Talk:Joseph Farah

Is it Farrah or Farah? human be in 14:36, 11 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Oops, it's Farah. I scerwed it up in the text of the article, I guess. I'll fix it. DickTurpis 14:38, 11 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Thanks, I already looked him up on WP and fixed the typos. human be in 14:46, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

If that's the same test I've seen before, I think Snopes showed it to be an urban legend.Researcher 02:00, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Link dumping for rewrite
Note to myself for later. We might want an article on the Western Journalism Center, who ran ads in Washington paper encouraging congress to investigate Clinton over Whitewater and Vince Foster's death. 04:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Farah
 * http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/joseph-farah
 * http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/outthere/otfarah.html
 * http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/joseph_farah
 * http://mediamatters.org/blog/200903310016

CP section
What? It is not about what Farah says about CP, the section is about what CP say about him and it was added only the other day by a member that has only been there a month. I will bet money it is removed the moment a sysop notices it. Is that section necessary? 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a betting man. I bet you ten cyber-beers and a goat that it will be there in a month, and possibly expanded. If you want, add a paragraph on what he wrote and then label the current CP section as their response--Thanatos 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we are one week later and it is gone. You owe me ten cyber-beers and a goat. 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather write a paragraph on some of the major nutty things he has done, not a few second one sided spat with a largely irrelevant website. 05:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TerryH has sent an email to Farrah to try and change his mind. Let's see how this goes--Thanatos 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire incident will be worth watching and writing up. If it snowballs, it'll need its own article. So I'd consider everything written on the subject a "work in progress" until we have more information - it's not worth removing it entirely. 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of this is mentioned in The Conservative Bible Project where it is appropriate. Can we moved anything that is not covered already there? 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm in saying it in both places? 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we were trying to remove unnecessary references to Conservapedia from the mainspace. 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, true, but Farah dragged himself into that cesspit. Would we remove CP refs from the Lenski affair? Sometimes, CP gets to be mocked in the mainspace. And, yes, we are moving "unecessary" references to CP ("the assfly said...") but not all of them.  02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But 60% of this is about some vandalism that was removed. I would rather a see also Farah's clash with Conservapedia. It is not like he has even responded to either Andy or Terry. It is the equivalent of adding that Richard Dawkins's mentioned Conservapedia is new book to his article, followed by all the vandalism that occurred afterwards. 02:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But I might disagree with you. For now, yes, Farah has not replied.  But it is salient to his article that he commented on CP.  It's about him not about CP.   02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Salient to the article should be his founding of the Western Journalism Center. Salient to his article should when he ran full page newspaper adds in Washington DC papers for a year, encouraging congress to investigate Clinton for Whitewater and Vince Fosters deaths - keeping alive a conspiracy theory by JAQing off. Salient to his article should be his repeat trick with WND, some billboards and Obama's birth certificate. It also needs more on the books he writes. Also it could do with a mention of how Mumma Schlalfy and him run annual far-right back scratching conferences. 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True all that, and salient to his article is his commentary on the CBTP. It's not "CP-centric" - it can quote his webshite. Feel free to add those other 5 or 6 topics, of course! 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least keep out what some vandal added about Farah? Especially seeing as he was blocked for using the expression Edstub, which means it was one of us and we are pimping our own vandalism. 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. BTW Pi, here are your cyber-beers and goat.--Thanatos 03:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you want to join The RationalWiki Silly Person's Society? 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed to keep out, which is what I meant. 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It would be stupid to popularize what one of us did. I was unaware it was done by a vandal. Really haven't been paying attention this month after the disappointment of hunting season. You will be pleased to hear that I killed nothing. Did not see a single #$@!$# buck--Thanatos 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this is true, I love Conservapedia and believe it is second only to World Net Daily. JosephF (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving on up
We recently got a link in from Encyclopedia of American Loons, when I google Joseph Farah I get RationalWiki on the first page now. Is anyone else getting that and does that make it an entry-point? -  π    08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Homeschooling?
I never said anything about homeschooling! I believe every child should receive a proper education in a public school! This article is very untrue! JosephF (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WRT the difficulty level of the 1895 test: I'm not sure, but I suspect a much smaller portion of the population received a "public" education back then. I suspect too that grade inflation and social promotion was a necessary thing when we started attempting to provide elementary education for everyone.

Islam
nope, also untrue. I never said any of that. JosephF (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)