Fun talk:Andrew Schlafly/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 March 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <3>, <2>, (new)(back)

Cover Story Nomination[edit]

Please do not archive this section

No - top quality lulz, but a flat-out ad hominem attack, and much, much too personal to Cover Story. DogP 21:22, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I broadly agree, although at times it's good ;) I suspect the banner is on this more as a joke than a serious contention (especially since no section in talk was created, as per good form). If you like, feel free to delete the template. PS, it's not ad hom to attack a person (especially with facts). Ad hom means attacking the arguer instead of the idea. humanUser talk:Human 21:40, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh I know that - its just that I think we're using every form of attack known to man.  :-) I do love the article though... DogP 21:49, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, and that is an achievement in itself! humanUser talk:Human 22:33, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
CUR added it, but it really doesn't "play well". So much has to be noincluded out that very little transcludes. And do we really want the main page to say "assfly"? I think not. I think we should "close" the nomination and remove the template. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Cover Story Nomination, Part Deux[edit]

I disagree, the serious article is already a cover story, having both is overkill, and I prefer the serious one. No offense to the writers of this one, it's good lulz, but it's something I'd expect to see on the main page of ED, not a wiki claiming to be rational. --  Nx/talk  17:34, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Difficulties with Grammar and Spelling[edit]

I propose a new article to be called (perhaps) Minglish with a longer list of Andy's grammar and typo howlers. Also a list of whenever he calls out another editor's mistakes. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

My personal favorites are when he does both at the same time - critiques his interlocutor's typos while making his own... humanUser talk:Human 12:10, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
did he really spell his name wrong in his own signature ? 17:45, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't think so... (but I wouldn't put it past him) why do you ask? Oh, you mean the image perhaps? Naw, one of us made that in a bout of deceitful liberal mockery. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:11, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Mother agrees (Andy gets degree, laid)[edit]

I told my mother about their names, and she agrees with "how could they?!" She went on about how many books they have about baby names and that naming your child shows your creativity. I immediately thought of this article when she said that. =_= Fuzzy|AFD 13:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, that is amusing... I love your reports from the front lines of reality! humanUser talk:Human 14:13, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
I am sure there is something inherently liberal about baby-name books. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 11:01, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
No, I think the lack of imagination they imply is definitely conservative. I mean, do they include names like Moon Unit in baby name books? Rational Edfaith 12:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Phy is not limited in her imagination for names. She named her computer a name that means "white orchard". I'm limited for picking middle names... my first born son shall have my first name for his middle name! =_= Fuzzy|AFD 14:04, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
"White orchard" or "white orchid"? humanUser talk:Human 14:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
The name is Avalbane, which means "White orchard". =_= Fuzzy|AFD 14:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, cool. Seems to be mildly popular among the black metal crowd, for some reason. At least nicknaming is easy - she would even have her own song... "Valley Girl"! humanUser talk:Human 15:00, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Would the choice of white orchard be because she has a white Apple Mac? Jollyfish.gifGenghisIs the Pope a Catholic? 02:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)


I "learneded" Andy's DoB. From what I heard, it's the 27th. =_= Fuzzy|AFD 08:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

OF WHAT MONTH? Sorry for shouting... humanUser talk:Human 21:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
You missed it. It was last month. I spent a total of 20 minutes with him on his b-day before he had to go somewhere for business. =_= Fuzzy|AfD 22:43, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Check out Andy's horoscope. Rational Edperception 08:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
"It suggests that you will be on top of your game this year for the most part, and positive connections with others can be made rather easily. A comfortable level of personal popularity helps to keep conflict to a minimum. With the ability to handle your emotions successfully, there will be less stress on both your mind and body. Your self-confidence and positive attitude will reward you."[1] Rational Edperception 08:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Reading farther down it gets better: "As long as you channel the excess energy constructively, instead of wasting your time arguing or getting yourself into conflicts with others, you can accomplish much." Rational Edperception 09:07, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
>_< "You will drive a car" BOOM! I'm a psychic! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 04:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
You looked up the wrong month. My original post was made in April, while the follow-up post was in May--stating that it was the 27th of the previous month. Should I change the actual article too? +_+ Fuzzy|AfD 10:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Darn! And it fit so well. Rational Edperception 10:41, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Here's April 27: "Over-inflated expectations is something to watch out for. You may overvalue something (or someone), perhaps in an attempt to dramatize your life. Venus also squares Uranus, suggesting that some disruptions in your friendships and attachments are possible this year. Unusual attractions (to people and things) can have you acting on a whim. You may deal with freedom versus closeness issues in your relationships. It may be that you experience sudden changes or breakups with a friend or lover. However, the chance of a sudden new friendship is just as likely. At the root of this is a stronger taste for the unusual." [2]
Rational Edperception 10:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Unusual attraction = This guy. Andy acts on a whim based on what he suggests.
Taste for the unusual = liberal friendship with the same person.
+_+ Fuzzy|AfD 11:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
And how does Andy reconcile this with his stated opinion that no one can have a friendship with a liberal? Rational Edperception 11:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
No no no... his opinion isn't that you can't have a friendship with a liberal, but rather that the only way to have a friendship with a liberal is to be a liberal. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 04:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Comic character Andy would like[edit]

Fairbanks from Sore Thumbs. Just read the first panel of what the what with the glasses says. Mmm... sweet parody =_= Fuzzy|AfD 20:51, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So true... humanUser talk:Human 21:36, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ah, but there is one mistake: Andy's glasses are round, not rectangular. But that's nitpicking. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I said it was a character he would like, not a character who looks like him. +_+ Fuzzy|AfD 10:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I made the same mistake RA did because the character resembles so strongly the "CP Andy". Rational Edperception 10:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
HOLY SHIT... I totally just remembered reading Sore Thumbs, that was awhile back for me, but I read that comic when it first came out. >_< God, I couldn't believe how stupid Fairbanks was then, and now it's even more hilarious that there is actually someone who holds his exact same point of view >_< --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 04:47, 21 May 2008 (EDT)




When were the nuptials? Mazel Tov!!!

None. Future should be pretty much set (hopefully) as long as I don't screw up. =-= Candlewick 20:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Just give me 7 years, and you'll see a new sysop on CP. Candlewick 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
you're assuming a lot. like that there will be a CP in seven years. Do you really think Andy is going to keep this up until the dying days of the Obama administration? By the way, you seem like a smart kid - how do you deal with the whole "no achievments that didn't come as a result of affirmative action" stuff?PFoster 13:16, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Yea, I think he will continue to keep it around. CP is like his third email address, when people can't get in contact with his *****@****.*** account, they resort to his talk page. and... I try not to think about it. =-= Candlewick 14:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Professor values?[edit]

Quote from Andrew Shlafly on the Barack Obama talk page:

"You bet wrong. Conservatives don't insist that someone was a professor when he really wasn't. As to the media relations department at the University of Chicago, reread its statement again and again until you realize that not even it said Obama "was a professor." Acting or serving "as a professor" is not the same as "being a professor."--Aschlafly 20:37, 2 May 2008"

Funnily enough, that is exactly the phrasing he uses about himself here [1] quote: "By Andrew Schlafly, Esq. Andrew Schlafly is General Counsel for AAPS. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has served as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall Law School."

ANDY'S A "PROFESSOR*"??????? You realize the implications, yes? Lyra § talk 20:17, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, let's ask the Law School, shall we? Sent to Ana L. Santos, Web Coordinator, B.S., Seton Hall University,, 973-642-8392:

Dear Ana

I write to request clarification in relation to the title “Adjunct Professor” and would be grateful if you could help?

Is it a school requirement that the holder of the title “Adjunct Professor” holds a relevant PhD? If this is the case, does the individual have to hold a PhD from Sefton Hall Law School, or would a PhD from another law school be acceptable? Is it possible for someone that does not have a PhD to be given the title of “Adjunct Professor” at Sefton Hall Law School? Is the position of “Adjunct Professor” a paid post of employment (i.e. it requires individuals to apply, be interviewed etc and attracts a salary) or is the position an honorary one, bestowed at the gift of the Law School to appropriately qualified/experienced individuals?

Thank you in advance for your help on this matter.

Yours sincerely


(Sent 22 May, 1536 hours)

Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 10:29, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

It's "Seton", not "Sefton", and even for jobs in academia that require PhDs (which do not include professorships in law or adjunct professorships, as noted below), having a PhD from same place you are employed is frowned upon not required.
In short, your letter rivals Conservapedia in cluelessness, though not in arrogance. I give you 3.5 out of a possible 5 Arks Coarb 11:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a non-starter - read what Andy wrote, he's very clear in saying that he "served as an Adjunct Professor," not that he had earned a the title of "Professor" through a peer-reviewed process. Adjunct is pretty much the bottom of the totem pole of professorships; it's a non-tenure-track position often given to part-timers. Also, not all professorships require Ph.D.s - in law school, an LLD or JD would suffice, and in many of the fine arts, an MFA is considered an terminal degree (ie, there are no Ph.d.s in painting or sculpure) and will get you a professorship. Andy's right on this, there's a difference between "being a professor" (or calling oneself a professor) and "served as an Adjunct Professor." Sorry folks...PS: Department secretaries/administrative assitants are incredibly busy women (usually women, anyways) with clueless students and more clueless profs bugging them all the time. Don't drag them into our little games... PFoster 11:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Right. I'm an adjunct professor too. I've taught a couple of freshman comp courses. My credentials (An MA) and a brief interview got me a three year 'open' contract whereby I could teach certain courses within my discipline, part-time, on a course-by-course basis. How this works is U's need to offer a gazillion 'service level' courses, general first-year gen ed courses, and it isn't feasible to have REAL profs teach them all. Therefore they hire part timers ( read glorified temp workers) to do it. Guess who else generally teaches these courses? Grad Students (under some minimal supervision of course). So Andy, on paper, is at least as qualified as a random grad student and has the teaching experience to prove it. Contrast that with the credentials of someone like Dawkins and you realize what a slimy, hypocritical, self-promoting tool Professor Andy really is. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 13:15, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Good lord. Does everyone in American universities get to call themselves professor? Charles SubLunar (mr) 08:49, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
More or less, except for the indentured servants teaching assistants and instructors. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 11:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Er . . . that's Professor Everyone to you, "CharlesSublunar." If that is even your name. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 13:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Careful. He could be a Professor CharlesSublunar, you know. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 14:06, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
So if 'professor' is such a widely used (and therefore, I assume, less prestigious title) in the US I'm even more perplexed why Andy is so fixated on disproving that Dawkins and Obama hold such titles. I'm using 'disprove' here in the sense of 'willfully ignoring', of course. I'm an emeritus mister..Charles SubLunar (mr) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I've shrunk the page. I'm 95% certain I have no idea how I did that.

Andy and the Ghost of Idiocy Past[edit]

I just found out today that apparently Andy & Roger Schlafly were, for some time, the "Dumb and Dumber" of and points east on Usenet. If you find yourself with wayyyy too much free time, take a look. (Looking at some of the posts about him, I suspect the main reason he created Conservapedia was so that he could actually WIN an argument for once.) --Gulik 03:12, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

*laugh* Do you actually think he actually wins any arguments, or do you think he just doesn't have to listen to opposition? I think it's more the later, than the former. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 04:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd say Assfly loves the chance to "win" arguments and taunt "liberals". Rational Edthink! 11:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Holy crap, I've been reading the one where "Rogandy" were attempting to discredit Gould for having grammatical errors in one sentence in one of his books. Except two of the "errors" weren't errors at all, showing Andy's stupidity and inability to read his own reference, and the other was a misplaced bit of punctuation and not a grammatical error at all. And yet, he can't possibly admit any error of any sort whatsoever. Cripes, it's like the Dawkins professor thing only way worse. --Kels 08:31, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Its hard to imagine him successfully arguing a case in court. Rational Edthink! 09:53, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't know how you work over in Murca, but he wouldn't be able to lead over here - he'd be a gopher for the real lawyer, fetching books, chasing up witnesses etc. (oh & making tea of course) SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh, didn't you know, we do everything exactly the opposite here in America. The clever lawyers make tea while the idiots argue all the cases in court. You may have noticed who we have for president... Rational Edthink! 12:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Haha, I'm loving this one:

I'd say that like Phyllis, Roger can display moments of intelligence, hopelessly eradicated by lunacy. Andy on the other hand, is a simpleton, whose idiocy is significantly enhanced by the same.

Plus ça change... --Kels 12:39, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I remember reading a whole thread teh assfly started there where he claimed Devil's Mountain was "obviously" formed during the Flood. And his only evidence and argument was that the erosion etc. on it was "obviously" due to the flood waters. He looked like a 3rd grader trying to school a bunch of university graduate students. ħψAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 13:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Seriously, I feel like I'm gaining a new appreciation for Andy's personality through reading these. At first glance, he seems almost reasonable, just in the grip of some very strange ideas, presumably from his sainted mother. But the more I read of his past exploits, the more I see that there's something fundamentally wrong with the man. He's not the parodist many people have speculated about, he actually believes the ridiculous premises he comes up with, and that his tissue-thin arguments are actually made of hardened steel. Perhaps not evil, per se, but an idiot who wishes he were powerful enough to do what he envisions.
What I'm seeing is an unstable, stubborn crank, grown in privilege in an atmosphere of extreme points of view, who managed to get into and out of college with little of his own effort involved, and promptly fell flat on his face. He's vindictive and irrational and honestly not all that bright, although he's learned to talk as if he's smarter than he actually is.
Any thoughts? Things that I'm missing? --Kels 08:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
If he hadn't his resources (money, Eagle Forum, Mummy) He'd be in a one room apartment (possibly state provided and padded for his protection) ranting at the flies around the light bub. SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) SusanG, Do you know me? In my own defense those flies are annoying AND good listeners Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 13:02, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm cross[edit]

Today Aschlafly personally reverted an edit my little sockie made in Conservapedia. So I've decided to ask here if he's following the teaching of Jesus and selling his posessions. I've got a feeling he won't. Proxima Centauri 16:39, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Googly Goodness[edit]

This page is the #2 hit for "Andrew Schlafly" returned by Google. No prizes for guessing #1...Antifly 19:03, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Educator, and our potential[edit]

A thought has come into my head after seeing Schlafly demonstrate his total incompetence as a potential teacher. We are the number 2 hit for google on this guy. In this day and age, the chances that someone thinking about sending their kids into this mans care have a high chance of sticking his name in google. At the moment this article reveals nothing. I want to place something prominent near the top of the article, a warning to parents and potential students, and have it be serious not snark. The rest of the article can stand fine. But I think it might be a good thing to do. tmtoulouse nettle 22:01, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm yes, I agree. We have to make serious and un-libel also. Ace McWickedInteresting 22:04, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
De-lulz the whole thing? A bold move, but I agree. Anything we can do to protect people from this Andy's dangerous "education" is a plus in my book. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:14, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't want to fuck with this article too much actually, there is too much history here. What I was thinking is we should but a large template in a prominent place that says basically this article is a work of satire, if you are someone that is seriously thinking about allowing this man to molest your child's mind then go to <wherever>. Then we can write a serious piece there addressing why someone, regardless of political leanings and religious philosophy should avoid this man as a teacher. tmtoulouse nettle 22:16, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

The article is good, major lulz. Perhaps a link to a serious page? Hmmm. At any rate I might leaflet my neighbourhood much like you might do if a sex offender lived nearby. Ace McWickedInteresting 22:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I like the idea of a clear disambig box telling people where a "straight" article is. Put the "serious" one in the CP namespace? Make it (main) "Andrew Schlafly (no jokes)"? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Trent mocked up a potential header (no need for it to be a template, just put in article?) here. I approve of this message. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:47, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
That's an excellent plan. I think it's a great idea to have a 'proper' article on the man for anyone who wishes to find out about him. Next, implementation! DogP 22:18, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I stubbed it up, at the now-linked title I suggested above. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:32, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Adultress story[edit]

Interesting little cartoon SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:00, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Photos of Andy[edit]

Why does his head always tilt to his left? Maybe it's the hair. Sterilesnore! 17:16, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Should the gallery be moved (or copied) to another page to give the pics more room? The thumbnails don't really to justice to ones like the Eyes picture or Magic teh Gathering. + I've just added another pic & again it doesn't really come out at this size. weaseLOIdbite me 07:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, they look fine to me - and to see any given pic full-size one just clicks on it. Most of them aren't that large in the original form anyway... PS, nice work on the new pic! ħumanUser talk:Human 15:01, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! & Fair enough, I guess they look fine. I really like the teeth-for-eyes one though. Maybe it should go somewhere more visible in another article (e.g. homeschooling?) . . . weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpgbite me 15:04, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Move proposal[edit]

I think that the main "Andrew Schlafly" article should be moved to the "Fun:" namespace, while the "non-satirical" entry be used as the main one. Anyone agree? I've been surfing this site for several months now and just wanted to join the fun! --AP 01:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

The only problem with that is there are a lot of redirects to this version and they tend to be humorous redirects. Its not a bad idea, we are just lazy. \approx\pi 01:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Welcome to the site! Thanks for joining up and chiming in. This has been debated several times, and the general consensus seems against such a move. This article is very "rw" while the other article, not so much, thought it has its distinct use. The template up top seems adequate warning and explanation. This is also the article that gave us our 2nd rank on google, such a drastic change would probably cost us our position. Lastly, google andrew schalfly and read what the description says, it is as perfect as one would want. tmtoulouse nettle 01:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


Google is now returning us as #1 link for Andrew Schlafly based on my search results, but I am in 1)Canada and 2) have a history of going to RW sites from google so that might skew the results. What are other seeing? tmtoulouse nettle 15:25, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm seeing it at #1 too (from the UK). weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 15:28, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Now, where is Ken? tmtoulouse nettle 15:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, I'm getting it #2 behind CP (in America). ThunderkatzHo! 15:38, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Makes sense, CP is likely to have a larger PR for the US based searches. Thats why I asked. Thanks. tmtoulouse nettle 15:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
#2 behind CP, #3 is Lenski affair, #4 is WP on CP. And I rarely use google to find things on RW. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:19, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
#3 behind #1 CP and #2 WP's CP article. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure how reliable it might be, but on a proxy IP I got:
  1. RationalWiki
  2. Conservapedia
  3. Wikipedia
  4. John Swift
  5. (*crosses self*)
I hope that helps. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>I kill spider 17:51, 25 August 2008 (EDT)--JJ4eI love ponies, I hate phonies 21:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent, thought you don't need me to tell you that):
#1 - CP's article on him;
#2 - RW's article on him (with the Lenski affair article adjacent);
#3 - WP's article on CP;
#4 - The Semmelweis Society (;
#5 - Jon Swift's blog (
NightFlarei haz a talk page. 18:05, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I get RW as #5, after two each on CP and WP searching for Andrew. For Andy we slip to 12th -CЯacke® 14:52, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
  • from this side of the puddle I get:
FIREFOX: RW as no. 1 (and Lenski affair as 1a), WP as no.2 and CP as no.3 in google search, but 1st WP, 2nd RW, 3rd Liberapedia, 4th Uncyclopedia and CP 5th with Yahoo search. INTERNET EXPLORER: 1st CP (user:Aschlafly as 1a), 2nd WP (Phyllis as 2a), Liberapedia 3rd and Sourcewatch 4th. We place sixth behind nndb (non-notable database?). That's with MSN search. Google does RW, CP and WP, with Jon Swift 4th. yahoo search has WP 1st, then us, then Liberapedia. CP makes fifth behind uncyclopedia. And I have far too much spare time. So the overall winner of the UK leg is Wikipedia, then RationalWiki just behind, then CP a fair bit further behind, and others trailing. (football chant alert (to tune of "bread of heaven") Are you watching, Are you watching, Are you watching Aschlaflyyyy, are you watching aschlaflyyyyy?Totnesmartin 15:26, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Today, no. 1 for me. Yeah! --JJ4eI love ponies, I hate phonies 21:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly as ABunker?[edit]

While his highness purports to be a serious incarnation of his brand of conservatism there are some who consider him to be a parody of himself thus mimicking the boobery of America's "lovable bigot" Archie Bunker. Both seem to be angry with the current situation they find themselves in during the times in which they live. Both are relatively powerless to actually do anything about this beyond grip to their "families".
Discuss: CЯacke® 15:00, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you should gradually register the entire Bunker family on CP and flesh them out. And then there's Maude... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:12, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly on LSD[edit]

Just a small note that when the article talks about Andy's revelation that led him to young earth creationism, the reference to LSD/acid might be dropped. This is for no other reason than it is hard for me to imagine that Andy Aschlafly could have taken acid - he surely couldn't be so narrow minded and unaccpeting of other people's opinions. Not to mention his lack of love or understanding for other cultures or beliefs. Just a thought. Entheogenicorder 13:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)

My goodness, thank you![edit]

After months of observing the glorious pinnacle of human intellect that is Conservapedia (an endless well of humour/sadness), I come across your explanations of Andy and his incredible rhetorical abilities. These articles capture him and his ilk oh so well, while horrifying me more. I didn't think my opinion of him could be lower. Then I read about the Lenski affair. Then I linked to the summary of his... "trials" with mathematics. And then, the piece de resistance (don't tell him I didn't use English), Liberalism causes Mental Illness. Words... simply cannot express. I dare say, this man may be a brilliant comic savant, playing us all for chumps.

Publius 22:21, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed our little articles. As far as whether Andy is "intentional" and on what level, well, we're laughing, so who's dem chumpz? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:52, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

List of past students...[edit]

Does anyone know where the CP list of where Andy's ex students went to college is? I tried a few searches, but I can't find it anymore. Candlewick 09:45, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I know he used to have a list on his CP user page listing where some of his students ended up for college, but I don't think WE ever had a list of his students--or that he would be foolish enough to post the names/contact information of a bunch of minors on line....doing a little stalking today, K?PFoster 09:48, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Not today. My "lurking" days are Thursday → Sunday. Candlewick 09:49, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
HERE it is...PFoster 09:54, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
In a sense, the early days of the user creation log would be a list of the homeschoolers from late '06. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:03, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Nevermind, that log seems to only go back to 3/21/2007 for some reason. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Cocoa edit[edit]

At the rate this section is growing, I think it might need to become a sub-article? Especially if we dig back into the past... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:08, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking that as it grew it could become an external template with a choose option. Also we may need to do a similar thing with the Sunday sermon. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
That sounds good, too! (With an "edit" link going to it?) Let's do it! Ditto the new "articles" he makes on Sunday afternoons... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:47, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This article[edit]

For one thing, it's very very long. Also, it's a very mixed bag. Obviously, it's already the snarky counterpart to a more serious article, but currently it's a mixture of fairly accurate observations presented in a snarky/satirical way, with other sections of Uncyclopedia-style nonsense (e.g. why Andy is a Muslim). For now I've grouped these to the bottom of the article, below the gallery, as they were interrupting the more realistic sections, but I think they should probably be split off into a separate article in Funspace. As this is the top Google item for Andrew Schlafly, I reckon it should be a bit more consistent, although obviously still humerous. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 09:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I would support moving the outright fiction to a fun: article, with a strong link (We have an even sillier article on Schlafly at...) at the top. Let a few more people chime in here first, though? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:46, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Human. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:50, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
What would we do with the gallery? Technically, it should belong with the fun stuff, but it might be shame to move it from here. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:06, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Move this to CP or fun space. Move no jokes article here--top google hit goes to a first-rate well-sourced exposé of Schlafly. PFoster 12:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I think the gallery should stay here, by the way - some may be a bit silly, but they are like editorial cartoons. Just move the obviously fictional stuff to the fun article. No agreement on moving "NJ" here yet, and I vote against that. There is a danger of the google ranking changing if the article radically changes? Also, I think most people looking into Schlafly are looking for snark of this sort, not wondering whether to have him teach their children. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:36, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict)I've done the split, although it could probably do with a bit of extra work. I've left the gallery here, but I think I'll put it in the Funspace article too. I agree with not moving the whole of this to Fun. Three separate articles kinda seems excessive, but ultimately we do have three main approaches to writing about Schlafly: serious, snarky & just plain silly, so it's good to reflect that with the three articles. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 09:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Wealseloid, what are you doing?[edit]

Are we seriously going to have three separate articles on andy? (This one, the Fun one you're creating and the no jokes one) PFoster 09:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes. See the discussion above. There's been no further comment in the last week so I've gone ahead with the split. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 09:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it a bit.PFoster 10:00, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Why don't we have two, but make the snarkastic one the funspace article? I don't know why we'd have a funspace, otherwise... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:46, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Primarily because this article is a site entry point (via Google search) & is marked high priority; nothing in funspace is high priority. This article contains a lot of factual stuff about the Schlafster (new unpronounceable nickname) in a mocking way, along with a few satirical images etc.; in short, the kind of stuff we have in mainspace articles. I would object to all of this being moved to funspace, as it has a lot of good examples of Schlafly's terrible record at CP which aren't recorded in the more biographical no-jokes articles. On the other hand, the funspace article contains frivolous non-factual satire (e.g. why Schlafly is a Muslim, long list of non-factual trivia); in short, the kind of stuff we put in funspace. Keeping that stuff in this entry-point article was making RationalWiki look like an Uncyclopedia-style operation, whereas deleting it would be a bit harsh to the users who contributed it. Hence, after proposing it for discussion, I have split those parts off into a funspace article. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:46, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
When I first noticed this I was in favour of having the (no jokes) article moved to replace the mainspace one but I've since come around to the idea of three of them. We need an RW article, some of the stuff that was previously here was very close to Uncyclopedia or even more inane in places. We also need the (no jokes) article for the reasons stated that we need it. So an additional fun-space one where we can let it off the lead a little will also be good. Then we have Serious, Satire and Stupid articles on him (it's all very Goldilocks, but it can't be helped). As has already been said, this page is a RW entry point, it needs to be good. ArmondikoVd hominem 12:54, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree it's ok; however, why not just use the "fun" template to link to the funspace article? And leave it out of see also... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:33, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm also torn about moving the gallery over to fun. Perhaps it should be carefully split in two? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Currently the same gallery is in both this & the fun article. Which means next time pictures are added, they'll be in one & not the other. So maybe it should either be in one article only, or be split as you suggest, so they have two different galleries. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 15:41, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Or you can transclude the gallery so that both instances update :P ArmondikoVd hominem 15:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Done that, the transclusion that is. Terra 16:49, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Epic Phail[edit]

I tried fixing out the <center> next to the cartoon, and though it didn't show in preview, it still... showed up. It's beyond me. :S NorsemanWassail! 12:10, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I fixed that, it probably moved the borken to somewhere else, though. Do we have an unclosed tag somewhere in this? What's that "clear" thing for in the first section? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:09, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

IgNobel Prizes[edit]

Teh 2008 IgNobel winners have been announced [2]. Schlafly lost. --JJ4eI love ponies, I hate phonies 13:38, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Unsuprising, the IgNobels still go to people doing real (just improbable or bizarre) research. Schlafly wouldn't even be considered. ArmondikoVd hominem 13:42, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm a little jealous of the Economics Prize winners. Their research must've been grueling! Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 13:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Three separate articles...[edit]

I understand--and totally supported--the idea of two Andy articles, one satirical, and one a serious critique designed to show potential homeschoolers what they were dealing with. Now we have a silly one, a sillier one in the Fun space, and a serious one. Why? Is it clear what goes in which silly one? Why are there things that appear in both satirical articles? Can we go back to a two-article paradigm, or have some sort of clarity as to why we need two satirical articles and what goes where?PFoster 16:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

See discussion further up. If you look at the articles you'll see what's different about them. The stuff in this article is largely factual & biographical & has lots of examples of Schlafly's edits at CP, but presented in a satirical style, as distinct from the entirely serious one. The stuff in the Funspace article is just nonsense, more in the style of Uncyclopedia, & was bringing this article down, which is a high priority article because of its Google rank. Personally I wouldn't give a damn if the stuff in the Fun article was deleted, but presumably the people who contributed it the would. That's why we have a Funspace: we can put the stuff there that's indulgent & off-mission. Currently the gallery is in both, because it technically belongs with the Fun article in terms of content, but has been an attraction of this article for a long time. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 17:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


I must object most strongly to the gross misrepresentation in one of the Gallery pictures. The one captioned "Joaquín Martínez sketches a portrait of his master" is a blatant mockery of Snr. Martínez as every one knows he would have obtained the image from elsewhere and claimed it as Fair Use.  Lily Ta, wack! 04:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

People who pretend Andy is smaht[edit]

Is there really anything in this section that isn't elsewhere? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I feel so honored![edit]

At the top of the page, the quote from Andypants "See if you can learn out to spell superior" was from a direct exchange between glorious leader and myself, though it's been removed from the history there I think. Still though... YAY! Jros83 18:55, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Just need to vent some anger[edit]

ANDREW SCHLAFLY IS A FUCKING DICK. There. Sorry to be so unconstructive, but I needed somewhere to do this to stop myself stabbing furniture. Please don't hate me, I won't do it again. 07:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

No trouble, that is one reason why we are here. To save the furniture. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 29 January 2009 (EST)

School Alumni Assoc[edit]

I wanna put something in about this but not sure how. A person of colour [Iggy Yuan!] is president of the Alumni Association. Shades of Barack! Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 01:07, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Mull it over, I'm sure you will come up with some high-quality snark to put under "childhood" or whatever. Schlafly pwned by yet another toasty-skinned gentleman? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly (satire) switched with Andrew Schlafly (no jokes)[edit]

I thought we did enough agreeing on that it would be better if the main article on Andy was the serious one, so I just went and switched the two articles, hoping I didn't mess anything up. I didn't switch the talk pages, so all you see above this section used to be on the other talk page, just so you know. --GTac 15:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Could you link to this discussion? Harmonic evil Hoover! 15:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Link: 15:12, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I think it's good that it was finally done. Reality 15:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)
You shouldn't have copypasted the content of the article, as that breaks page history. I undid what you did and moved them properly. Now for some link-fixing -- Nx talk 15:25, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Sorry, I thought this way the google ranking wouldve been preserved. Thanks for fixing it! --GTac 15:30, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I don't know much about google rankings, although all links to Andrew Schlafly still work, so it shouldn't be a problem -- Nx talk 15:39, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Nobody even tallied the "votes" in that discussion, I think this move was premature... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:09, 30 January 2009 (EST)
And by the way, technically all the AS links are broken, since they don't point at the article they were intended to when they were added. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)
It's such a major article for RW that here really should have been more discussion or a vote before moving it. Not for the first time editors have taken it upon themselves to make major unilateral changes without letting enough time elapse for consultation. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:20, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Addendum -

After further debate, the page switch was agreed, and the more serious article became the primary article, with this one moving to the Fun: space DogP 15:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Punchy lede[edit]

Can we get a punchy lede sentence for this? Open with his name and provide a one sentence summary of who/what he is before we get into the biographical stuff? 15:17, 30 January 2009 (EST)

You know, Trent, since we don't set this wiki in lead type, we can spell "lede" lead... ;) By the way, before someone simply decided we had "agreed" on swapping the pages and did it, I had mentioned that I planned to read all the way through both articles, to at least try to tighten this one up. I guess "improving" the lead would fall under that effort... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Now that it's not the default[edit]

Do we even need the article at all? Fun's fun, but most of the article is venting and character assassination, and to me it doesn't really fit that well with the rest. If we do keep it, maybe move it in with the Conservapedia/Sysops section? --Kels 15:37, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a bit inclined to agree, while wholeheartedly agreeing that I contributed this this general crapitude as much as any. It just seems...redundant. The serious article is in every way a lot more damning of the man. But now that its here in Funspace, it can just live here and be abused, I s'pose? DogP 15:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)
That's true. And pretty much anything that links to Andy goes to the serious article anyhow, which is more of a refutation of the man and his methods. Leaving it in Fun sounds good, in that case. --Kels 15:41, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Is there at least a see also at andrew Schlafly pointing to this? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:27, 1 February 2009 (EST)
No, and I don't think there should be. Imagine you're a conservative parent reading that article, and having read to the bottom you go "Hmm, I wonder what's at this See Also link?" Reading the five-year-old's humour here would immediately make you dismiss what you'd just read. Yes, that might happen if you read any other page on the site too, but at least we're not linking there from that article. I think it's just an article that stands best alone. DogP 17:31, 1 February 2009 (EST)
There's already a fun:Andrew Schlafly article, containing the stuff that wasn't factual enough to keep in this one. Most of this is actually true, just snarky, so deserves to stay somewhere in mainspace/conservapediaspace, IMO. If we're really kicking it to fun, we need to work through it, remerge it with the existing fun article, & extract the useful content from it to put back into the main AS article or elsewhere. We should probably also relax the no-snark rule on the other one a little bit if it's going to be the only mainspace article about the guy. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that last bit Weaseloid. The whole point is that that article is NOT for the average RW reader - it's for conservatives who might be searching out information on the man as an educator. Snark will utterly destroy any credibility that article might have to such a reader. I'm down for helping with the merge of the two funspace articles though. But I think such extreme snark should stay in funspace. DogP 17:39, 1 February 2009 (EST)
This argument gets repeated a lot. Do we have any evidence that parents use this site to research about his homeschooling courses? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)
No, we absolutely do not. But right now, Googling the terms <"andrew schlafly" teacher> returns this article in the #1 position - for me anyway. Obviously other's results will be different. But that's EXACTLY where I believe this article should be. Someone needs to provide this info, and we're perfectly placed to be the provider of that information. DogP 18:31, 1 February 2009 (EST)
E effin' C) We're #2 (after WP & R4) on Gooogle here so, probably, yes. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 18:30, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I totally agree with Doggy, there. This one is more suited to fun as it is, and serious one more suited to mainspace. There's snark, and there's juvenile character assassination, and while this one doesn't cross the line, that third one that got referenced before certainly does/did. That one, I'd suggest deleting and transferring all its content to Uncyclopedia or ED instead, it's more that sort of humour. --Kels 18:28, 1 February 2009 (EST)
I agree with you on that. However, we now have a situation where we have one mainspace article on AS which, as DogP says, isn't aimed at regular RW readers & where humour isn't allowed, & one in fun where probably nobody is going to pay it much attention. That doesn't leave anywhere for the regular RW reader/writer. My suggestion is that we discard the worst bits of this, tidy it up a bit & put it in Conservapedia space instead of fun. It's no worse than most of the stuff in CP space & it would then show up on searches. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 1 February 2009 (EST)
That seems entirely reasonable. I do hope we can make it less of a pure ad hominem attack in the process. It's pretty childish at present. DogP 18:39, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Move to Conservapedia space?[edit]

I've started on a clean-up, but only done the biographical stuff so far. It's taking a long time & I haven't managed to cut much out yet, as it covers the biog details in more depth than the serious article. I suggest moving this to "Conservapedia:Sysops/Aschlafly", although it might involve further rejigging so that the CP-related stuff is higher on the page than the biography. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I dunno, maybe. But if it goes there it should be at Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly, not in a subpage. Also, note that as we move this thing around, the search spiders don't find it for a while. In a sense we are hiding it. I still think this should be in the mainspace, actually. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)
And the red link you made above should redirect to it. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:47, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Redlink removed. I don't want to keep moving this, but basically it shouldn't've been kicked to fun space. It contains a lot of info about his career etc. which still isn't in the mainspace article. Either we add all that (without the snark) to the other one, or move this out to CP space or somewhere else in main. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:54, 4 February 2009 (EST)
It should have stayed in main, yes, at Andrew Schlafly (satire). It was there briefly after the first move, but then it got shunted out to here. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Personally, I've seen the Fun namespace articles as either unrelated to our mission or simply an amusement that doesn't have substantially factual content behind it (though I'm prepared to be rained by counterexamples), on the other hand I've seen the satirical version of the Andy article as the archetypical RW article; a comprehensive fountain of information sunk in a sea of snark. Now, you could say the article's fact-to-snark ratio isn't the most adecuate for our purposes, but my point is: This article deserves better than the Fun namespace. NightFlare 21:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
OK, so mainspace or Conservapedia space? I reckon CP space since it makes sense to have an AS article each in main & cp, & it wouldn't need any "(satire)" in the title. Admittedly the article isn't all about his activities at CP, but CP is the main reason we're writing about him. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I think too that Conservapedia space fits the article more, after all, even the biographical information about him is filled with CP-related humour. The same could be say about the other sysop pages though. NightFlare 10:45, 5 February 2009 (EST)

So some fool just ignored this discussion & moved the article from one funspace location to another, left this talk page hanging where it was against a redirect, with the old talk page from the deleted "fun:Andrew Schlafly" article lined up against this article. Aaaargh! Rather than take everything back where it was, I've just moved this to Conservapedia space instead, as discussed above. If anyone feels strongly that this should be in mainspace or back in funspace or somewhere else, speak now. Otherwise, please help mend the relevant links & redirects to here. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:23, 5 February 2009 (EST)

DO NOT MOVE THIS AGAIN WITHOUT DISCUSSING OR AT LEAST PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING! When you move this article to "fun:Andrew Schlafly", this talk page stays where it is, & this talk page (which is from an old deleted article) appears next to this article. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I concur with the DO NOT FUCKING MOVE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE REALLY WORKED OUT WHERE IT BELONGS!!! Let's let it sit where it is until we figure this out. First, I think we need to explore the ramifications of what various namespace locations have. IE, one is that articles in the main space are the only ones that come up as random pages.
A good point. At least CP space comes up on searches (in default options). I've no onjections to it going to mainspace instead, as long as it doesn't end up back in fun, & as long as the move is handled properly, with all the double redirects etc. sorted out. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Oh God, the redirect, there are hundreds ::cries::. Rdbot save me. - User \pi 20:30, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I strongly believe this belongs at Andrew Schlafly (parody) or Andrew Schlafly (satire) (I prefer parody), but I really want to see careful discussion and a strong consensus before this is ever moved again. For now, we still have to clean up the clutter from this wheel war. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I don't like "parody"; it implies that it's a parody of him, rather than a snarky article about him. "Satire" might be OK, as before. At the moment, everything that should link here does, via redirects. I fixed all the double redirects. If we are going to move it again, we should do that first & then fix the links properly, rather than having to change them all twice. My suggestion is that, once we decide for sure where to keep this, we go through all the links & link to this article from any CP-related content about AS, & link to the no-jokes article from any non-CP content which happens to mention AS. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
OK, I see your point about "parody". Is "satire " really correct? Guess I need to look it up ;) Any better ideas? And you're right about fixing the AS links, many of them are intended for this article, not the "no jokes" version. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Would it be appropriate for this to be made a subpage of the main Andrew Schlafly article, or would that just further remove it from searches & random pages? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:05, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps "mockery" or "lampoon" might be more truthful suffixes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 15:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)

If there's no further comment in the next couple of days, I'm gonna assume that this is the page's new home, & start altering the old links accordingly. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:40, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Nooooooo, please move to AS (satire) first! This really belongs in the main space, I think. It has been there for almost two years, and the only reason it got pushed around was due to the renaming of the "no jokes" article. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:41, 7 February 2009 (EST)
OK, mainspace is fine by me; I just wanted to get the discussion moved along so we can move it & get everything straightened out. I'm not wildly keen on having brackets in the title if there's any way around it. As I asked above, would making this a subpage be a viable solution? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:57, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Couldn't agree more Weaseloid. It's impossible to search for, understand, or give any credence to an article with parentheses. But wait - what IS the proposal - to move this AGAIN to mainspace (fine by me) - but if so, how are we to differentiate it from the new main article? I think the subpage isn't a bad idea, but again, how would it be named? Good Lord this is messy and convoluted. DogP 21:17, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Dog, you bring up an interesting problem. Perhaps we should call it "Aschlafly"? Nah. Perhaps (I think) we should never moved them? I'm gonna dwell on this issue (the parentheses, do they matter?) and I hope other, smerter brains will as well, and report back. Subpage is a non-starter, does not come up in "random". ħumanUser talk:Human 23:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)
We can change one of them to "Andrew L. Schlafly", or even "Andrew Layton Schlafly" (like the "Barack Hussein Obama" article at CP). Then we just need the banners at the top of both of them (which we already have) to make it clear which is the serious one & which is snarky. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:27, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I like the Andrew Layton Schlafly idea. (or "L.") ħumanUser talk:Human 11:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Look, I know the recent moves I proposed have been a bit controversial with a few of you. So, here's an alternative suggestion. What about if we renamed the serious article 'Andrew Schlafly's Homeschool Program', 'Andrew Schalfly's School', 'Andrew Schlafly, Teacher', or something similar? My insistence that the article be sober and serious did not necessarily require that it be the MAIN article on the man. Wanna talk about that option? DogP 12:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
A google search for andrew schlafly, teacher still puts us top of the google hit parade (probably important if we're aiming to have this article as a public service) - Metapedia (yuk) are second and CP is... nowhere. andrew schlafly homeschool is closer to andrew schlafly, results wise. Totnesmartin 12:48, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I like 'Andrew Schlafly, teacher' for the serious one... would that mean that the snarkfest would go back to being 'Andrew Schlafly'? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:56, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Interesingly, I dreamt about this last night. Changing the snarky article something along the lines of Andrew LAYTON Schlafly would make it main page while making it snarkier (and there are plenty of Hollywood values among Laytons) and the serious article would get the lion's share of google hits, so I'd agree with this change. However, if we're going to change the serious article's name, we must consider the fact it contains biographical information about him, so the name should refer to the person ("Andrew Schlafly, teacher") or point out how that information could translate to his homeschooling programs or whatever we're naming the article after. NightFlare 14:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Article just got moved again, from one CP location to another; pointless. I've put it back where it was. Currently every link to this article runs via a redirect, so as soon as you move the article, none of the links work. Unless you at least change the redirects (there are about six of them) & ultimately sort out all the rest of the links. Let's do that after we've decided for sure where we're putting it. Personally, I support it being in mainspace, as "Andrew Layton Schlafly", but not the shouty LAYTON version. But please don't move it again just yet. Wait for some people's agreement. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Why don't we ask an expert about this? KEN! can you help us out on our SEO for Andy Schlafly? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:04, 8 February 2009 (EST)
OK, it looks like we are getting closer to a good idea. Andrew Layton Schlafly in the mainspace sounds like a good idea, let's see if we can really agree on it though. And then we can all knuckle down and fix the link&redirect-fest. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Sounds good to me. My suggestion for the links is that we go through all of them (for both Andrew Schlafly articles) - any links from a mainspace article that happens to mention this guy in a largely serious context should link to "Andrew Schlafly" (the serious article); - any links in a Conservapediaspace or funspace article or in a flippant context should like to "Aschlafly", which should be a redirect to "Andrew Layton Schlafly" (this article). The reason for doing it around a redirect is that "Aschlafly" is much quicker to write as a link, & if we ever decide to move this again, we'd only have to reroute that one redirect & not change all the links again. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)

<-- I like that idea of using a redirect constructively. In addition to being (slightly) easier to type, in those contexts he is often referred to as "Aschlafly". ħumanUser talk:Human 14:07, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I've moved it now. Before moving, I did make a start on redirecting to "Aschlafly" as above, but meanwhile RA rerouted all links to the "Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly" page (now a redirect to "Andrew Layton Schlafly" since I moved the page) so it doesn't seem necessary any more. The only thing that's left to sort out is that there are still a lot of links from Conservapedia space to the serious "Andrew schlafly" article, which should really be to this one (if we're using the rule of thumb that links from fun or cp space go to this one, & links from mainspace to the other). I've started rerouting some of them, but there's still a lot left. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 19 February 2009 (EST)


Because everyone's middle name is SPELT WITH CAPITALS, INNIT! (sorry, went all London there for a sec) Totnesmartin 15:25, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, just like Barack HUSSEIN Obama. --"CURtalk 15:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)
And ConservapediaUNDERGROUNDresistor! :D Totnesmartin 15:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Ha-ha. That's not my real name. --"CURtalk 15:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)
And hUMAn! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:38, 8 February 2009 (EST)
And jaVASCap! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ secret trainer of lockpicks!
And Dick FUCKING Turpis. DickTurpis 16:53, 22 March 2009 (EDT)