Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 10 April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:WP1.0

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

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

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

citation 43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead references

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

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

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

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

LA times quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uninvolved admin stupidly weighs in...

Hello, I have been watching this sorry mess for a while and thought I'd try to help. Basically, the personal opinions and off-wiki activities of editors are completely irrelevant unless they are creating article content which does not agree with reliable sources. Also, cleanup tags are only to be used when a specific issue exists with the article content itself, and you cannot fix it yourself.

My actions as admin will be as follows:

1. Archive posts on this talk page which do not mention specific issues with the article content
2. Remove without archival any comments which make personal attacks against another editor
3. Encourage user:TK-CP and user:Nobs01 to directly edit the article, to fix any inaccuracies they can find, to reword sections in as neutral a way as possible, to add any missing information and so on
   • If other editors object to any of these changes, I will help mediate the discussion
4. Remove cleanup templates unless an attempt has previously been made to "fix" the article directly

To summarise, no one will be banned from editing the article unless they are introducing false or misleading content and you should attempt to fix an article rather than tagging it. Papa November (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you EmersonWhite (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good intervention. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I placed the tag was for the specific issue of the LA Times quote, and the "fix" (determining whether or not the quote merits inclusion) was being actively discussed. Apparently that has been resolved. Thanks for cleaning up here. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove all mention of Peter Lipson

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

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

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

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

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

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

RationalWiki 2.0, an open wiki, was set after CP sysops discovered a group of RationalWiki 1.0 editors were coordinating massive vandal attacks. Peter Lipson was part of this group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there are two issues regarding Simon's reporting on Lipson and RW: (1) that Lipson was a founder as opposed to the founder is more less aqreed to by WP:CON; (2) that Lipson became a founder (or "among the founding editors,") after their accounts were blocked.

Per Misplaced Pages:BFAQ#ATTACK several weeks ago I requested assistance to defend an organization under attack. This discussion now is making progress to address this area. My thanks to everyone thus far for their assistance. nobs (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Nobs, I have to ask where you're going with this.

The Misplaced Pages article currently doesn't state that Lipson is the founder of RW (and neither does the LA Times), and it also doesn't state that Lipson's ban came before RW was founded. The WP article echoes the parts of the RS everybody so far seems to agree on: (1) Dr. Lipson tried to discuss with Andy, was reverted and banned. (2) Lipson and others started RW.

So please remind me again which part of the Misplaced Pages article you want to change and what you want to change it to (and why). --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If the section is causing so much trouble, can we delete the whole section and go on?Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a pretty bad precedent. Be annoying enough on a talk page and get a section you don't like deleted. Leave it and move on would be a better choice. -R. fiend (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here's a problem: the underlying WP:RS uses the language "malicious editing." I watered it done to "vandalism" and was reverted. Elsewhere on these talk pages I've demonstrated how Misplaced Pages was used as a platform by RationalWiki editors to mount cybervandalism attacks against Conservapedia. Again, I propose striping all reference to Lipson out and respecting privacy rights of active Misplaced Pages contributors. Elsewise, further discussion should be done privately. nobs (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Your edit was... bad. It shoehorned pretty much every instance and kind of vandalism mentioned in the LA Times article into the RationalWiki section, it included the OR that Brian Macdonald is an Admin (which becomes more hilarious since you then voiced privacy concerns), it contained several redundant phrases, and it suddenly replaced mention of Lipson with mention of Macdonald (who is as non-notable as Lipson) for no apparent reason. You turned the RW section into a general vandalism section and then slapped the RW label on it. I hope you see how that is problematic. (2) What the *bleep* does your "demonstration" (which, if memory served correctly, was simply about a custom box on this talk page telling people to go to CP instead of this talk page if they want to complain about it) have to do with the content of this Misplaced Pages article? Oh, wait, I know: NOTHING. (3) What does any of that have to do with your attempt to remove all mention of Dr. Lipson? You mention privacy concerns even though we simply cite a LA Times article. Where is the privacy issue? (4) No, Misplaced Pages content discussion should not be done behind closed doors. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Proposal: remove all mention of Peter Lipson 2 (Edit break)

I don't see a "consensus" here, unless you mean 2-4 editors. Should we all go and grab 60 editors each, and then claim our point(s) have a consensus? Nobs3 has been pretty clear just above what he is talking about...what is your objection now, Tmtoulouse? Please spell out your exact objections for the benefit of all. --TK-CP (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs hasn't been clear at all, in fact, that's been the most consistent complaint against him, his refusal to talk specifics. So far he has only made one specific change, which was reverted by three separate editors, and received no support from any other editors. He needs to come forward with specific changes that can then be objected to. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He is now being more direct in what he wants, but he lacks a reliable source to back it up. The burden isn't on Tmtoulouse here. Gomedog (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

A request for page protection has been made in my most recent version (per WP:BOLD & WP:BLP) while a dispute bewteen User:Nobs01 and User:Tmtloulouse is being civilly discussed with the help of several Admins. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty questionable move, the consensus is against you, try and revert to a non-consensus version, and get it protected? Really? Really?? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or has nobs not managed to state what his issue with this article is in any capacity whatsoever? -R. fiend (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He has, but it's been vague with circular language. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, nobs, you do not revert to a preferred version and then request full protection. You are at the heart of this so-called dispute. A neutral party should have requested protection if anything. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have declined page protection. Full protection may be used only as a short-term solution to massive, uncontrollable disputes. Papa November (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. nobs (talk) 17:19, 9 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