Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 17

Concern: privacy

Resolved

 – No privacy concern has been raised by overight/checkuser/arbitrator and the person in question (PalMD) has stated that he is happy for the material to remain in the article. Papa November (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no privacy concern. Hipocrite (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stunteddwarf/SakuraNoSeirei states, "Nobs seems intent on inserting into the section that Rationalwiki was formed before Lipson et al were banned at Conservapedia, but cites no sources"; Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues states, A small number of disputes involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. Examples: Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link; "Outing" concerns - When discussion may in effect mean "outing", for example if there is a concern that a user is editing with a secret conflict of interest and the evidence would tend to identify them; Serious matters - The issue involves legal concerns, harassment, or allegations that are very serious or perhaps defamatory; Advice on divisive and sensitive issues - The issue may potentially be very divisive and advice is needed on how best to handle it. (sock-puppetry by an administrator is one example) Given the serious nature of several issues raised in this and these talk page archives, I'd advise we proceed with caution and allow established Wikipedia proceedures to function. My thanks to all for thier patience. nobs (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "Stunteddwarf/SakuraNoSeirei states, "Nobs seems intent on inserting into the section that Rationalwiki was formed before Lipson et al were banned at Conservapedia, but cites no sources". No, I said: "Nobs seems intent on inserting into the section that Rationalwiki was formed before Lipson et al were banned at Conservapedia, but cites no sources beyond OR." I have no objections to being quoted, as long as such quotes are accurate. Please ensure that this is the case in future. You have quoted: "A small number of disputes involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. I must have missed that. For the sake of completeness can you link to where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated that there is a privacy issue as regards Peter Lipson's name being involved in the Conservapedia article as a whole, and in the Rationalwiki section in particular. The second section, disputes of a sensitive or private nature, does not seem to apply in this case. As has already been stated, repeatedly, Peter Lipson has not asked for his name to be removed from the article. The inclusion of his name isn't a sensitive matter. Therefore can you detail exactly how your above quote applies to the insertion of Peter Lipson's name into the article. This will be of immeasurable help in my measuring of this matter and any other additons/changes I make to my comments above.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I believe Sakura is correct, I've not seen an arbitrator, checkuser, or oversighter declare that there is a privacy concern. The only two names mentioned in the RW section are Lipson and Schlafly, and it doesn't really seem like a concern to me. But if you feel it is, then contact an arbitrator, checkuser, or oversighter to look into the situation. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) In process. [1] Please note, the addition of another founding Rationalwikian who joined this discussion two hours after the request was made slowed the process. Thank you. nobs (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Nobs, you really need to be direct and forthcoming with several things, one: what is it specifically, very specifically, that you have a problem with in the current article, ie what exact parts of the article do you feel violate policies that you have repeatedly linked to here on the talk page; two: in what very specific ways would you like to modify the article, and three: what very specific "privacy" concerns do you have. Note that you can be specific about that without at all violating anyone's privacy. If you expect anyone to work with you on anything then no more beating around the bush with vague claims, no more extending the dialogue into other areas by making more and more ambiguous complaints that policy isn't being followed, or more recently, that there are suddenly privacy concerns. Beach drifter (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC) There is no current legitimate privacy concern being expressed. Nobs, this is your final warning - you are engaging in wikilawyering and processwonkery. If this continues, I am certain that you will be restricted from further editing this article and talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The underlying WP:RS essentially states certain named editors, who are also Wikipedia users, engaged in "malicious editing." I will introduce NPOV language, which this subsection does not carry, using the exact language from the WP:RS once I've been advised how to proceed. The privacy concerns are being reviewed, and RW founders may be contacted privately on this matter. nobs (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) It doesn't state that at all, not even close to that, it doesn't connect anyone by name to any malicious editing. Stop lying. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Any imagined "sensitive" issues are just that--imagined. People who edit public wikis and make public statements to the press have essentially no legitimate rights to complain about being quoted on their public statements. I don't know what Nobs is trying to do, but it seems rather senseless.PalMD (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I have determined there is no privacy concern in using the LA Times for anything. Hipocrite (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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

LA Times not a reliable source?

Per user:Hipocrite, The LA Times is not a reliable source? [2] nobs (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Brian Macdonald, Administrator?

Resolved

 – Agreement between Nobs01 and Sid 3050 to change "administrator" to "editor"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winding down RW chatter

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

Survey

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

Response - User:B Fizz

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

Response - User:Tmtoulouse

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

Response - SakuraNoSeirei

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

Response - TheClerksWell

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My tuppence ha'penny:

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

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

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)

* Verifiability (V)

* No original research (NOR)

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

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

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

I really like SakuraNoSeirei's summary. We can't address Nobs' concerns unless he has a proposal for an improvement to the article. Vague complaints will only cause drama. Nobs' last preferred version did not improve the article. Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

My intent was for more people [read: especially more people *not* associated with either CP or RW] to respond to the survey... ...comments? ~BFizz 01:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Vandals routinely insert pornographic photos"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfair

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

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

The reference for that statement is directly to Conservapedia. That seems shady and, especially for contentious subjects, we should point out criticism meted out by reliable sources, instead of synthesizing our own judgement. No, I'm not arguing with the factual accuracy, but, frustratingly, finding the truth is not the goal, merely summing all of human knowledge. Pirate^Argh!!1!

To Colinpendred, I think a better analogy is seeing a factual error on the Whitehouse's website, and then trying to add it to the Barak Obaba article. That probably isn't going to fly. Pirate^Argh!!1! 19:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Err, some clever responses. We don't get to decide of all the things on Conservapedia which is significant enough to mention in the article. Also, we don't get to decide of all the things a politician has said which is significant enough to mention in their article. I apologize if I made a poor analogy. Yes, Barack Obama. Nice catch, sorry if it wasn't clear who I was talking about. Nobs' seems trollishly obsessed with privacy concerns, we should appreciate his laser focus, but one issue shouldn't preclude the other one from being addressed. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I was just trying to point out that citing Conservapedia itself seems a little shady since there will be a selection bias. I'm sorry I got involved. You guys have fun, let me know when the privacy issues are successfully adjudicated. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Second Paragraph

Conservapedia is one of many conservative and Christian-themed Web sites such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch which have adopted the format of popular sites in order to provide a conservative or fundamentalist Christian alternative.[4][7][8] Critics around the world have accused it of bias and inaccuracies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec)TK, the article already contains links to several such examples: this, this and this are the examples from the second paragraph, and let's have [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113599 this] from a conservative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Criticism" label

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

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

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

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

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

Adopted the format of a (BLANK) site

I'm trying to find a word that describes what is similar between Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube and Myspace that is different than Conservapedia, Tangle.com, QubeTV and MyChurch. Right now the article says "popular," but I don't think that's the word. I think it's more like well-known and mainstream or well-known and general interest or something along those lines, but I recognize that's wordy. Any compromises anyone can come up with? Reference revert - [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race on?

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Conservapedia/RationalWiki Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been spilled over to numerous boards, an AfD, maybe an ANI, and an attempt to interview involved parties. Why are you, PCHS-NJROTC, saying RationalWiki's opinion isn't notable, and then trying to expand the Rationawiki section with info about the site's owner. If you are trying to prove a point, it is not going to help make the article better. The paragraph on rationalwiki is intentionally short to prevent WP:undue. It is covered because it is a non-trivial amount of the coverage of Conservapedia we have from reliable sources. All parties should ensure that they are trying to help create the most accurate article base on the sources we have. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting on an orange box inviting me to discuss comments about me. Huw Powell (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

hidden by mediating admin: user stated that this comment was a joke
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose we delete the whole article. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Actually, I was thinking along the same lines. Although CP is covered in some RS, really it's mostly Conservapedia supporters and haters who are interested in this article; I honestly had never heard of CP until I read a RationalWikian's comment about it. I realise Andy won't want to hear this (sorry), but it seems this is more of a drama magnet than anything else. Perhaps I'm crazy, but... And a new article could be created long after this nonsense drama has been forgotten. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Eh? No. We don't delete article because people don't like them. You wanted neutral, uninvolved parties to stop by. You should make an argument based on policy and what reliable sources say along with whatever changes you want. I'm not taking sides, since most everyone else is an SPA, but no one can support you until you have a more substantial argument. Do you still want the section removed wholesale? Do you understand the argument people are trying to make regarding putting in what reliable sources say? Right now the section seems to have proper weight based on the amount of coverage it received, or am I seeing it wrong? Someone should make a list of all the forums that this has spilled over to and put it at the top so people don't bring up the same points over again. PirateArgh!!1! 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) e/c :::It's not standard practice, I just thought it to be an interesting proposal. I understand all of the different arguements, I just don't understand why there's all of this drama whenever there's any slight change to the article. Policy is gray here, or else there would be no question on how to handle this. I guess this is anything but a typical situation. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Um, no. Deletion? Really? I don't think so. Lots of WP articles have been and are "drama magnets" and the solution was to put temporary protection on them so that only well-established, well-trusted editors could add material to them if necessary until things calmed down. Will things calm down in this case? I don't know. Rationalwiki seems to be pretty obsessed with Conservapedia and members seem to devote an inordinate number of edits to venting about CP or its members. That obsession seems to have drifted here a little. Conversely, I don't really see the same thing happening with Conservapedia editors. CP obviously thinks WP is biased against them and all of this just plays right into that, so I don't really see it as being a target for them anywhere but on their own website. Seregain (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) It was a bad idea of mine based actually on notability, which was tossed out in the critical thinking process until I read Theclerkswell propose the idea. I agree with you absolutlely 100% Seregain. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I was kidding. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contributions 04:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Okay, that kind of humor is a bit over the top, without any indication that you were kidding. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC) It was obvious he was kidding. Beach drifter (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still hoping that the RFC will attract a few more uninvolved editors. Weakopedia (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)