Talk:Andrew Schlafly
[edit] Cover story?
- Please do not archive this section
Do you think this article qualifies to be included on the main page? JJ4eGuava marmalade! 10:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
- Perhaps in time, yes, but for now it's not remotely ready for that. Needs lots more research, less snark, more focus. We need to move away from the article's current CP focus - it's not about CP, but CP provides us with evidence for how he is. DogP 17:15, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I wonder if anyone thinks this might be ready for prime-time now? DogP 18:36, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- I do. it's awesome. PFoster 18:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- I think this is now of a sufficient quality to be a cover story article. Thoughts? DogP 13:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- I want this on the frontpage under one condition. Fun:Andrew Schlafly (satire) appears under the best of fun. - User
05:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I've no problem with that at all, apart from the fact that there is no 'Best of Fun' category. I added the 'Best of amusement' category instead. DogP 10:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I want this on the frontpage under one condition. Fun:Andrew Schlafly (satire) appears under the best of fun. - User
- I think this is now of a sufficient quality to be a cover story article. Thoughts? DogP 13:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)
- I do. it's awesome. PFoster 18:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Another Bloody Vote
Place vote here to vote for this as a Cover Story. No goats will be harmed if you vote the wrong way. Well, maybe one goat will be harmed.
[edit] Yay
- DogP 10:53, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Pinto's5150 Talk 10:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- AYE
(Toast) and marmalade 13:01, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- CorryThose are balls. 13:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Neveruse513 13:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Z3rotalk 15:00, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Do it already... ħuman
15:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Yey.
17:07, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Please. It is relevant, useful and a potential lifesaver. JJ4eI christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 19:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- YAY --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodeRusty-spotted catspeed! 19:45, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I'm saying "yay" to this (as long as I'm entitled to vote, that is). Don't know how google works but is it possible doing this will raise its search ranking? Madeleinebiscuits 11:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)
[edit] Possible Yay's
Presuming their votes still hold from the old discussion above, we may also have the support of:
- PFoster
- Mr.Mathematical Signature
[edit] Nay
- I think we should hold fire on this until we decided who's entitled to vote.
Генгисunbelieving 17:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I don't think it's a good idea to have this the front page material. It's not accessible to an outsider and even if it's anti-CP, it's rather indirectly mission-related. Sterilerationalize 19:44, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Sterile has a good point there, re: the mission. Although I just cleaned up the intro and added some links, and surely Schlafly is on-mission? And the article is a good one? ħuman
00:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Agreed...good point on the mission. But I don't think it should stop us. Familiarizing the community with factual evidence about Schlafly, Hovind, Ham, etc. is on point. Neveruse513 14:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Sterile has a good point there, re: the mission. Although I just cleaned up the intro and added some links, and surely Schlafly is on-mission? And the article is a good one? ħuman
[edit] Discussion of votes
Genghis - do we really have to drag all future votes on things off into the realm of 'qualifications for voting' and all this mad-eyed bureaucracy that's beginning to overwhelm this site? How will we know if we have a quorum? Will the votes cast have a fair gender balance? Will voters come equally from blue-collar and white-collar backgrounds? RW is rapidly developing the 'British Disease' of the late '70's, Brother. And as for Sterile's point - isn't the man principle we've all adhered to against Schlafly that he's welcome to his opinions, just not to promote them to children under the guise of it being 'education'? I can't see what could be more 'refuting the anti-science movement' than that? And what outsiders? Who comes here who doesn't know about Conservapedia anyway? Finally, if we remove this, then there's at least three other Conservapedia-related article that need to also come out of the Cover Story article list. We could discuss that, but we'll need to pay a stipend into a fund for the American Auto Worker first. DogP 20:44, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Anyone and everyone should be entitled to a vote. Even Fall Down (only one sock, though). Even TK. They have rights, even if they don't deserve them. That's what makes us different from CP- everyone and anyone has rights. If we start restricting voting, then we become little better than the people who we set up the wiki to protest against. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodeRusty-spotted catspeed! 20:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I concur with CUR. DogP 20:50, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Thanks. More on my position: When we start restricting votes, we creep towards right-wing authoritarianism. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodeRusty-spotted catspeed! 21:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- Minors can't vote ;). ħuman
00:11, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- But you don't know that I'm a minor. I just say I am. And that law doesn't count for wikis. Here, everyone is equal. Some are just more equal than others. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodeRusty-spotted catspeed! 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Minors can't vote ;). ħuman
- Thanks. More on my position: When we start restricting votes, we creep towards right-wing authoritarianism. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiodeRusty-spotted catspeed! 21:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
- I concur with CUR. DogP 20:50, 3 February 2009 (EST)
[edit] Promotion
In the abscence of any Nays (at the time), this article was promoted to be a cover story article. DogP 16:54, 3 February 2009 (EST)
[edit] Early activity at wikipedia.
This is technically post Conservapedia, but I think I found some of Andy's early attempts to attack wikipedia by directly debating with them here. This has probably been pointed out before, but I just found this pretty interesting. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked through his edits before, and it shows the same ol' Schlafly that we all know and love. His rational as to why Wikipedia's Conservapedia article should be kept was in complete disregard to Wikipedia policies on notability and reliable sources. He instead called the deletion discussion a "demand for a censorship" and used the excuse that other articles don't have sources (which all comes down to the classic "if Bob steals something and doesn't get caught, does that mean I can do it?" type of deal). He then kept calling the deletion votes a result of political bias a plethora of times, again in complete disregard to Wikipedia's policy regarding notability. Apparently repeated the same thing 5 times gets the point across better and doesn't make one look like an idiot in Andy's mind. All in all, he didn't understand Wikipedia's policies back then, still doesn't, and blames it all on the nasty liberals that infest that whole place. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- So that's who Nearly Headless Nick is. Andy complaining about that name was probably the origin of the whole "real first name and last initial" crap. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- And it looks like Nearly Headless Nick changed his username to something else in the time being. I was going to say that perhaps Andy influenced him, but he changed it to "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (which I think is a pretty cool name that beats first name last initial any day. Unless, of course, Mr. Mimsy-Porpington is his real name, which would make it even better). ~SuperHamster Talk 12:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reading through that AFD page I notice a degree of apparent sock/meatpuppet activity by Andy. There is VeniVidiVici007, Andysch, Hannibal's Alps and probably Drod7425. Some of those IDs only ever edited at WP on that discussion. Lily Inspirate me. 10:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a look at some of the early history of the CP article and think that VeniVidiVici007 is actually PhilipB. This edit at CPimg is followed one minute later by this one at WP. I am inclined to think that Andy only edited as Andysch, the others are his homeskollars who were keen about the project in those early days. There are also edits by Irishdancer92 (1,000,000 to 1 it's SharonS), Timsvendsen and an anon IP from New Jersey]. My fave edit from the early days is this one from Andy, where he's obviously stung by the AFD tag placed on the CP article.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a look at some of the early history of the CP article and think that VeniVidiVici007 is actually PhilipB. This edit at CPimg is followed one minute later by this one at WP. I am inclined to think that Andy only edited as Andysch, the others are his homeskollars who were keen about the project in those early days. There are also edits by Irishdancer92 (1,000,000 to 1 it's SharonS), Timsvendsen and an anon IP from New Jersey]. My fave edit from the early days is this one from Andy, where he's obviously stung by the AFD tag placed on the CP article.
- Reading through that AFD page I notice a degree of apparent sock/meatpuppet activity by Andy. There is VeniVidiVici007, Andysch, Hannibal's Alps and probably Drod7425. Some of those IDs only ever edited at WP on that discussion. Lily Inspirate me. 10:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- And it looks like Nearly Headless Nick changed his username to something else in the time being. I was going to say that perhaps Andy influenced him, but he changed it to "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" (which I think is a pretty cool name that beats first name last initial any day. Unless, of course, Mr. Mimsy-Porpington is his real name, which would make it even better). ~SuperHamster Talk 12:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- So that's who Nearly Headless Nick is. Andy complaining about that name was probably the origin of the whole "real first name and last initial" crap. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Length of article
When articles at Wikipedia start getting too long, there is a procedure for splitting them into sub-articles. This article is well above the size threshold required for a division on Wikipedia.
ListenerXTalkerX 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Were you thinking of moving some of the stuff to sub-pages? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes; "Political beliefs of Andrew Schlafly" or "Andrew Schlafly and Conservapedia," for example.
ListenerXTalkerX 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. It does risk becoming a little tl;dr. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of our most popular pages, & also has a specific purpose, as per the banner at the top. It would be a mistake to hack it up into separate articles. Possibly some of the less important parts of it could be incorporated in relevant CP-space articles instead, but there shouldn't be more than one mainspace article on this guy. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If we are actually expecting many parents to get the message here, we need a shorter summary article. To avoid having to delete content from the Wiki, we need more specific sub-articles.
ListenerXTalkerX 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- They won't go to them. Answer: make the lead better? ħuman
03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course they will not go to them, for the same reason that they will not read this article as it now stands.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- But this is top-ranking page for the search term "Andrew Schlafly" on a search engine beginning with G. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which is an instance of a fallacy beginning with R.
ListenerXTalkerX 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be no harm to simply yank the entire of Section 3, about Conservapedia. Our other articles on CP cover almost everything there anyway, and what isn't can be moved into those articles. DogP (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uhm, the recent edits here have really gone a little too far I think- particularly the entire rewrite of the Pegagogy section. Too much. No-one is going to go and read sub-articles. I think we need to reconsider what's been done here. DogP (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that removing the Pedagogy section was a big mistake. It pretty much removes the point of the "serious" article. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Completely. With due deference to ListenerX, I'm going to revert that section and keep his material in a holding tank while we discuss this. DogP (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm...can someone help me with this - I can't seem to rollback or undo back to the older version - there's been intervening edits which conflict, and I'm not sure how to deal with big revert like this? DogP (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the last version from before the cut. The only subsequent edits were minor wording & formatting stuff relating to the rewrite version Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've restored the last version from before the cut. The only subsequent edits were minor wording & formatting stuff relating to the rewrite version Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Hmmm...can someone help me with this - I can't seem to rollback or undo back to the older version - there's been intervening edits which conflict, and I'm not sure how to deal with big revert like this? DogP (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Completely. With due deference to ListenerX, I'm going to revert that section and keep his material in a holding tank while we discuss this. DogP (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that removing the Pedagogy section was a big mistake. It pretty much removes the point of the "serious" article. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uhm, the recent edits here have really gone a little too far I think- particularly the entire rewrite of the Pegagogy section. Too much. No-one is going to go and read sub-articles. I think we need to reconsider what's been done here. DogP (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be no harm to simply yank the entire of Section 3, about Conservapedia. Our other articles on CP cover almost everything there anyway, and what isn't can be moved into those articles. DogP (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which is an instance of a fallacy beginning with R.
- But this is top-ranking page for the search term "Andrew Schlafly" on a search engine beginning with G. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Of course they will not go to them, for the same reason that they will not read this article as it now stands.
- They won't go to them. Answer: make the lead better? ħuman
- If we are actually expecting many parents to get the message here, we need a shorter summary article. To avoid having to delete content from the Wiki, we need more specific sub-articles.
- This is one of our most popular pages, & also has a specific purpose, as per the banner at the top. It would be a mistake to hack it up into separate articles. Possibly some of the less important parts of it could be incorporated in relevant CP-space articles instead, but there shouldn't be more than one mainspace article on this guy. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Makes sense. It does risk becoming a little tl;dr. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes; "Political beliefs of Andrew Schlafly" or "Andrew Schlafly and Conservapedia," for example.
OK good. I think we can certainly edit the article to address concerns about length, but that was too much. For example, I think we can massively hack back the "Comparisons between Andrew Schlafly's class and the AP" section. Thx Weasel. DogP (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The BNP section is probably too long. It's only really relevant to UK readers so could probably be totally removed, or possibly moved to a "further reading" subpage, if we want to do that kind of thing? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, and the Math course section. It's lacking in citations and since it never happened, doesn't seem too relevant. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the Math section. There were some moderately good items in there about Andy's Math standards, but they seemed more about how the CP community had a poor grasp of how to handle Maths, not just Andy. Also, can we please just yank the whole "Using CP" section at the end and move it into a subarticle, while retaining some very basic info explaining it? DogP (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was trying very hard to word this politely, but now that I have (as I should have expected) been reverted, it seems some stronger phraseology is called for. Subject matter aside, this article reads like an entry in the Summa Homosexualita. We need to get over ourselves and cease with the delusion that anyone else is interested in most of its contents, chiefly the obsessive detail with which we report every single time Mr. Schlafly has strayed from perfection. This includes several points that are largely irrelevant to pedagogical matters. We do not need to list every grammatical error he has ever made, nor do we need to list more than one or two of the more ridiculous examples in each area of concern. The few people who actually give a monkey's about the finer details will go to subpages, or anyplace else, to see them. It is not as if anyone is actually Googling any of the cruft I pulled out; I am still asking myself why I did not delete the lot of it outright.
ListenerXTalkerX 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- LX, we've been doing exactly what you're talking about, just a little less radically than your version, that's all - please check and see the work done since your revert. I completely agree that it had become far too much, and yeah - the spelling thing had gone far beyond useful, among many others. All that excess detail has been dumped into subarticles. Carry on.... DogP (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did see that there has been some pruning done. A definite improvement (especially as concerns taking out irrelevant material), although there are still far too many examples and the table of contents still spans an entire screen (and I am not implying merely that the section structure is too complex).
ListenerXTalkerX 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did see that there has been some pruning done. A definite improvement (especially as concerns taking out irrelevant material), although there are still far too many examples and the table of contents still spans an entire screen (and I am not implying merely that the section structure is too complex).
- LX, we've been doing exactly what you're talking about, just a little less radically than your version, that's all - please check and see the work done since your revert. I completely agree that it had become far too much, and yeah - the spelling thing had gone far beyond useful, among many others. All that excess detail has been dumped into subarticles. Carry on.... DogP (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was trying very hard to word this politely, but now that I have (as I should have expected) been reverted, it seems some stronger phraseology is called for. Subject matter aside, this article reads like an entry in the Summa Homosexualita. We need to get over ourselves and cease with the delusion that anyone else is interested in most of its contents, chiefly the obsessive detail with which we report every single time Mr. Schlafly has strayed from perfection. This includes several points that are largely irrelevant to pedagogical matters. We do not need to list every grammatical error he has ever made, nor do we need to list more than one or two of the more ridiculous examples in each area of concern. The few people who actually give a monkey's about the finer details will go to subpages, or anyplace else, to see them. It is not as if anyone is actually Googling any of the cruft I pulled out; I am still asking myself why I did not delete the lot of it outright.
- I've removed the Math section. There were some moderately good items in there about Andy's Math standards, but they seemed more about how the CP community had a poor grasp of how to handle Maths, not just Andy. Also, can we please just yank the whole "Using CP" section at the end and move it into a subarticle, while retaining some very basic info explaining it? DogP (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, and the Math course section. It's lacking in citations and since it never happened, doesn't seem too relevant. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Comments about the BNP
I think this subsection should be cut altogether. It was a minor incident where parodists goaded Andy into making some vaguely pro-BNP comment, without realising they're a racist group. It was noteworthy at the time, but only as one of many examples of Andy making judgements about things he knows nothing about. We're giving a one-off comment, which he pretty much retracted, too much attention here. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't say anything about his being a racist or not. It speaks VOLUMES about his poor judgement and his willingness to take strong positions based on zero knowledge. P-Foster (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, but there are plenty of other examples of that, like the stuff about relativity being a liberal plot. It would be better to have a section covering this trait, mentioning the BNP comment among other examples, rather than highlighting so prominently. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Despite having written it (and done the goading, it has to be said), I'm inclined to agree with Weasel - it was a bit like a sting operation, and it's presumptious to expect him to know about minority political parties in the UK. However, the comment aboutit reflecting poorly on his judgement is entirely apt. Rewrite away. DogP (talk)
- Granted, but there are plenty of other examples of that, like the stuff about relativity being a liberal plot. It would be better to have a section covering this trait, mentioning the BNP comment among other examples, rather than highlighting so prominently. Wéáśéĺóíď
- It doesn't say anything about his being a racist or not. It speaks VOLUMES about his poor judgement and his willingness to take strong positions based on zero knowledge. P-Foster (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The subarticles -- Important
Whoever is creating subarticles, I think it's important that the "this is not the place for jokes" disclaimer that appears at the top of this article be reproduced on the subarticles as well. P-Foster (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, should those articles necessarily be in the CP space? P-Foster (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we're keeping the subpages. LX seems to be the only one in favour of them. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was creating subarticles as a way to remove a lot of excess info, examples, etc. I agree they should have the 'proviso' header. Re. the namespace, we we suggesting it should be Mainspace? The article is, so I guess they should be - my bad. DogP (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Subarticles are best avoided. They don't show up on searches, they get lost when things are moved, & they don't tend to get read very much. I'm still against carving this up into pieces. Some of the excesses can be trimmed out, & some bits might be more appropriate in another existing article, but this is high profile article & I think it should stay largely intact (in mainspace). I don't understand why the length is even such an issue anyway. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it was a bit windy, I do think - often from simply providing too much verbiage and too many examples. I don't mind that the subarticles can't be searched as I've broken them out now - there's only extended examples in the subarticles, and no new points. But I'm completely in agreement that it should remain mostly as it was. DogP (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're doing good work. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're doing good work. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Well, it was a bit windy, I do think - often from simply providing too much verbiage and too many examples. I don't mind that the subarticles can't be searched as I've broken them out now - there's only extended examples in the subarticles, and no new points. But I'm completely in agreement that it should remain mostly as it was. DogP (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Subarticles are best avoided. They don't show up on searches, they get lost when things are moved, & they don't tend to get read very much. I'm still against carving this up into pieces. Some of the excesses can be trimmed out, & some bits might be more appropriate in another existing article, but this is high profile article & I think it should stay largely intact (in mainspace). I don't understand why the length is even such an issue anyway. Weaseloid
- I was creating subarticles as a way to remove a lot of excess info, examples, etc. I agree they should have the 'proviso' header. Re. the namespace, we we suggesting it should be Mainspace? The article is, so I guess they should be - my bad. DogP (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we're keeping the subpages. LX seems to be the only one in favour of them. Wéáśéĺóíď
[edit] Redirects
At present, there are still redirects from Andy Schlafly, Andrew Layton Schlafly, Aschlafly, Assfly, etc. to the fun version of this article, dating from the days when both were in mainspace. I reckon the first two at least (variations on Andy's name) should be redirected here instead. Assfly can still go to fun, & maybe Aschlafly as I guess most links to it are CP/amusement related. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are perfectly correct. --DogP (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
ListenerXTalkerX 06:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Although the Aschlafly one is tougher, in case someone searches for it...? ħuman
06:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The aschlafly one could go to mainspace. people reading CP and googling the string Aschlafly to find out more, and all that. This is going to a job to see what links where, and what the context of the link is. Yikesy. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Although the Aschlafly one is tougher, in case someone searches for it...? ħuman
[edit] "Relevant comments"
I strongly believe that this section/edit does not do RationalWiki justice. The point of the article, as said in the edit notice is to provide "straightforward factual information." Advice and straightforward Ken commentary make it look stupid and it does nothing but preach to the choir, IMHO. This should be common sense for any reader to check out the site, especially considering that a majority of readers wouldn't come to RW if it weren't for Conservapedia in the first place. Conservapedia itself advertises RW on Wikipedia and just by googling "RationalWiki." Rationalize (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This article is aimed at people looking to do business with Schlafly (mainly parents) who have probably never heard of conservapedia. I think the section encouraging people to look at CP is relevant because we are trying to get these people to see first hand Andy's style and beliefs. This article is a unique one on RW. I think it should stay. DamoHi 12:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, If I was considering homeschooling my kids (which I wouldn't considering I will be a public school teacher) but if I was, and I was reading the article and came across that section, it just turns me off. It comes across as "SEE! LOOK! LOOK! Now what do you think!!!!." Less is more. Rationalize (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a point, but I also think the article needs some sort of conclusion. Also the bit about the anti-female bias under schooling can be worked into the intro. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, If I was considering homeschooling my kids (which I wouldn't considering I will be a public school teacher) but if I was, and I was reading the article and came across that section, it just turns me off. It comes across as "SEE! LOOK! LOOK! Now what do you think!!!!." Less is more. Rationalize (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This guy says separation of church/state doesn't exist - and is allowed to homeschool children?
Wow, listen to this interview and the ignorance coming out of this arrogant, elitist pig's mouth. And he thinks he's smarter than liberal commie pinko public school teachers and makes smarter students? I am astounded. (I posted this on WIGO world too.) AP (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC) \]
[edit] "unproductive editing"
This has got to fit in here somewhere. A longtime sysop from the early days of the project has a dialogue with Andy:
RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 00:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that the 90/10 rule applies on this site to prevent unproductive discussions from interfering with the purpose of this site: to educate and learn in a productive way. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 18:48, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
- Well, you heard it from the boss, discussions on wiki sysop "accountability" are "unproductive". Rob Smith 19:07, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
- Rob, we respect freedom of speech here, and that includes being criticized. If you don't want to be criticized, then don't speak out publicly. But once you (or anyone else) speaks out publicly, then please respect the First Amendment right of others to criticize, and then move on to more productive activities. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
- Good. Let's not digress. Tell me why I was desysoped. Rob Smith 20:01, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
- 20:16, 14 August 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) (application of the 90/10 rule)
- I'm sorry toy're so butthurt, but: Meh. It's remarkable to you because you think CP is some sort of "project" where some sort of "community" could craft notions of "accountability." for those of us who have followed CP since 2006, it's just one more example in a very long list of Andy's basic meanness and incompetence. Lots of productive editors and sysops have been the butt of this sort of thing. What's one more time, really? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- My involvement with Conservapedia predates Rationalwiki 2.0; I've been involved since March of 2007. I've seen it all. CP sysops don't have a private discussion list anymore, they just email selectively which sysops are in on the clique. Andy shut down email on the wiki, and wanted more open discussion (the "spirit of the wiki"). When it came to sysop accountability, and allowing fictitious intent trolls to slander real life people (in violation of CP policies), Andy called discussion of that "unproductive". RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you actso shocked Rob? --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- April 2007 for me. I remember you coming around. It's always been like that, at least in terms of its public face. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- It relates to CP history. Andy's had plenty of time to adjust to the problems. Instead, he's allowed TK's, Karajou's and Conservative's hatred of Rationalwiki to harden into CP policy. Believe it or not, Andy's always been a moderating influence on those guys. TK's gone now, but in Karajou's case, it is pure naked hatred that drives the man, and Andy's been overcome by that and has lost whatever direction or vision he once had for the project. RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- April 2007 for me. I remember you coming around. It's always been like that, at least in terms of its public face. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you actso shocked Rob? --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- My involvement with Conservapedia predates Rationalwiki 2.0; I've been involved since March of 2007. I've seen it all. CP sysops don't have a private discussion list anymore, they just email selectively which sysops are in on the clique. Andy shut down email on the wiki, and wanted more open discussion (the "spirit of the wiki"). When it came to sysop accountability, and allowing fictitious intent trolls to slander real life people (in violation of CP policies), Andy called discussion of that "unproductive". RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry toy're so butthurt, but: Meh. It's remarkable to you because you think CP is some sort of "project" where some sort of "community" could craft notions of "accountability." for those of us who have followed CP since 2006, it's just one more example in a very long list of Andy's basic meanness and incompetence. Lots of productive editors and sysops have been the butt of this sort of thing. What's one more time, really? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the vision to make a Project where his students held ultimate authority technically ?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and several others. To make it a viable alternative to the bias's in Wikipedia. Many people did believe in that, at one time. But he's allowed his whole vision to become a parody of conservative values (like conservative values battle obesity). I told the sysop group a week or two ago, blaming Rationalwiki for your own failures defies the most fundamental of all conservative values -- personal responsibility and self reliance. RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 01:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This fucker reminds me of...
http://vimeo.com/45027839 Scherben (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Remarkable.
Caliph Omar said of the Library of Alexandria, "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them." ...I guess taking delight in the liquidation of "Liberal claptrap" is a step up from that... --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 11:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] The Champion of Home Schooling
I know a family that home schools their kids. They have never heard of this guy.
I know a different family in New Jersey that home schools their kids. They have never heard of this guy.
I know a guy who was home schooled and is a Baptist. He has never heard of this guy.
Truly amazing. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Update?
The stuff about grading assignments -- does that still happen, or should it be in the past tense/should we talk about when he stopped? CP seems pretty devoid of homeschool stuff for quite some time. The bus came by/and I got on.
13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's the Summer, so the students might be on vacation. Come September, we should have a better idea of what's happening on that front. The last real update on Andrew Schlafly's activities was his challenge to the ACA in Texas. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] contradictingly uncontactable
I was just browsing his conservapedia, and checked out his personal page on there. There he states, "You can reach me by posting messages on my page for User_talk:Aschlafly." I then went to user_talk:Aschlafly and proceeded to attempt to ask him a question. Immediately, I saw that editing has been blocked for 2 reasons; I am not an administrator and the second reason is best quoted; "This page has been locked to prevent editing. If you would like to edit this article, discuss your proposals on the article's talk page or consult the protecting administrator." Furthermore, there is no way to even create an account. So, I'm confused. In order to talk to him in the place he suggested that doesn't allow talking, you need to either talk there or already be known by him, both of which are impossible because you can't even join. I just thought this bogusness is deserving of mention on this page. What're your thoughts? 75.157.56.59 (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
-- nevermind. I read Conservapedia#Night_time_editing and figured it out 75.157.56.59 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit] His students' college admissions
I removed that sentence that mentioned that Yale and Harvard are missing. I don't see the relevance. In addition, Westminster Choir College is actually part of Rider University, a nonsectarian private university in New Jersey. Plus, at least one of his students got accepted to Princeton, Schlafly's alma mater. And I find it peculiar Schlafly was once an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School and also mentions in his user page "Seton Hall University (2 students on big scholarships)". AP (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- He was an adjunct. Bottom-of-the-barrel ranking. No chance of tenure. Less job security than the janitor, who at least has an effective union be hind him. The job of "adjunct professor" does not give one any "pull" with the folks over at admissions. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Did he vote for Obama
From Barack Obama's Conservapedia Page:
"In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the Harvard Law Review. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot."
Who was a conservative editor of the Harvard Law Review that could have possibly voted in that election? Irrationalinhumanist (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[edit] This article contains some statheist religious irrationality
| Whining + persecution complex (sounds familiar? Yes, it's LogicMaster777 again) |
|---|
|
Overall, this is a pretty well-written article I must say. There is one area where I believe it indulges in some irrational presumptions and I wish to critically examine the corrupting anti-science influence of statism as it relates to the article, specifically the assertions it makes in the section "Outline legal status of homeschooling" and the implications of the "culture war" the article references. (LogicMaster777 talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) This site has a strong statheist contingent who push an agenda of trying to establish statheism as a "rationalist" "viewpoint". This article references a "culture war" which I would interpret as a kind of ongoing online debate that has sort of become kind of a feud. To me this seems a battle between conservatives who sort of want to merge religion and politics together and leftist statheists who seem to see themselves as "non relgious" "atheists" while they preach their faith-based doctrine of government and its attendant higher power of "state".LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) This site has a strong statheist contingent pushing an agenda of irrational faith in government dogma, trying to present statheism as rationalist.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) A good example is the section "Online legal Homeshooling". The article asserts that the "state" must prove parents failed to provide equivalent education. What is this "State" that "must prove" this? This is the "corporate person of the state". The mythical "person" of "New Jersey". It is like saying "Santa must deliver 6 billion packages by midnight". The article is using a mythical fictional "person" to explain physical phenomena of the universe(government snatching kids or forcing them to go to school). As the "evidence" this article cites it points to some legal scriptures. If one examines the scriptures, they use the language "the court held". "The court held"? What does this mean? It is attributing the actions of a man called a "judge" to an inanimate object called "the court". Magical thinking. What is meant by such metaphor is that a man in a black robe said so. LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) x is authoritatively true because this authoritative writing written by the authority(that authority being derived from his scriptural invisible higher power) figure in the black priest's robe said so. Why should we accept this reasoning as "rationalism", statheists?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
To highlight the heavy irrational leftist statheist agenda and bias prevalent on RationalWiki I point to how my logical critique on the fallacious presumptions and the corrupting intellectually nihilistic and anti-rational influences of leftist statheism displayed in the article were "collapsed" since they are supposedly "Incoherent". Just because you can't understand an argument or you don't personally like the conclusion, that doesn't make it "incoherent", Bicycle Wheel. The leftist statheists use the same tactics they criticize in CWers to deny rational criticism of their faith-based religious belief system and for the same reasons. This censorship attack to hide the rationalist critique of the irrational statist presumtions is a perfect example. Ironic that on the main article page this is the same sort of thing they criticise CW for!LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxTJnjLkbk8
|