The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. Conservative 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST) I will combine them. Conservative if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable [1]. Shall I remove this claim?
The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST) Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--JeremyK 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is Palin still listed as one and Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago?
The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST) Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President" Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt RomneySo Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?
Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --Sid 3050 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST) Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup" Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement" Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.
Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round. The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order). This site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country: Spain: 15 - 24% Netherlands: 39 - 44% Germany: 41 - 49% Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44% USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --Sid 3050 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Obviously nobody said atheism was the only factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport. Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST) England's past World Cup ratings: 1950: 8th 1954: 6th 1958: 11th 1962: 8th 1966: 1st 1970: 8th 1974: not qualified 1978: not qualified 1982: 6th 1986: 8th 1990: 4th 1994: not qualified 1998: 9th 2002: 6th 2006: 7th 2010: 13th Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010? Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the trend there isn't exactly indicating growing failure. So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking. And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better? Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --Sid 3050 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)I'm surprised that this is still doing its rounds: It's wrong.
I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at this discussion and also at this one. --Sid 3050 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does very well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that "As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil." - James 4:16 --PhilipN 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--CPalmer 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST) Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." DouglasA 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST) (edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the King James Version translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--Andy Schlafly 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST) Douglas, I'm open-minded about this, but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. Gregkochuconn 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. Conservative 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT) ? http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hpDon't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --JustinD 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
I have an open mind about whether Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many conservatives who had rallied behind him?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT) Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. DVMRoberts 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT) Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of Conservapedia proven right?JustinD 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim Conservapedia proven right about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --BradleyS 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --JustinD 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT) I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --BradleyS 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT) You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --JustinD 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT) It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters perceived "Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant. What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT) Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! Insel 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. " So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? AugustO 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
You seem to be focusing on the hearsay in the article, which of course would be inadmissible in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing. Please see hearsay society for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT) I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of deliberate ignorance or closed-mindedness. --AaronT 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT) Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT) To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in Counterexamples to an Old Earth are two seperate issues. --AaronT 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT) Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. But his claim is Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency. That's quite a difference! And calling the claim that mankind is causing this [...] implausible seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! AugustO 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)Mr. Schlafly, I know from the article about you that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the Counterexample to an Old Earth page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --Randall7 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of Christ rising from the dead does prove several theories in Christianity. With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT) Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the Hearsay society, I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --Randall7 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that. Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask Jesus for a reference after telling the parable of the Prodigal Son?--Andy Schlafly 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT) I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --Randall7 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT) No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. Nate 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. Sylvain 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. Nate 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. Sylvain 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT) The Hearsay Society is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies logic and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. Pharisees used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. Nate 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. Sylvain 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? Nate 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT) That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. Sylvain 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. Davidspencer 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --FrederickT3 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Jesus told the parable as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the Prodigal Son then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for hearsay.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT) So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. Davidspencer 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT) But ASchlafly, you yourself said that a parable is "a fictional narrative." Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. Sylvain 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so. David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. JacobJ 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. Sylvain So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as public schools might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? Sylvain 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the Prodigal Son, but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. Sylvain 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? Sylvain 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
The Conservative Bible Project has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the Bible more precisely, free of liberal bias that creeps into other translations.--Andy Schlafly 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT) Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. Sylvain 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT) I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on hearsay concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the Conservative Bible Project was never a "rewritten Bible."--Andy Schlafly 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT) This page is proudly free from citationsTo insist on finding a reference elsewhere for every statement made, as Wikipedia does, is to be a slave to hearsay. The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others.
What is this?
15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT) It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also {{nohearsaysection}} for use on specific sections of pages.--CPalmer 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --FrederickT3 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.brenden 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT) When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the Gospels, which of course contain no references.--Andy Schlafly 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content
I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--Andy Schlafly 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT) So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --JustinD 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT) Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing any statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation. See the comics here and here for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--CPalmer 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT) I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --JustinD 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.
Ambiguousness of predictions - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results. Links to predictions - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism. "Liberal claptrap" responses - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented. The results - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.--DonnyC 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--Andy Schlafly 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --AugustO 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)
May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the Overrated Sports Stars entry.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST) I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors (User:Wonders and User:AugustO) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --AugustO 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST) No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--Andy Schlafly 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST) the article on Lance Armstrong was created in Sep 2007. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in Jan 2012 In Sep 2007 wikipedia's article on Armstrong already had a long section named Allegations of drug useSo even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --AugustO 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --DamianJohn 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal denial about Armstrong continued well past September. Evidence? There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great. Link? There are those thinks called facts... --AugustO 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST) Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST) Just citations which show that Anheuser Bush and Nike are liberal companies... --AugustO 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST) Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST) Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And Anheuser Bush doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery. --AugustO 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST) Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --DamianJohn 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST) It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --CamilleT 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST) Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--Andy Schlafly 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST) I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). GregG 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST) (EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --DamianJohn 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)Rupert Murdock a liberal? AlanE 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. Dvergne 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST) The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal", those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? AlanE 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats. Since 2003, it has donated 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats. In 2012, Nike donated 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats. Since 2004, Nike has given 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, Koch Industries (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. Wonders 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)
The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to liberal Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST) But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to this source. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. GregG 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST) Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate Todd Akin. --DonnyC 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)I read the National Geographic article, and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, GregG 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)
A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST) Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --Praymond 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT) There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. GregG 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. Onestone 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "media bullying" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT) You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the term. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular usage of the term. That is an essential difference. Onestone 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about Roe V Wade being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after Roe V Wade was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. Vyselink 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
Newspaper articles often do have the problem of liberal denial, but are cited here for the facts they contain.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the only citation provided is a link back to the same statement (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. Fnarrow 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
I stand corrected, there is now a source provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. Fnarrow 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT) I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, Wschact 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT) Within days the DNA evidence from the 9/11 triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) Yet liberal denial about the DNA match continues.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
-First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
-Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
-Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
-Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.
I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.
Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. WilliamWB 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT) As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, WilliamWB 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT) I think 2012 is archived here: [1].--Andy Schlafly 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT) Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [2] Thanks, WilliamWB 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. CenterK 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
0 comments:
Post a Comment