considers uncomfortable questions and truths vandalism is irrelevant when it comes to judging the actions of an editor at WP. -- Nx / talk 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was only trying to give color to Nobs' statement "can you cite a WP policy to support encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website?" Nuttish (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- That Conservapedia considers uncomfortable questions and truths vandalism is irrelevant when it comes to judging the actions of an editor at WP. -- Nx / talk 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Clarification
This is a BLP issue. A statement that somebody "admitted" to cybervandalism needs very good sources. A third-party report, even from an otherwise decent source such as the LA Times, which just makes such a claim in passing, without specifying exactly who, where, when and how made that "admission", doesn't qualify. If they made such an admission, it should be easy enough to find out where it was done, and provide a reference to it directly. Absent this clarification, the claim goes out.
I am enforcing this under WP:BLP, which means I am not bound by 3RR in removing this material, and will feel entitled to use the block or protection buttons if the need arises. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Re "If they made such an admission, it should be easy enough to find out where it was done, and provide a reference to it directly", you seem to be advocating OR, & suggesting that a reference to a secondary source is replaced with a primary one. If such an admission were made, it is probably at RationalWiki, which is not a RS to cite. The LA Times is. ωεαşεζǫįδ 11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the admission was made to the LA Times - was Lipson interviewed for that article when he said that? -- Nx / talk 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the passage in question, the LA Times article shifts from talking about Lipson specifically to talking about RW editors generally, so I don't think it's necessarily saying that Lipson was among those committing acts of cyber-vandalism or admitting to them, though admittedly the wording is ambiguous. The way it was quoted in this article explicitly suggested that Lipson was among the perpetrators, so that should probably be reworded slightly, but I see no grounds for altogether removing this aspect of what the journalist reported. ωεαşεζǫįδ 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Lipson was interviewed for the LA Times article and said that they commit vandalism - although the wording is indeed unclear, and I doubt we're going to find another source for that statement. -- Nx / talk 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- "And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Be careful, Nx. What conduct was Simon referring to as "cyber-vandalism"? I agree with Future Perfect, but would go one further. Certain Conservapedia admin enjoy referring to RationalWiki as the "vandal site" to this day for their own transparently self-serving ideological purposes. But what is "cyber-vandalism"? The term has a huge range of possible meanings, one of which is unlawfully defamatory if not true, the other of which is laughably trivial. On the one hand, no RS states that Lipson and the unnamed editors referenced in the article were involved in anything unlawful, which goes to the legal meaning of "vandalism." On the other hand, anything that embarrasses Conservapedia, its admin, or casts any favored "conservative" (George Orwell is now a closet Conservative according to Andrew Schlafly) in a bad light is removed as vandalism and the editor is blocked for years or more so Conservapedia admins can continue bumping around in a dark echo chamber. I imagine a colloquial definition of "cyber-vandalism" would reflect that whatever activity is being referred to is far less serious than unlawful vandalism in the strict legal sense. I sure wish we knew what Simon was talking about, but since "cyber-vandalism" are Simon's words, not Lipson's, and we don't know what specific conduct she was referring to, the quote requires an explanation in order to be intelligible. If "cyber-vandalism" goes back into the Lipson section, the article needs to make clear that "cyber-vandalism" has multiple meanings, what those meanings are, that no RS specifically identifies the nature of any "cyber-vandalism" engaged in by Lipson and the unidentified others, and that it's unclear what Lipson and the unidentified editors were "admitting" to in the Simon article. Nuttish (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not hard to figure out what Simon was talking about if you read the paragraph that follows the "cyber-vandalism" comment. ωεαşεζǫįδ 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It has a solid RS, any worry beyond that can be fixed with a little original research, any in fact. Cyber vandalism is a bit of a broad term so that's not good, but really that should be in there, it meets BLP and if anything my COI leads me to want to take it out. --EmersonWhite (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a wiki, so what do you think the term "vandalism" means in light of that? (Rhetorical question.) Seregain (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the RS crowd, though I can easily see Future Perfect's point in that this is a pretty strong statement about RationalWiki editors in general, especially since the active member list since 2007 has changed considerably. It's true that there are RW editors who have admitted to having "vandalized" CP as per the definition given by the LA Times, but this is not a RationalWiki goal or endorsed by the site's principles. In fact, such admissions are generally frowned upon, and general consensus is that it's much funnier to watch Schlafly's "insights" without vandal distractions.
- Further, only RationalWiki is/was cited as having committed "vandalism", which (in my humble opinion) puts unfair weight (is that the proper term in this situation?) on the site. Especially when sourced incidents like Colbert openly calling for his viewers to insert him into the Conservative Bible Project is described without calling it vandalism. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not endorsed? Please explain points 8 and 9 here. While they fall just short of a blatant "Go vandalize Conservapedia" endorsement, it's patently obvious that "such admissions are generally frowned upon" because they don't want vandalism quickly found and reverted. Seregain (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seregain, please don't tear my posts apart. Also, please explain how those points endorse vandalism. This is bordering on you just making stuff up. It's true that we don't endorse pointing out every bit of vandalism or parody on CP. We were all BANNED there (often enough just for being a member of RW). We are NOT members of CP anymore. It's not our JOB to do so anymore. Conservapedia painted itself into a corner by banning truckloads of editors (often along with /16 IP ranges) just for not fully agreeing with whatever Andy postulates as truth. We watch and laugh at Conservapedia, and sometimes we point out silly errors, but considering that the very word "RationalWiki" is forbidden on CP, we don't see it as our duty to help them out much more than we do already. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if you wish to know my reasons for saying something, you could just ask. Blindly guessing and then claiming that it's "patently obvious" is bordering on bad faith. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry about moving my post and breaking up your's. For some reason, I had it in my mind that it was two paragraphs from two different users.
- Now, I don't see how you can differentiate between a blatant endorsement of vandalism and statements that amount to "Don't point it out because we think it's funny and don't want it found." It's indirect endorsement and you know it. If Conservapedia were saying such things about people making conservatively-biased edits on Misplaced Pages, you'd agree that they were endorsing such edits.
- As to Rationalwiki editors being allegedly banned from Conservapedia, I can only mention one word: Tor. Indeed, pages on Rationalwiki such as this, this and this are not ringing endorsements of the idea that Rationalwiki does not endorse vandalism. Seregain (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Check out the namespaces those articles are from, there is a reason they are in Fun or Essay. RW actually doesn't support "vandalism" in anyway, at best you could make a case that we passively encourage, or reward parody and that's a different animal than vandalism. I am not going to get into the history of those articles, where they came from, and why they are still up. A lot of that information is on talk pages, and the reason most of that stuff is still at RW is for historical purposes. Anything in the "fun" namespace is joke article anyway, and "essay" is clearly not endorsed by RW. We have several essays hosted on the site that are the source of large amounts of debate from every single RW member except the author of the essay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't support it, but you do. Add "parody" to Misplaced Pages and it would be rightfully and correctly called vandalism. Pig in a dress. To anyone with a brain, all the "fun," "essay" and "disclaimer" stuff is clearly "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" base-covering. Vandalism is clearly supported -- "passive" support is still support -- in the "WIGO" instructions I linked to above. Seregain (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever, you have clearly made up your mind, and I don't really care. Whats your point though? Your fervent cries of our vandal nature matter as much as my attempts to explain context and history, which is to say nothing as far as the article content goes. My perspective as a founder is not a RS, your talk page rants are not a RS. And a blocked crazed admin has clearly stated that the LA Times is not a RS for the vandalism claim. Therefore, we are left with no sources, and no way to get information into the article. Further discussion would be offtopic on this page by several orders of magnitude. 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs)
- Wow. That was... completely unhelpful. Admins, crazed or not, can be wrong. The LA Times citation was clearly reliable by several orders of magnitude. If it's not reliable, then there's a whole crapload of other material on Misplaced Pages that needs to be removed immediately for relying on the same or similar sources. Seregain (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Helpful about what? All you have done is open up an off topic discussion about RationalWiki. What I said is true, your opinion and my opinion don't matter. All that matters is what a RS says. There is an RS for mentioning the vandalism issue, but an admin is reverting every user in sight and threatening to block them. Go ahead and revert them, 3 other editors have. I don't care enough to engage an admin in a content dispute whose threatening to use (misuse in my opinion) their admin tools to resolve the dispute. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. That was... completely unhelpful. Admins, crazed or not, can be wrong. The LA Times citation was clearly reliable by several orders of magnitude. If it's not reliable, then there's a whole crapload of other material on Misplaced Pages that needs to be removed immediately for relying on the same or similar sources. Seregain (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever, you have clearly made up your mind, and I don't really care. Whats your point though? Your fervent cries of our vandal nature matter as much as my attempts to explain context and history, which is to say nothing as far as the article content goes. My perspective as a founder is not a RS, your talk page rants are not a RS. And a blocked crazed admin has clearly stated that the LA Times is not a RS for the vandalism claim. Therefore, we are left with no sources, and no way to get information into the article. Further discussion would be offtopic on this page by several orders of magnitude. 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs)
- You don't support it, but you do. Add "parody" to Misplaced Pages and it would be rightfully and correctly called vandalism. Pig in a dress. To anyone with a brain, all the "fun," "essay" and "disclaimer" stuff is clearly "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" base-covering. Vandalism is clearly supported -- "passive" support is still support -- in the "WIGO" instructions I linked to above. Seregain (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Check out the namespaces those articles are from, there is a reason they are in Fun or Essay. RW actually doesn't support "vandalism" in anyway, at best you could make a case that we passively encourage, or reward parody and that's a different animal than vandalism. I am not going to get into the history of those articles, where they came from, and why they are still up. A lot of that information is on talk pages, and the reason most of that stuff is still at RW is for historical purposes. Anything in the "fun" namespace is joke article anyway, and "essay" is clearly not endorsed by RW. We have several essays hosted on the site that are the source of large amounts of debate from every single RW member except the author of the essay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not endorsed? Please explain points 8 and 9 here. While they fall just short of a blatant "Go vandalize Conservapedia" endorsement, it's patently obvious that "such admissions are generally frowned upon" because they don't want vandalism quickly found and reverted. Seregain (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not hard to figure out what Simon was talking about if you read the paragraph that follows the "cyber-vandalism" comment. ωεαşεζǫįδ 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- "And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Be careful, Nx. What conduct was Simon referring to as "cyber-vandalism"? I agree with Future Perfect, but would go one further. Certain Conservapedia admin enjoy referring to RationalWiki as the "vandal site" to this day for their own transparently self-serving ideological purposes. But what is "cyber-vandalism"? The term has a huge range of possible meanings, one of which is unlawfully defamatory if not true, the other of which is laughably trivial. On the one hand, no RS states that Lipson and the unnamed editors referenced in the article were involved in anything unlawful, which goes to the legal meaning of "vandalism." On the other hand, anything that embarrasses Conservapedia, its admin, or casts any favored "conservative" (George Orwell is now a closet Conservative according to Andrew Schlafly) in a bad light is removed as vandalism and the editor is blocked for years or more so Conservapedia admins can continue bumping around in a dark echo chamber. I imagine a colloquial definition of "cyber-vandalism" would reflect that whatever activity is being referred to is far less serious than unlawful vandalism in the strict legal sense. I sure wish we knew what Simon was talking about, but since "cyber-vandalism" are Simon's words, not Lipson's, and we don't know what specific conduct she was referring to, the quote requires an explanation in order to be intelligible. If "cyber-vandalism" goes back into the Lipson section, the article needs to make clear that "cyber-vandalism" has multiple meanings, what those meanings are, that no RS specifically identifies the nature of any "cyber-vandalism" engaged in by Lipson and the unidentified others, and that it's unclear what Lipson and the unidentified editors were "admitting" to in the Simon article. Nuttish (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Lipson was interviewed for the LA Times article and said that they commit vandalism - although the wording is indeed unclear, and I doubt we're going to find another source for that statement. -- Nx / talk 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the passage in question, the LA Times article shifts from talking about Lipson specifically to talking about RW editors generally, so I don't think it's necessarily saying that Lipson was among those committing acts of cyber-vandalism or admitting to them, though admittedly the wording is ambiguous. The way it was quoted in this article explicitly suggested that Lipson was among the perpetrators, so that should probably be reworded slightly, but I see no grounds for altogether removing this aspect of what the journalist reported. ωεαşεζǫįδ 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the admission was made to the LA Times - was Lipson interviewed for that article when he said that? -- Nx / talk 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess it is worth setting the context a bit, and what was actually done. Just to provide some level of understanding as editors work this out. Around June 12th, 2007 Stephanie Simon made a post on Schlafly's talk page at CP with contact information. Various editors at RW wrote her e-mails. She talked to a few of them, including Lipson. I do not believe that it was Lipson who actually "admitted to cyber-vandalism" but rather another RW user who had e-mailed Simon. It has to be understood in context as well. CP had come to term any editing of the site that was not in line with their POV as vandalism. For example, adding science into article about evolution or intelligent design could easily get you blocked for vandalism. RW users joked a lot at the time, and still do, about how we were a scourge of cyber-vandals adding facts to article at CP.
None of the major founders of RW, or the major active users of RW at the time that Simon's piece was written were actively vandalizing the site. The closest thing we had was a young man with the internet moniker "Icewedge" who started out as a typical vandal on CP but eventually became a constructive member, and administrator of our site, even speaking out against CP vandalism. However, certain kinds of actions that CP views as vandalism were encouraged at RW. Such as arguing valid points on talk pages, attempting to create new factual articles from a main stream science perspective, to try and get the horridly written tome of evolution unprotected, etc.
Do some RW editors vandalize CP? Sure, so do some WP editors. Did someone from RW tell Simon that they engage in "cyber vandalism"? Certainly, I am pretty sure I know who and why it was said. But the term vandalism as used and bandied about between RW and CP isn't necessarily the same as it would be on WP. This of course is one of the problems with WP, that the "truth" of a situation can not be reported unless it is in a RS.
Summarize: It is an inaccurate description, and I am happy to see it removed, but it is in the LA Time piece. However, if it does stay it needs to clearly disassociate whether Lipson said it or not. He didn't, that was another RW user. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Simon uses the word, they, preumably all RW editors she interviewed for the her article. They also is plural. And yes, it is helpful in setting the context a bit. Some of the cybervandalism Simon wrote of occurred here, in Misplaced Pages, on this talk page. Between March 21 and April 29, 2007, a discussion subheaded ==Anti-Semitism== occurred on this talk page. User:Tmtlouslouse placed a selfmade template stating "For complaints or questions about Conservapedia, please go Conservapedia's external website: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page. " by June 12, 2007, the level of cyber-vandalism attracted by this misuse of a Misplaced Pages project page attracted a mainstream journalist's attention.
- Much of anti-Semitic cybervandalism inserted by the founders of RationalWiki was reverted by me. RationalWiki's own timeline of Conservapedia's history corrobarates when Conservapedia began the checkuser function. nobs (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- From the Archived link, user:GeoPlourde, a WP editor & CP sysop responds twice,
- Conservapedia does not have a anti-semitic bias. You are probably seeing vandalism. Geo. Talk to me 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- From the Archived link, user:GeoPlourde, a WP editor & CP sysop responds twice,
- We have been having a rash of anti-semitic vandalism on Conservapedia. This looks like something we did not get to. Geo. Talk to me 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "anti-semitic vandalism," several weeks before the Simon article appeared, and RationalWiki founders admitted in a WP:RS to engaging in cyber-vandalism to discredit Conservapedia. nobs (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you Rob, to please stop with unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, and other RW editors. This page is to discuss the content of the article about conservapedia. If you do not have anything to say about that you need to move on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I, as you are, am speaking from personal knowledge of the background on the Stephanie Simon LA Times article. You may not even know that Ms. Simon asked Andrew Schlafly and the Conservapedia sysops she interviewed for their assent to selecting an equal number of RationalWiki editors to interview. We could have nixed that idea and she would have gone ahead with the article about Conservapedia only. But we felt some sunlight shed on RationalWiki and it's activities would only be beneficial. And Simon's article on balance is extraordinarily fair. nobs (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with anything that should be on a talk page about a[REDACTED] article on Conservapedia? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is a comment like this doing on the talk/Conservapedia page? particularly when there's ample evidence RationalWiki editors inserted exactly that sort of material? nobs (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nobs, this is a Talk page for the article Conservapedia on the website Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a site dedicated to creating a free, bottom up, encyclopedia. The talk pages on this website are designed to help build this encyclopedia. This particular talk page should be used to discuss the article on conservapedia. If you have questions or issues with the content on the article page this is place to bring it up. Otherwise, there are better websites to bring up other issues. Below is a section created just for you to give you a chance to explain what your content issues might be. I would like to encourage you to use it. Have a nice day. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is a comment like this doing on the talk/Conservapedia page? particularly when there's ample evidence RationalWiki editors inserted exactly that sort of material? nobs (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with anything that should be on a talk page about a[REDACTED] article on Conservapedia? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I, as you are, am speaking from personal knowledge of the background on the Stephanie Simon LA Times article. You may not even know that Ms. Simon asked Andrew Schlafly and the Conservapedia sysops she interviewed for their assent to selecting an equal number of RationalWiki editors to interview. We could have nixed that idea and she would have gone ahead with the article about Conservapedia only. But we felt some sunlight shed on RationalWiki and it's activities would only be beneficial. And Simon's article on balance is extraordinarily fair. nobs (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you Rob, to please stop with unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, and other RW editors. This page is to discuss the content of the article about conservapedia. If you do not have anything to say about that you need to move on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:06, 7 April 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)
Nobs concerns
Prover you are not trolling Nobs. This section is for you. Start by giving just one specific content issue you have with this article. Please no one else fill this section with anything until Nobs decides to actually participate productively rather than attack his fellow editors. Here you Nobs, I am waiting. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please cease the personal attacks and agree to some form of Mediation. Thank you. nobs (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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