Talk:Andrew Schlafly/Archive2

Surname
Having come across a book at work called Wo die Sonne schlafen geht I decided to look up what "Schlafly" means. Apparently it's from the German Schlaefli "sleep" (Schlaef and the diminutive suffix -li). So, "little sleep." Totnesmartin 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So now we know his delusions stems from insomnia. 10:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Insomnia seems to be an endemic problem over there....  DogP Marmite Patrol 11:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's not just Ken. TK frequently exhibits similar editing patterns. Obviousy sleep deprivation is a major contributing factor to their delusional state. I guess they want to tire themselves out so much that they will sleep for three years and wake up just in time for the next Presidential election, so that Obama's term of office will just seem like a bad dream. However, I believe it wil probably turn out like Dead of Night (that movie sent shivers up my spine as a kid).  11:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I now have a terrifying scenario in my head with Andy as the ventriloquist and TK as the dummy. Gulp. 11:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end, the dummy got the upper hand entirely. Aaaaargh! 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine that. A power-shifting coup d'état by TK over at Conservapedia. Now that would be some WIGO. 12:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And one of the last WIGO CPs ever. Totnesmartin 12:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that day never comes. I love Conservapedia and all its wackiness. Without it, RW would be fairly pointless and I'd have to go back to the real world. 13:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Without CP of course, there would have been a RationalWiki in the first place, let's not forget. Still, a bit early for obits just yet. Totnesmartin 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's side job
I am sure we probably went over this already, but check this out: Andy as an educator in Eagle Forum University. So he also claims expertise (since he teaches them) in (upper case intact): It is unclear why some of them are in CAPS and some of them aren't. Also, registration is free! 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court 101
 * AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 101
 * AMERICAN HISTORY 101 (scroll down)
 * Evolution and Politics
 * EVOLUTION FALLACIES
 * Principles of Microeconomics
 * SUPREME COURT & CURRENT EVENTS
 * THE CONSTITUTION AND CURRENT EVENTS
 * ZOMG UR STALKING HIM!~!! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was trying to work on the stuff on the Eagle Forum and one of the link happens to be Eagle Forum University. I thought Phyllis Sr. would try to teach something, but turns out it was her offspring.   15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight...?
I do believe This section require insertion of information regarding the new (ab)use of Oversight powers by the CP sysops, but I don't know how best to do it. 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived talk?
Is it even possible to find Archived talk on AShlafly's user page? This is asked primarily due to archived talk links in our article reference section. 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first joined Rw there was some annoyance that Andy "misfiled" his archives - tbh I think he just deleted old/unwelcome stuff without actually creating archive pages for what he removed. You might have to wade through the edit history, if it's still there. there was some discussion about whether this was against the mediawiki licence. I'd wish you happy hunting, but when it comes to CP I'm a pessimist. Totnesmartin 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, found the archives up to circa October 2008. They don't seem to bother to archive anything that comes after.   22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, change "when I first joined" to "nearly a year-and-a-half after I joined" - details, details... Totnesmartin 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the first archive misfired/misfiled (working archives run from Archive2 to Archive46), so you are right about when you first joined  02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Grade inflation
In that section, it has the sentence "However, when grading his students' homework, Mr. Schlafly has yet to give less than an 8 out of 10 on any question, even if the answer is clearly wrong."

Which "wrong" are we talking about? Contradicting his teachings or contradicting to facts/established orthodoxy? Big difference between the two (primarily due to his inability to teach facts). 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're speaking to both.... But the issues is really when he writes something like "that is incorrect, this battle actually happened three hundred years later and involved two seperate armies. 8/10" That's the problem.  20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of his problem is probably that he sets unresonable marks for most of his questions anyway. Given how short the expected anwers, 10 marks seem silly for most of them. Then again, he semi handles them in his fashion. 0 marks for no answer, if he actually notices that (usually he doesn't), 1-4 marks if you give an answer (right or wrong) that is opposed to his POV, 7-9 marks if you give an answer but it's completely wrong but not opposing his POV, 10 marks if you're right. 7-9 is a sort thanks for trying, but not contradicting me thing I guess :-P Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I link my article?
I know this is a serious article, but could I link my Fun:Death Note article at the bottom of the page? I was thinking that since I spent a good part of the page comparing Andy and Kira, it might be passable. Truthfully, nothing but my userpage links to the article.--Nate River 02:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Conservapedia article would fit better for your Death Note article, like the one for Stalinist Republic of Conservapedia or Andyland.   02:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Andrew Layton Schlafly (The satirical article) would be befitting for the comparison (Seeing there is a Obama Comparison to Schlafly from the serious article, I guess a comparison of Kira to Schlafly would be a satire of our own article) as well. I added the article at the see also section of CP.   02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, not this article, K/T is correct. PS, why is it now red linked? Ah, because you got the title wrong, I fixed.  Oh, and my answer?  No.  Don't link it from anywhere.  It's boring unless you are really into Death Note.  02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * K, thanks K/T. Hu, harsh man. That is why I ask before I do--Nate River 02:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be harsh, but really, the article in question is really oblique. And, yes, asking made sense.  Also, of course, I am not the last voice on the matter!  Just one editor. Suggestion: you could add the "conservapedia" category?  I don't think there's be any objection to that.  02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I never read Death Note and I get the idea, though I am relatively interested into manga ans stuff (so it doesn't take that specific of an interest of Death Note). So I think if the article can be worked up to a certain standard it can link to the satirical article (double satire:  Satire for Andy and satire for this list found on the serious article)?   02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I got that idea. It's kinda funny comparing Andy to a psychotic killer with a God complex. That is what inspired me to write the article in the first place--Nate River 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Video games essay
I'm sad I missed that.

I would have loved to tell him that I was more prepared to write college essays in 9th grade than most of my fellow non-gaming classmates when they graduated. 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And to think, you were almost "family". You could have schooled him every thanksgiving for the rest of his life...  02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

His dad's name?
I have found the following two passages in the article: Did his father changes name from John to Fred, or does it requires fixing? 18:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Andrew Schlafly is the son of John Fred Schlafly (1909-1993)"
 * "He was homeschooled until the age of seven. [8] There is some evidence to suggest that he later attended Saint Louis Priory School, a private Catholic boys' school, graduating in 1978.[9] His father, lawyer Fred Schlafly, may have encouraged his children to follow him to law school."
 * I noticed you fixed it, but I suspect "John Fred Schlalfy" (full formal name) went by "Fred Schlafly"? 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
Do we have sources that says that Andy is a Roman Catholic (or of any particular church denominations)? 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be the closest: "Schlafly was christened Phyllis McAlpin Stewart and brought up as a Roman Catholic in St. Louis." at her wikipedia article. I think she stayed RC and raised the kids in the RCC.  Kettlekik mentioned Andy's church once recently though I thought, wish I could remember where...  00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He has spoken on Conservapedia about the Pope being infallible. 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless they disagree. Then Andy's right, not His Holiness.  03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * TK: Oh Andy, you're so wise you should run for Pope!
 * Andy: I don't know TK, can you even do that anymore?
 * TK: C'monnnnnnnnn!
 * Andy: I'll do it!
 * I suppose in Conservapedialand anything's possible. 09:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Quite Wrong
"'What do you find most inspiring about Christopher Columbus?'[60] A student answered 'That he learning how to be a captain at age 10'" I was suspicious about this when I first saw it, and checking Wikipedia confirmed my suspicions. While it's certainly absurd for a 10 year old to have captained a ship, it's not absurd for a 10 year old to have served on a ship. Wikipedia seems to agree that Columbus began serving on ships at the age of 10, although they don't directly cite a source for it. So while I will say that, given the context of the class, it is somewhat reasonable and accurate for the teacher to interpret the student's answer as stating that Columbus began his sailing career (and by association his learning things relevant to captainship) at the age of 10, I'd still say it's a question of dubious significance and I don't think the answer should've warranted full credit.Ziiv (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine one could get full credit for turning in a turd wrapped in a page from the course text. Conservapederast (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A thought
Should we run capturebot on all the CP links for this article? DickTurpis (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one or two articles that would benefit from that. 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Retranslate revert
I agree that the statement could have been made a tad more neutrally, but the conclusion is appropriate. If there are no objections to tuning up what I wrote I'll do it tomorrow. 18:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Emphasis
I don't want to do this unilaterally, but I think the section on teh Fly's spelling would be better if we weren't ramming it down people's throats with italics. Wouldn't it be better if we just let his teaching writing stand on its own? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem like a bit of overkill, yeah... 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; when people do not know how to spell "its," all grammatical errors must be explicitly pointed out to them. 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If people don't know how to spell then they aren't going to be bothered by the fact that Andy can't spell either. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 07:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're hypocrites, remember? :P Seriously though, I agree, it's unnecessary to point these out, it's like explaining the joke. -- Nx  / talk 07:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is an article meant to convince people that Mr. Schlafly should not teach their children. If they have to puzzle over numerous sentences trying to find the spelling errors, they might lose interest. 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems inelegant to me. It's like we're pointing and sniggering. I also think each sentence is brief enough that people won't have to look very hard for the errors. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Karma
I recently made a change pointing out that the suggestion given by one of the conservapedia students that in Buddhism, there is no "God you have answer to when you die." contradicts the idea that of Karma, which is fairly important to Buddhism. I understand that what the student said about their being "no God" to answer to is technically correct, but still feel that Karma invalidates his basic premise that Buddhism is an accountability-free religion.

Insulting students
Worth adding? His liberal vandal paranoia has leaked massively into his teaching and he has resorted to being exceptionally rude to some of his students. I don't have the original one, when he blocked a child and then unblocked them when their mother complained, but I do have this one.

Student's essay:
UNGRADED. ANSWERS SEEM IMPLAUSIBLE AND STEREOTYPICAL, SUCH AS THE "15-PERSON PASSENGER VAN." "REFORAMATION"??? SEEMS A LIKE A MISTAKE AN UNINFORMED PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSON WOULD MAKE.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

'Economics Homework One Answers

LydiaM

1. An example of goods could be the Bernese Mountain dog puppies I raise to sell; an example of a service could be the care my siblings provide for the dog in exchange for compensation if I happen to be out of town.

2.   The option of going to McDonalds definitely includes more transaction costs for my family which has thirteen members. One transaction cost would be the fuel needed to drive our fifteen passenger van twenty minutes into town and back; another would be the effort required to tie the six youngest siblings' shoes, zip their coats, and oversee their hair combing and face washing!

Also, as many people eat much food, it is certainly cheaper for us to sup at home on burgers bought wholesale!

3.   Scarcity can be defined as the state of any good or service that can be bought or bartered for-- something that does not exist in a naturally plentiful state. Again referring to analogy of my personal experience raising Bernese Mountain dogs, because these dogs are quite "scarce" (the original breeding pair was not brought into the USA from Switzerland until 1950), they tend be more expensive than better well-known dog breeds.

People often exaggerate scarcity to themselves when the place high personal significance on something that, in reality, has very little monetarty value. For example, it is becoming not uncommon to hear of a pet owner suing someone thousands of dollars for the accidental death or injury of his animal friend, even though he could generally easily purchase another pet for far less. Even more logical would be for him to adopt a shelter animal... But because he feels that his stong emotional ties to the animal should be accounted for in the loss, he demands far more recompense than simply the monetary value of the animal. However, if a person's feelings can be "fixed" for the right price, can he be said to have any feelings at all?

4.   The "invisible hand" is a guiding force which directs people who are working for their own ends to better the state of others around them, whether it be physically, economically, or even spiritually. For example, Martin Luther, a German monk who lived in the fifteen hundreds, searched the Scriptures ceaselessly in pursuit of spiritual truth-- something that was deemed heretical by the Roman Catholic Church during that time period, and worthy of serious punishment. In seeking answers to his own personal questions and doubts, he helped to bring about the Reforamation, which produced religious tolerance and freedom as had not been previously known for hundreds of years atleast. Had Luther not begun his own personal quest despite the threat to his life, who knows for how many more years men may have continued under the burden of stifled thought, speech, and religious belief?

5.  Luke 12:13-21 relates the account of a man who desired for Jesus to settle an economic dipute dividing an inheritance between him and his brother. Considered from an economical standpoint, one could say that Jesus was warning the man about placing too much significance on the security of wealth. Like a crash in the stock market that wipes away your wealth, so the man's death in the parable ended his love affair with gain. The more spiritual point Christ made is that we should beware of selfish and greedy motives as nothing lasts except that which we give to others out of love.

extra credit: The Gospel of Matthew contains more economic parables than Mark does simply because Matthew himself had been a tax collector and was thus much more interested in monetary topics than Mark was.

6.  Caveat emptor-- "let the buyer beware." We should act responsibly with the resources God has given us, whether they be money, time, or effort. This includes making wise financial decisions. We should always weigh the significance of purchasing something. This is especially true as certain things such drugs and alcohol will not only destroy our physical lives, but reak havoc on the lives of those close to us, some of whom may require financial support, not poverty.

HONORS

8.

"Money is a Good Servant but a Poor Master" Christ once stated these words cautioning against the love of riches: "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money"-- Matthew 6:24, NIV. While it is true that God created us with the ability to gain wealth and possessions, He did not purpose for us to make these things the focus of our lives. Also, if we try to serve both wealth and God, we will end up doing neither very well, and certainly waste our lives in choosing the pursuit of gain. Money can be a blessing, but also a curse; just as it can also be used both to serve God or also to obstruct our relationship with Him. When God created us, He gave us resources to use, originally our time and effort. Even in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of time God commanded man to "subdue" the earth and to "tend" the garden. He knew that if we applied our energies to th utilization of what He had already begun, (i.e., life forms and the earth), we could become a self-sustaining species. Eventually, though, as culture became more complex and varied, and work more specialized, it obviously became more convenient for man to develop coin and exchange it for his needs. Now not everyone had to plant or tend animals to provide for his sustenance. Man could design things for the comfort of others, such as furniture; or create beauty, such as art or music, for other's enjoyment, all the while receiving compensation in the form of money which he then used too provide for himslf and his family. And so the world has progressed for centuries until this present era in which material gain has become an all-consuming passion for many people. In our era, secularization has replaced God both in the street and in the pulpit; and soon time will show, as it did in the days of Ancient Rome, that our nation has chosen a detrimental and debilitating substitute. When the gain of wealth becomes the focus of one's life, dissatisfaction and unfulfillment is sure to follow. This is because God created in us hearts of worship that can only be truly filled when they are filled with the worship of Him. When we fill our lives with greed and racing for fame and gain, we are left with possibly a heap of wealth at the end of our lives which we obviously cannot take with us. However, if we utilize the money God has given us to serve others, especially those who cannot easily support themselves, we will reap rich blessings from Him, both in this life and also in the next. We know this to be true from Christ's own words: "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"-- Luke 6:38, NIV.

Discussion on Andy's talk page
Professor Schlafly,

I'm sorry about the quality of my homework this past week. I will try to do better in the future. I don't understand the grade, though. Would you like me to redo the homework? What about the essay?

Again, my apologies. LydiaM


 * "Lydia", try Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness and let me know how you do, with a detailed explanation of your answers.--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

How and where would you like me to post my answers to the questions? And do I answer the first fourteen questions only, or the follow up questions for each topic as well? LydiaM


 * You can post them here. By the way, how many years have you been in public school?--Andy Schlafly 19:40, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

I just graduated this past spring from twelve years of homeschool. I'm taking this course because I'm trying to get CLEP credit before going to college in the fall of 2010. This year, however, I'm taking online courses from Liberty College and Bryan College.

As I have a committment in a few minutes, I cannot answer the questions now. However, I'll try to post them tonight. LydiaM


 * No kidding, "Lydia"! Tell you what, after you learn how to spell "commitment", let me know which online course you're taking at Liberty University (not "college") and I'll put in a good word with the professor for you.  I've sent several real students there and am on good terms with the fine school.  It's so wonderful to see someone who thinks "Reformation" is spelled as "Reforamation", and who is so easily amused by himself!--Andy Schlafly 21:56, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

The student then deleted the above conversation and blanked their essay. They did not return. 11:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth adding, but perhaps with the caveat that the combination of a "legitimate" homeshooling enterprise (at least in AS's eyes) with a political blog that attracts a certain class of opponent has led Schlafly to treat people who don't conform to his idea of a good student as wiki-vandals. WHICH THEY--AND THIS GIRL--VERY WELL MIGHT BE. Impossible for him and us to tell who is a good faith editor. TheoryOfPractice 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, where no actual Wiki content is being altered, most reasonable people would assume good faith. 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I belive this is legit. Their responses are not parody. They could have written some really weird shit in there if they wanted to. They would not have contested his decision as they did, and they would not have just deleted all reference to themselves and left, if they were a parodist. This is a classic case of Andy's paranoia spilling over into his teaching. 09:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need a new page for all this. 09:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Size...
Is it just me, or is the size of this article almost stalker-ish. I'm of course very happy that everything is sourced and referenced but it's like every single little pointless detail is in there... 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should have the details. We are not saying anything that he has not put out urbi et orbi on Conservapedia. 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, and I agree. It just strikes me as "obsessive", which is why I was against making it the main article. As I said, it's probably just me, trying to check if anyone else felt the same. 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Headers
We really shouldn't be using top level (single =) headers, but right ow I'm too lazy to add an extra = to every single header in the article so I'm just going to raise the see also and footnotes to single = for now. 19:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nx. 19:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Papers
I have added all of Andy's publications that I can find through my school's library. I think that it is interesting to look at his publication record, but it probably needs some explanation. Feel free to revert and talk here.-- 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I tinkered with it a bit, but it fits well there I think. Be nice if we could actually link to them, though.  Do you think his name should really be in italics in the creds?  23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added references to all of the papers except the VLSI one which only exists in hard copy. Only the breast cancer paper is actually publicly accessible.


 * I think we should add some more information in this section. This article should steer clear of snark, but I think its important to point out that Andy's publication record is so laughable that he never makes reference to his prior work. Also, we should critique the publications that have accepted his papers. I am probably not the best person to do this, do we have a medical or lawyer type, and an engineer type? I know that the IEEE publications are not high-quality journals, and certainly wouldn't be considered worthy of any note by a scientist.


 * Feel free to un-italicize his name. I thought it would be good to highlight it to set it apart from the rest of the text.-- 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I added another paper of his on asbestos and the WTC from the 'Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons' I came across while trying to find more about his involvement with the AAPI. However doing a quick search on the JPANDS website suggests there are more papers of his we're missing (also at least one of Roger's) but do we really want to bother to list all his JPANDS papers? Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Attorney Andy
The article mentions that Andy graduated Harvard Law in '91, and was admitted to the NY state bar in '93. Is such a two year gap, mmm, unusual? Andy's nemesis (Obama) was admitted to the Illinois bar the same year he graduated...--WJThomas 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The gap's fairly normal if he clerked for a judge immediately after graduation. A clerkship doesn't require bar membership and some people choose to take the bar at the end of the clerkship instead of right after law school.

Andrew Schlafly on Colbert Report
Holy crap, Schlafly was on the Colbert Report tonight. I'm still having trouble understanding how someone who studied engineering at Princeton and law at Harvard could be this dense. I will post a link to the show when I have time.--Wet Walnuts (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wet Walnuts, Mr. Schlafly's appearance on the Colbert Report has been pretty much the sole topic of discussion on the entire Wiki today. 05:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You've changed, you used to be cool
This article was way better when it was funny, with 'I can't believe it's a law firm' etc. 91.104.69.154 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That version of the article is now at Andrew Layton Schlafly -- Nx  / talk 11:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Charge of Hypocrisy
Would it be worth pointing out in the section that discusses Andy's beliefs about the lack of abilities of girls in math and science that he is married to an MD, and his daughter is an Electrical Engineering major? That seems quite hypocritical to me. MDB (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but as his family isn't really involved in CP or politics, I would argue that it's best to leave them out. Corry (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Expertise
Just noticed that Andy doesn't seem to have ever claimed any expertise in his degree subject (Electrical Engineering). Shome mishtake shurely? 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Something left in the archive by an idiot
uhhhhhhhhh I see a sentence in the first paragraph that says "Strictly young earth creationism" yet i see many articles on conservapedia that give many different viewpoints including the viewpoint that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and not created by god...careful with the wide sweeping generalizations... &mdash; Unsigned, by: 97.96.45.172 / talk / contribs
 * That's just because Schlafly doesn't know they are there - other people write CP, you know. Witness the recent whitewashing of the astronomy articles of any reference to more than 6000 light years.  20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Political career and current affiliation - BNP
The BNP para is ill-placed. His response is a sign of his profound ignorance of the world outside his house, not nascent neo-Nazism. It doesn't belong in this section IMO. (If the intention is to let him condemn himself in his own words.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The way the article portrays it is somewhat misleading, and I'll have a go at rewording it now. However, after Andy was called out on it he continued to work his pathetic defence, even after it was pointed out that CP's own article describes them as a neo-Nazi party. The fact that he is profoundly ignorant of evolution and the scientific method (and generally everything he doesn't agree with) doesn't stop our reporting and commentary on it, so why should his refusal to step down from his comments Britain's largest nationalist party not belong? 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Distinctive Errors
I've added a distinctive errors section to the Inflated Sense of Expertise section, as I reckon it's important to highlight when Andy makes really obvious errors. Please add, and also move to elsewhere in the article if anyone can come up with a better section header. 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell. That would be a 1,000 page article on its own. 14:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Liveblogging
I know people want to add to/edit/change this article because they hate Andy, but seriously, do we have to clumsily shove in everything that ever gets WIGO CPd? This article should be sober and serious, and not full of the daily lameness that is Aschlafly's general flatulence. Does this make sense? Keep the daily updates to the humorous one please? 03:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you after here? I just put in the "Fidel is actually dead" thing 'cause I think that says loads about what an idiot he is. I also put in the "atheistic Britain thing," 'cause it says a ton about his Manichean worldview--but might be a little livebloggy, I admit... P-Foster (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have included diffs. I don't think the additions I was whining about were yours. Next time I'll link to diffs so people know who I'm calling sillidiots.  05:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Worth mentioning this news profile?
The local paper at Schlafly's hometown profiled Schlafly's son, who reportedly got a 5 on the AP Biology exam during 7th grade. Source: "4-pound preemie becomes intellectual giant" (paid archive) Is it worth mentioning his genius son? AP (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, let's keep his kids out of it.  DogP Marmite Patrol 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly and NJ Supreme Court Justices exchange over recalls
Via Ed Brayton's blog is this video of Andrew Schlafly testifying in the New Jersey Supreme Court about recalling Robert Menendez. This is some intense stuff right here. Think about it: Schlafly teaches US history, and apparently for all his narcissistic attacks on public school students Schlafly is getting schooled over a lot of stuff. Brayton commented: "Schlafly made a very strained argument based on a single out of context quotation by a legal scholar and the judges caught him at it and hammered him for it. It's amusing to watch him try to dodge the issue." AP (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We covered this in WIGO:CP. That was a good day; Trent has some clips on youtube. EddyP (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Law School?
There's no way in hell this guy really went to Princeton and Harvard. In 5th grade I was smarter than this clown. He's probably another Kent Hovind-type scam artist. This article says he's never provided evidence of his credentials, right?--94.76.233.42 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 16:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Fundamentalists
Undocumented statements about the Schaflys being fundamentalists or part of fundamentalism must be deleted until someone comes up with proof of it. Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists. If he is a conservative Roman Catholic, leave it at that.(TManchester (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC))
 * As far as his beliefs go, there is much more evidence of him being a fundamentalist than of him being a Catholic. All his political and religious beliefs he makes known on Conservapedia and identical to those of the fundamentalists. I can't recall him ever saying anything reflecting Catholic beliefs. DickTurpis (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed at Talk:CP, and such evidence has been provided. But boy, you really are in trouble if even fundamentalists don't want to be associated with you. Röstigraben (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to be a fundamentalist Catholic. Like this guy and this guy.--206.255.18.74 (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I changed the only reference to his fundamentalist to very conservative. 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy
Until 30 minutes ago I thought that Mr Schlafly is wacky ultraconservative American. From now on, for me he is a typical village idiot. I'm glad that Europe is more free from radicals such as Schlafly and his minions. Thanks for opening my eyes. Greetings from Europe.
 * Greetings, soon-to-be-blocked-on-CP BoN. -- PsyGremlin  15:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have quite a few nutters here. mpac.ie is a delightfully anti-semetic and extremist Islamic site, seemingly run and largely populated by a local boy from Ireland who appears to have ditched fundie Christianity in exchange for Islam and the mission to make Ireland part of the Caliphate (or something similar craziness). Oddly enough he's not had a great deal of success, but he is certainly as obstinate and delusional as Andy. I followed his site for some time, and based on the names of the writers and those posting comments, the site had less than 10 regulars and half of those were people trying to tell Paddy of Arabia that he's utterly bonkers. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, that mpac.ie site sounds teh great, but it appears to be teh dead.  DogP Marmite Patrol 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG, idiots exist in every country, but they are not as funny and annoying as Mr Schafly. I hope they'll ban me on CP :) --217.17.108.188 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

E-Mail?
Does anyone have the Email address of Mr. Schlafly so it can be posted for public reference? After all, if he feels vital scientific data should be publicly available, then so should his Email, correct? --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on his user page at CP, isn't it? By the way, we aren't here to personally harass Mr. Schlafly, so don't go there. 05:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not that I know of, and in any case we tend to not do that sort of thing.  Higher moral ground, etc.   DogP Marmite Patrol 05:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's got to be a better way to contact him than his CP talk page. Some kind of medium where he can't insta-ban for any discussion daring to mention the FBI case he's currently pursuing.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ on an Easter stick, how slow are you? It's Aschlafly@aol.com last I checked at CP. But why do you want to harass the man in private?  02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed a misread from NYT article
I removed the text He ran as an advocate of conservative causes. because it's actually a misread from the given reference. The NYT article actually says "Coming in last was Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, the advocate of conservative causes." The clause construction is a bit confusing but re-read it and you'll see it's not saying Andrew Schlafly was running as an advocate of conservative causes - it's saying that that's the role in public life that his mother played! I'd be fascinated to find a contemporary source describing what political platform A.S. was running on, but the NYT isn't it unfortunately. SemiRational (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about the clause, but if you deny that Aschlafly is an advocate of conservative causes, you're going to lose all credibility. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Astronauts
"The outstanding achievements of women in science such as astronauts,[65] scientists[66] and mathematicians[67] are well documented. "

Astronauts are not really scientists.
 * This sentence refers to the scientific advances helped by women while working in those fields. Mathematicians aren't technically scientists either. For example, a manned spaceflight requires scientists, mathematicians, and astronauts, as well as engineers, etc. 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although most early astronauts were pilots and, well, adventurers, many modern 'nauts are indeed also scientists. Not to strongly disagree with your point, of course.  06:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From aschlafly to Andy Schlafly
I just today notice that Andy's talk page comments are signed "Andy Schlafly" instead of assfly "aschlafly". He changed this on about 3 January 2009...when did they upgrade to the new(er) wikimedia s/w? I looked at the WIGO-CP archives and the captures confirm this change. I guess he'll always be aschlafly to me. If someone wants to wedge this into his article feel free. 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

Defamation
Edits like this constitute defamation and this site is at the risk of being sued. If the article is not written in proper way, the site will be reported to relevant authorities. --Mr Andrew Schlafly (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Err... ''Bollocks? 13:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Oh no. -- 13:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A typical liberal trait. It is obvious the site has a Liberal quotient of n:0 (n = number of editors). Just a simple reminder, we respect freedom of speech, not not freedom to insult. Godspeed! --Mr Andrew Schlafly (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Humans edit
This one. Does this remove the article as a front page article? Se7enEight 02:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he removed this article from the Main Page. -- 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why? I know there is a movement to de-CP mainpage articles (i.e. CP references in an unrelated article) but Andrew Schlafly is one of RW's top ranking articles. Se7enEight 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only assume Human has a explanation for this, because this seems to be the type of action that might cause a debate. In any case, I look forward to reading this talk page tomorrow. -- 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Andrew Schlafly article is fantastic and would be shame to lose it as a front page article. Se7enEight 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having it as a front page article reinforces the tired meme that RW is just an "anti-CP" site. That's why I did it.  (loaded main page for some reason, and got Andy's picture in my face)  03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I then comment on the irony of your explanation here after creating an "Atheists say the darnedest thing" article in direct reference to CP's list? Se7enEight 03:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that you forgot to edit coverstory, so you didn't remove it from the main page. Also, shouldn't changes like this be discussed first? -- Nx  / talk 09:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, no need to remove it IMHO. 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Schlafly is more than just CP. Se7enEight 09:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If RW can persuade just one set of parents from subject their child to his "teaching", it's done its job. This should stay as a gold coverstory. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven, what, exactly is Andy beyond CP? And SuspReplicant, it doesn't need to be a cover story to do that. Emerald (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Career
I know people don't generally want to discuss his career when it doesn't seem relevant and I somewhat understand that. But is there much info on his recent legal career outside the more high profile areas related to his political beliefs (like his involvement in the tea party movement/recall attempts and Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)? For example while searching the email address discussed above I came across him being the legal advisor for Wikipedia:American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin who don't really seem to be strongly connected to his typical political POV (although they do fit his apparent interest in the medical field). Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW to avoid confusion appears to be who Schlafly works for.  appears to be the 'Pacific' chapter   although confusingly their webpage  can't seem to agree with itself whether they represent the US or Northern California (in reality they appear to represent several US states). Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Amused and disappointed
I'm a Christian, and about a week ago I challenged Schlafly to an online biblical debate about a number of the so-called "conservative" values he espouses. (I understand that Andy rejects some parts of the Bible that are traditionally accepted by evangelical—"conservative"—Christians.) He agreed, on the condition that the debate be hosted on Conservapedia. I refused that condition, saying that I would not debate on his own turf, so to speak, and that I wished to hold the debate on a separate site. I gave him permission to copy my debate posts from that site to Conservapedia, if he chose, to alleviate his fears that the discussion would not have a real audience. He has not replied to my e-mails for the past week or so. I'm tempted to believe that he's just trying to get out of the debate, because he knows that some of his principles do not stand up to an iota of biblical scrutiny. Perhaps Schlafly should read Acts 18:24–28. Thomas Larsen (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With Schlafly's blessing to debate on Conservapedia what are you worried about? I can understand your concerns about home turf to some extent, but if the debate is to be conducted cleanly and without intervention of any outsiders, which is obviously what's fair, what do you care? I'm not asking rhetorically. I really don't understand your concern about doing this on CP - and I don't know if you know or not that Schlafly's only prior foray into debating anyone outside his work was one of our own and that too didn't go, but for the laughable reason that (I think this is right) Schlafly wanted money. You've gotten pretty far there. I wouldn't squander that. 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problems with debating on CP are the open editing times - Andy won't give you editing rights and you can never discount the fact that - even if Andy won't - one of his minions will creep up and block you for some reason. Also, any debate with Andy will quickly degenerate into him going "Open your mind! Public school atheism has blinded you to the facts! Your answer is long on words and short on facts, etc, etc, etc." And yes, expect him to move the goalposts, including demanding a fee to debate. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dis Honest And
Question about Lincoln homeschooling in Schlafly sample questions section ends with quasi-sarcastic (and yet probably accurate) comment comparing/contrasting Abe and And in terms of legal ability. I bring this up because of the overarching desire to remove humor and sarcasm from this particular article. (Also because it insults Lincoln. Hasn't he been through enough? :) ).
 * Agreed and removed.  DogP (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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. ~Super Hamster  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). ~Super Hamster  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.  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 CP 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. 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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. 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. 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.   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. 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They won't go to them. Answer: make the lead better?  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. 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.  12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is an instance of a fallacy beginning with R. 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   18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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. 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). 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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. 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.   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)

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.   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.   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.  00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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. 06:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly correct.  --DogP (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] 06:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Although the Aschlafly one is tougher, in case someone searches for it...? 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)

"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 🇰🇪 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. -- PsyGremlin  13:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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) \]

"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:
 * 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)

RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 00:52, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

This fucker reminds me of...
http://vimeo.com/45027839 Scherben (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 and figured it out 75.157.56.59 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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?.silverbrain.png 00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

This article contains some statheist religious irrationality
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)


 * LogicMaster777 (obviously a liberal username), consistency is not something to be worshiped. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and found a childish insistence on last wordism, so there's a 95% chance you're a member of the far left. Open your mind and admit that faith prevents breast cancer. I repeat: ideas do have consequences and do cause harm. Take our World History Final Exam and then learn the truth. --aschlafly 20:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a far leftist. I have no problem with your faith in itself from a rational pov because you admit it is a faith. What I am critical of is the statheists, those who religiously worship government and claim to be "atheists" because they deny that their higher power of "state" and its scripture of the constitution is a religion. Then they will use the same logical fallacies "An authority in a black robe said so" they reject from "religion" to support their supposedly "secular" faith-based institution of government. I'm not an atheist; I do believe in God, but I also value science and rationalism. And statheism is not rationalism and has nothing to do with rationalism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxTJnjLkbk8LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * LogicMaster777 embarassing themselves at the Olympics is so prevalent among liberals that no further talk-page debates about it are necessary or will be tolerated. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and noticed that you expressed support for the gay agenda, so whether you admit it or not, I can tell you're lying. Your atheistic worldview has led you to deny that abstinence helps resist language devolution. I repeat: the correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--Aschlafly 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I follow your train of thought. I don't know what gay agenda you mean or how it's relevant. I do believe in God and read the Bible and I'm not a lefty or liberal. There are rabbis who study scripture for 50+ years so for me to claim to be well read would be ridiculous compared to that. Abstinence helps resist language devolution how exactly? Do you mean sexual abstinence? That not having sex will keep language "better"? I don't get it.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:32, 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)
 * (sounds like another self-centered liberal, like Obama), you have free will to deny logic. I skimmed through your recent edits and like most liberals you act like you're smarter than every one else and hope that people will agree with you because you seem smart and "reasonable", so it's obvious to me you're insane from San Francisco values. And you persist in denying the obvious truth that classroom prayer deters moral relativism. The answer to your silly question is this: Jesus sends people to Hell too. I can't think of a single hospital built by atheists. It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them.--aschlafly 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not because I am "smart". There are lots of "smart" people. I try to use logic, reason and evidence to support my position because that is what I consider to be "rationalism". I do not claim rationalism is better than faith. But faith is not rationalism. My political positions? I don't believe in the religion of "politics". It is a demonstrably false man-made religion and the false god of "the state" is obviously made-up.


 * LogicMaster, (what a ridiculous user name!), your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a liberal. I looked at your contributions and there is an anti-Christian tone to your postings, so clearly you're a spokesperson for the homosexual agenda. You also clearly deny that translating the Bible stops talk pollution. As I've said before, Robert Oppenheimer was the manager at Los Alamos who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Perhaps logic doesn't matter much to some, and perhaps deception doesn't bother them. But on this site logic and truthfulness carry the day. --aschlafly 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxTJnjLkbk8


 * LogicMaster (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and all you do is talk, talk, talk, so I'm confident you're obviously clueless about "modern science". Furthermore, you are in denial that pregnancy stops athiesm. It's simple logic: Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. --Aschlafly 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How did someone with such a rich academic background (Princeton. Harvard) end up so anti-intellectual and irrational?
How?Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try engineers and woo for a start and consider that the study of law is likely to encourage an approach that emphasises "winning" debates by whatever means, rather than critical, intellectual curiosity and scrutiny. See also, William Lane Craig. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But...I studied law. While it does encourage an approach that emphasises "winning", it does not encourage winning at any cost. Also, for you to say that about the subject of law makes you sound rather ignorant on the subject. Law is indeed one of the subjects that demands critical thinking, intellectual curiousity and scrutiny. Don't make such sweeping and incorrect statements about a subject. You only need to look at the several landmark legal decisions, both recent and of old, of which there isn't a shortage, to know that what you just said about the subject of law is flat-out ignorant. Ted Cruz is akin to Schlafy in beliefs, and he too has a legal background. So, too was and did Antonin Scalia. They came to the subject with their religious prejudices. Law did not inform their religious nuttery. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It of course will depend on what your motivation for studying and working with law is and who you regard as your model lawyer (or judge). My point was that neither law nor engineering need challenge those who are, to use your designation, "anti-intellectual and irrational" as these subjects can be easily studied from a sort of "craftsmanship" perspective, something you also find in the medical field. I was not claiming that either subject actually produce or promote wingnuttery, just that their "filter" for challenging such ideas is less fine because you can easily avoid even discussing these notions - if you don't want to. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)