Talk:Andrew Schlafly/Archive1

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Going a bit too far? He may well have OCD or some other personality disorder or mental health problem, but I don't think it's our place to diagnose it. It's been discussed sometimes on WIGO talk, but I don't think it belongs here in the serious article about Schlafly. Better to be specific about things we can observe about his behaviour & let the reader draw their own conclusions. Also its inclusion here implies it's a reason to avoid him, which is kindofa judgemental attitude to mental health problems. Unless there are strong objections, I'll take it down again in the next few days. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:30, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I'd remove it now, or at least modify it vastly. Didn't want to say anything earlier because it might seem to be picking on PC. Toast 09:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, I think it goes much too far - it's opinion, not fact, and it's absolutely impossible for us to diagnose it. For all we know, he's a nice pleasant family man who's very relaxed around the house with family and friends. Really. Here's the section, for editing if anyone wants to have a crack at seeing if some of it's usable. ^{— Unsigned, by: Doggedpersistence / talk / contribs}

If it belongs anywhere, it should probably be the default Andrew Schlafly article. This one is supposed to be just the facts. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I suggest removing the last reference to OCPD, as well as pointing out that the section refers only to observations made only on Conservapedia. I think the current tone is alright, just needs a good choice of words. NightFlare 15:15, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I disagree with removing this entirely, his personality at Conservapedia is not an insignificant thing and somebody who wants to obtain information about the guy would likely want to know about his attitude on his own site. The information contained in the section is not much less subjective than what you could find in other sections like "inflated sense of expertise" for instance (we could use more references or examples though). NightFlare 15:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, and remove the block quotes of course. NightFlare 15:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Perhaps so, but I would question what relevance this has to the article? I know I had at least two or three very OC teachers in my student days, and to be honest some of them were amongst the best teachers I had. They were kind and diligent, but VERY detail oriented and obsessive about formatting or order of thoughts, but I think they were great teachers and I think the things I learned from them were very valid. So my point is - so what if Andy is OCPD? Is that, in itself, any kind of problem in a teacher at all? DogP 21:03, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Personality and behaviour

(Cut from text)

Schlafly's ways of thinking and behaviour is reminiscent of somebody suffering from Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

They may (...) be anxious about delegating tasks for fear that they won't be completed correctly. They may even insist on taking over a task someone else is doing so that it will be done properly. About one in four OCPD individuals may display rigid and stubborn characteristics, a defining criterion.

He knows he cannot write Conservapedia by himself. Despite this he frequently insists other editors are wrong and only he is right. He reverts the edits of other users, rewrites their work and insists that only he knows what is correct. He is also rigid and stubborn, and refuses to change even when other Christian Conservatives try and tell him that he is wrong.

There are few moral 'grey' areas for a person with fully developed OCPD; actions and beliefs are either completely right, or absolutely wrong with the OCPD individual always 'in the right'. As might be expected, interpersonal relationships are difficult because of the excessive demands placed on friends, romantic partners and children. Sometimes frustration with other people not doing what the OCPD individual wants spills over into anger (...). This is known as disinhibition

There are few moral grey areas for Schlafly. Christians who are also political conservatives are absolutely right provided they agree with him entirely. Those who disagree with right wing Christian conservatism are absolutely wrong and morally unacceptable. He shows his anger by blocking many who disagree with him over even a few issues.

The previous paragraph was obviously written by our friend PC. ħuman 22:51, 10 January 2009 (EST)

(Who herself appears to suffer(?) from some form of OCPD) fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 22:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Probably, maybe, but can we try to to be nice about it? It's her writing style. Let's not psychoanalyze her. ħuman 00:25, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, I thought that as soon as I'd pressed save. I like her, actually, it's refreshing to find someone unafraid to state their beliefs etc so openly. fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 00:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

By saying "this guy we don't like has OCPD, and this is yet another reason you shouldn't like him" we further add to the already huge stigma suffered by those with mental health issues. This stigma is a huge barrier to effective treatment. I think we should completely remove any armchair psychiatry. If we've run out of arguments to the point that we have to speculate on the man's mental status, the article is pretty well complete. Corry^{Those are balls.} 00:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Well said Corry. DogP 20:11, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't this be the "main" article on Schlafly?

I've read this article with great interest after being incensed by the so-called "Trustworthy" Conservapedia entry on Obama. I encountered it after reading the rationalwiki "comparison of Schlafly with Obama" page, and then going through the Schlafly link from there. To get here, though, I had to go via a satirical page which certainly announced itself as such with an information box, but I find it odd that Schlafly's main page should be that, and this one an alternative "no jokes" version. As somebody who's new to rationalwiki can I suggest that this page be the main one, with the satirical one changed to "Andrew Schlafly (satirical version)". Just an idea and I make the suggestion because I think this page is far more interesting (and by its unembellished truth, more cutting) than the satirical version. Given the purpose of this page given below (to not alienate "conservative, Christian parents who might be considering paying him to teach their kids") it seems like this would be a sensible move. All round, great work though - I approve wholeheartedly! 87.84.248.99 11:48, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I support this proposal. I once laughed at Rush Limbaugh, then realised only too late the very real threat he posed. Andy's ludicrous claims to be a reliable teacher need to be widely and properly discussed, and I think it would be much, much better if this were the primary article on Andrew Schalfly. DogP 18:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Apparently moving the current Andrew Schlafly article to another location would cause us to lose our Google ranking as the top search item for his name, which is one of RW's main entry points. See this discussion above. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:39, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Although, if that is the main obstacle, copying & pasting this text to that article would save it having to be moved; & the text there could be pasted to another location. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:44, 28 January 2009 (EST)

This article is now getting a good google index as well. I am more inclined than I have been in the past to support this change. 216.221.87.112 23:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)

One reason I might oppose it is that there may be confusion with newcomers entering snark into the serious article before they read the alert that it is supposed to be snark-free. Having this article marked very prominently with (no jokes) drives that point home quickly. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:07, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I as always, support the status quo on these two article's locations. The "main" one is "our" take on Schafly, snark, humor, mockery, and all. This article is a subsidiary, ancilliary appendage, just in case potential homskollar parents google the idiot and want to know more. And when I google the twerp, I get our main article as number one, and this one as a "sub result" before anything else. Don't break what works. ħuman 00:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

The direction Snark → Serious is pretty clear, don't think it's a problem.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 00:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I still support the move. Understanding that everyone's Google results are different, if I search for <"andrew schlafly" teacher>, the top result returned is the snarky article, with this article coming in #2 position. Googling <"andrew schlafly" school> returns the CP article first, the snarky RW article about fifth, and this article not even on page 1 of the search results. If those are the same result for everyone, that's a problem, as the only people likely to use such search terms are looking for hard info about the man, not snark. I think we've gone overboard in the snarky article - it's just a longwinded series of what each contributor thought was funny at the time (and I'm as guilty as the next in that), and as such it's not a cohesive, intelligent, or sensible article. It seems to me that all the long-winded diatribes going on about the ridiculous 'Community Standards' would strongly suggest that the realignment of this article as our main entry portal is the right thing to do - if the snarky article is the main portal of entry, we just look like five-year olds. And on this one topic - the man himself - I think we deserve to look like adults. DogP 13:48, 29 January 2009 (EST)

If I was a conservative parent who was genuinely considering paying Schlafly to teach my kids, I'd probably have little patience with any site that first of all presented me with some kind of "liberal satire", before it directed me to a serious article on the man. All I think is that the target audience will be alienated before they accept the possibilities offered by this great "no jokes" version of the Schlafly page. Imagine, for example, being conservative and seeking information on the only news network you trusted (FOX), only to find that first of all you had to go via a CNN spoof. Anybody without an open or liberal outlook would go "forget this", have their opinions hardened AGAINST the people doing the spoof, and immediately go elsewhere. That's my few cents and I won't press this any further if the majority view disagrees with me. 92.40.235.115 20:13, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Your point is well-taken. However, the "parents" in question constitute a group of at any one time of how many people? 30? 60? The main article speaks to the millions of people who would judge Andrew "insane". The "no jokes" article speaks to a tiny number - and it will always be a tiny number - of people. If I was an intelligent, but, let's say, YEC parent, maybe I would google the man and consider criticisms presented as we do. Yes, they will ignore the "mockery" article - it friggin' tells them to! But the "serious" article might address their concerns. Anyway, the "jokes" version is a classic RW article. If the "no jokes" version became our main article, first thing I would do is add some "liberal" mockery to it. Because that's what our main articles do. So far, we have a couple of "real" editors and some BONs who want to move things around. I say, let's clean up the "main" article a bit to keep it smart. (I intend to read both from start to finish soon, just for mental clarity and perspective) ħuman 02:29, 30 January 2009 (EST)

This makes sense and I agree, Human. My apologies for the changing IP address, by the way - I use different wireless locations and don't really have a way of controlling my ID, without registering which I suppose I could do, but not right now. Taking your points on board I think all I would suggest is that the main article itself be cleaned up a bit, as you suggest, to make it as smart and non-tenuous as possible. Another thought, as basically somebody with fresh eyes on the article: I felt that the box at the start saying "this is primarily a work of satire" was preparing me for something that was mostly not true, or at least heavily embellished, which I think is problematic in itself. In a way it made me treat what I didn't know was fairly truthful and unembellished content with a larger pinch of salt than necessary, thereby undermining the article's satirical value! Is there an alternative disclaimer that could be used? Perhaps emphasising that the work is opinionated (rather than satirical), and that the "no jokes" version is not. Something like that. And allow the main article to be opinionated rather than drifting towards nonsense (not that it ever does, but the satire tag arguably prepares the reader for this). Does that make sense? 87.84.248.99 07:44, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I am with Bunchanumbers' (it's you, Trent, right?) penultimate comment. If this article serves any purpose whatsoever, it is to honestly educate someone who searches for this specific information. Who cares if it's 30 or 60 - if even one child is prevented from being educated by this ignorant bigoted man, we have succeeded. As things are now, no one will make it past the snarky article, NO-ONE. The tone of the entire site is set by the snarky article, and no-one will read the disclaimer header. And as a result, no-one will read this article, which surely contains the most relevant information on the site. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for RW being snarky. I just think in this one case, we should put a very strong voice forward. And I don't think the conditional "(no jokes)" on an article title strengthens it. What does that mean if you've never been here before? And that's who the article is aimed at - people who don't know who this guy is. I do feel kinda strongly about this, yes. DogP 14:23, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It's you Bunchanumbers/Trent, right? Hi DogP - no I am entirely new to rationalwiki and very happy to be here! I will register with some name or other when I feel inventive enough to come up with one. I'm in no rush unless people here are keen for me to do so to avoid confusion. I have posted a fair bit since discovering the site though, so maybe I should do it sooner rather than later. 83.105.66.191 15:44, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I agree. And to be honest, I think the reality is funnier, more interesting and more horrible than any parody. --GTac 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Here's a likely bad idea that will probably please no one, but I'll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Make Andrew Schlafly a disambiguation? DickTurpis 14:44, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I too agree. I think we should do the copy and paste of this article's information into the regular Andrew Schlafly article and take that article's text and put it into a new article along the lines of - Andrew Schlafly (satire) as noted above. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

How's this? Did I manage to fuck everything up or is it okay? --GTac 14:58, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Google searching "Andy Schlafly" without the quotes puts the serious page fourth down on the list, just after the "video results". With quotation marks (ie searching for the exact phrase) puts the same page fifth down on the list. Searching "Andrew Schlafly" with or without the quotes puts the serious page at the top of the list! Hurrah! Not sure what we can do to knock the conservapedia result on "Andy Schlafly" from the top spot, though. Any ideas? 83.105.66.191 15:30, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent. GIve it time for the search engines to catch up. Right now, as I mentioned above, the critical search terms to watch for are <"andrew schlafly" teacher> or <"andrew schlafly" homeschool> or similar. Imagine you're a parent of a potential student. What would you type in if you wanted to find out something about him? Thanks for doing the move Edgerunner, and also - welcome to Bunchanumbers. Go ahead and give yourself a name! DogP 15:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Haha, if Bunchanumbers is a real person please don't assume I'm him/her! I'm nobody you know in reincarnated form, just a newcomer to rationalwiki. Although feel free to give me any respect and reverence that you would otherwise bestow upon Bunchanumbers... sounds like a popular person! 83.105.66.191 16:04, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Bunchanumbers. or BON, ir our slang for any editor who is not signed in - ie, their "user name" is a "bunch of numbers". ħuman 23:54, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Summary

I see three registered users "for" and three "against" (unless 216.x was Trent, which would make it 4 to 3). That is not what I would call consensus from a mob with 20-50-100 regular users. Based on this very short discussion, and complete lack of consensus, I will struggle to move these articles back to where they were, while we continue to discuss this idea. Please try not to edit the little sections above that I made (just make new ones below, or edit above), since I'm only signing here. ħuman 23:54, 30 January 2009 (EST)

More commentary and discussion

I cast my vote in favor of making this article the main Andrew Schlafly article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:37, 31 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, Huw, User:216.221.87.112 is Trent—see this edit. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:37, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, I thought so. He is all of 216. when he's at school. ħuman 00:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, Jacob, what's the reason for your !vote on this? ħuman 01:07, 31 January 2009 (EST)

While I do like it and think it's very funny, I also feel that the current main Schlafly article crosses the boundary of what is and is not appropriate for the mainspace. The excessive use of questionably relevant images and the "let's throw in every cheap shot we possibly can" style smacks of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and thus sets a poor example of what we want our mainspace articles to be (can you imagine the evidence against a recent creation article taking this tone?). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:38, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I see your point. However, a "normal" mainspace article often involves a certain level of snark and humor. You used one example of an article that doesn't, there are a thousand others that do. I feel that to "protect" this article from everything anyone might ever want to say about the Assfly, the "no jokes" title pretty much does the job. It's also in the mainspace, of course, and "highly ranked by google" as far as I can tell. ħuman 01:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I "vote" for the switch. We have two articles here: The (no joke) version and the (presumably joke) version. Everywhere else on the site, the commonly accepted procedure is to put the more serious article in mainspace and the less serious one in Funspace. Don't see why this should be any different. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:20, 31 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, what happened to Talk:Andrew Schlafly? It just redirects here. Wasn't there a separate talk page for that? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:32, 31 January 2009 (EST)

It's Talk:Andrew Schlafly (satire) now -- Nx ^talk 10:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

How can anyone be expected to take a serious article seriously if it has '(no jokes)' appended to the title? Come on, this needs to be switched Human, and the vote is now running heavily in favour. Please don't try to over-beaurocratise this process - with the Community Standards thing going on, it's starting to feel like a 1970's community collective around here. And as AKjeldson points out, this is completely in line with standard practice around these parts. Please undo your switch back. DogP 12:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Ay. I vote for the switch. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 13:45, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed. Make the serious one the default, and mark the other one as (satire) or (character assassination) or whatever. --Kels 13:52, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I too vote for the switch. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:59, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Throw my hat in for the switch as well. Z3ro^talk 14:04, 31 January 2009 (EST)

The truth shall set you free. Andy needs no parody to make him a raving loony - this article is proof enough. Switch. ^{— Unsigned, by: Worm / talk / contribs 14:27, 31 January 2009 (EST)}

I vote for the switch. The truth is remarkable enough. Snark is great, but if we're to really refute pseudoscience, facts are way better than outright farce. Corry^{Those are balls.} 14:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Now that many more people have chimed in the consensus is much clearer, so I withdraw any objections to the renaming to AS and AS (satire). Did they already get moved back again? Since this is talk:no jokes, I'm thinking not yet? ħuman 16:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)

It's not a consensus. And no - there seems to be a bit of a mess, since apparently there are now three positions: Andrew Schlafly, Andrew Schlafly_(no_jokes) and Andrew Schlafly_(satire) with corresponding talk pages. AS(s) redirects to AS, while T:AS redirects to T:AS (nj) (I think). --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:06, 31 January 2009 (EST)

It's not? With me withdrawing opposition, there's actually only one real "vote" against (Coarb), and they don't say "why". The reason there are three names is due to redirects left behind during the moving back and forth. When we are done working out where the two articles will end up, we'll make sure the mess is neat and tidy again. ħuman 17:35, 31 January 2009 (EST)

So what's the recommended procedure here? Rename the articles and Talk pages accordingly? Does that preserve history (and herstory!) and maintain Google linkage goodness? DogP 12:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Has the fact that there are actually three Andy articles been addressed (fun, no jokes, and vanilla)? It seems if this move is going to happen we should combine the other two into one. They overlap a bit anyway. Should we just have this one and "fun"? DickTurpis 13:19, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, how did that happen? Yeah, it's my opinion that this - the current '(no jokes)' article - should simply become 'Andrew Schlafly', and the other two article should be combined into a funspace article titled 'Andrew Schlafly (satire)' or something. How did we end up with two snarky articles? Did that just happen amongst all the moving and copying two days ago? DogP 13:26, 1 February 2009 (EST)

No, the fun article existed before. -- Nx ^talk 13:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

OK, I did a brutal cleanup. Now there's only the two articles - this one, and the funspace (satire) one. All elements from the other funspace article were moved or merged into the (s) article. DogP 18:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Before the move

Can we get a bot to fix this? - User $\pi$ 04:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

For the change

• 87.something (complete newcomer), also commented from many IPs, apparently.

Yes, that's me, not Trent, and to clarify, I've posted under 83.105.66.191, 87.84.248.99 and 92.40.235.115 83.105.66.191 18:01, 31 January 2009 (EST)

• DogP (long time editor)
• 216.something (Trent?) "more inclined"
• GTac (recent editor?)
• EdgeRunner (long time editor)
• RA
• AKjeldsen
• ConservapediaUndergroundResistor
• Kels
• Arcan
• Z3ro
• Genghis (n00b)
• worm (#nooby nooby down nooby do down down...#)
• Corry
• Toast (changed my vote (sorry H))
• DickTurpis (seriously leaning this way, at least; let's hear your best sales pitch, Human, I'm wavering)
• Antifly (it's not as though our beloved snark will disappear...)
• JJ4E (Absolutely yes. Parody is powerful, but nothing like the truth.)

Against the change

• ListenerX (editor of long time), not necessarily against but concerned.
• Me (Human) (tiresome longtime editor) (opposition generally withdrawn for now, due to overwhelming consensus Jan 31)
• Toast (edited here a lot longer than the history shows)
• Pi, likes adding his name to things
• Coarb 14:32, 31 January 2009 (EST)
• Nate River 20:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• NightFlare 21:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)

"Evangelical Protestant"

As a Catholic, Mr. Schlafly is neither evangelical nor Protestant. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:39, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Is he still a practicing Catholic? TheoryOfPractice 17:46, 28 January 2009 (EST)

If he is not one at present, he has been one, and we should have some documentation of his having joined a Protestant denomination before we call him evangelical or Protestant. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:52, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I've taken out "protestant". I believe he became a YEC believer sometime in his adult life, but I don't know whether he has actually converted to protestantism. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I usually prefer not to comment on something like this, but I will say that Mr Schlafly has been known to, er, espouse viewpoints that... may not be entirely in line with central parts of the Catholic doctrine. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Definitely, but that in itself is not evidence of conversion. Unless we have evidence, we shouldn't be identifying him as specifically either catholic or protestant. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:07, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There have been a few editors here who should know for certain which church he goes to. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:11, 28 January 2009 (EST)

He is probably still a Catholic. Here he takes part in a lengthy discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution, making several statements (such as that St. Peter made certain pronouncements with the "full power of infallibility") for which Protestants take him to task. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)

To the best of our knowledge he is a very conservative Catholic. While he may not know the doctrine completely and he has quote mined popes and argued over translations to show that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Catholic church agrees with him 100%, this is not unusual behaviour on his part. - User $\pi$ 22:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Can somebody just ask him? ħuman 23:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

just? :-) Wilfully stepping into the world of Schlafly is to enter a nightmare where the time-tested technique of telling yourself "these monsters don't exist" has no effect! I couldn't do it alone. 87.84.248.99 08:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It's dangerous to go alone! Take this! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:29, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Perfect! Thanks! 83.105.66.191 15:48, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The Trus(t)worthy Encyclopedia

Although I do think that it is a bit of a joke and I don't really mind it being reverted, I find it odd that someone would know what I was getting at. I would like someone other than GTac to weigh in on this. There is more than a kernel of truth to that (t). --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Sure. Personally I think it's better without, but perhaps I'm the only one. --GTac 15:01, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Just for those who don't know, the first incarnation of the current Conservapedia logo contained a typo, proclaiming it as the "Trusworthy Encylopedia". Of course after it was highlighted at RW they changed it. Without the explanation then the joke falls a bit flat unless you are in the know, so GTac is probably right. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Heh, that's actually not that bad. I thought it was some kind of unrelated pun. Well, I'll leave it up to you. --GTac 15:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly (satire) switched with Andrew Schlafly (no jokes)

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)

I didn't see any consensus up there. Looked like 2 or 3 for, and 2 or 3 against, with discussion still ongoing right up to the move being done. I think the move was premature. ħuman 20:12, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I ran the "numbers" that no one else bothered to do. There is no consensus for change, and I will move things back to where they were - which I don't mean to prevent or stop discussion on the issue, but right now the "vote" (and it's not even a vote) is basically at 3/3. That's no number at all to move an article like this one. ħuman 23:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I switched it back, but tried to enliven the discussion via the intercom. ħuman 00:19, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Oddly enough, I counted 6 for, 2 against and 2 undecisive, where 1 leans towards change and 1 towards not change. Are you pulling some Schlafly statistics on us? --GTac 11:37, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, that's just the standard operating procedure for whenever Human doesn't like something. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:22, 31 January 2009 (EST)

No, what's happened is since I threw up the intercom message more people have chimed in. ħuman 16:47, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Just like to point out that I thought that the move was premature (see vague posting somewhere) but I have voted for it.
P.S. Please don't resort to personal attacks RA. You may not like Human but don't make it personal. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

The fork page needs updating to reflect that the serious Andrew Schlafly page is now the main article. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure where the satirical one is now kept! http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Schlafly Madeleinebiscuits 11:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, it does, hang on a bit, we're still discussing the eventual location of the funny version. ħuman 23:29, 7 February 2009 (EST)

That's fine - I wasn't going to make the change; just didn't know whether we were aware the fork page needed updating. Madeleinebiscuits 07:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Other news: Try your google searches for "Andrew Schlafly", "Andrew Schlafly" homeschool, "Andrew Schlafly" teacher, "Andy Schlafly" homeschool and "Andy Schlafly" teacher. RW's serious article is top spot for all of them, with the "fun" version at #2! Only searching "Andy Schlafly" alone puts WR as anything other than #1 (it's #6) but that nevertheless places the wikipedia entry first, not the CP one, so I'm still relatively happy about that. Madeleinebiscuits 07:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)

"He has no known credentials or training in the fields of education or childhood/pre-college development."

Let's be clearer with this, and with the later "Schlafly appears to have no formal training or certification in education or pedagogy" part. He either does or he doesn't have training or certification, and saying that this matter is "unknown" just makes it seem like we haven't researched properly, or more likely have an agenda in what should be an unbiased article. Well, we're not unbiased - the man's a fucking lunatic - but you hopefully understand what I mean. 83.105.66.191 15:38, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I understand what you mean, but we can't say we know absolutely that he does not have such qualifications simply because he has never mentioned or given evidence of them. Obviously I think he is unqualified, but this is supposed to be our most strictly factual article and we can't say categorical that he is unqualified since we don't have evidence of that. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:46, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Then we may have to say "he has given no evidence" or "refuses to give evidence of"... whichever is the most factually correct. Maybe even after asking him for this evidence a few times. We don't like it when Conservapedia states that Obama is a muslim or says "Allegedly born in Honolulu" because they require certain impossible documents as proof, so we may have to take some similar pains ourselves to not alienate the conservative parents this article supposedly targets. 83.105.66.191 16:00, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The BON has a good point. Does his lack of presenting credentials on his "blog" mean he doesn't have them? He doesn't mention his BsC thingie from Princeton or the JD from Harvard Law on his user page, does he? Let's keep this as "perfectly clear and well done" as we can. ħuman 00:17, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Remember, the traditional image of homeschooling is the parents teaching the kids what they know, even if they are only a chapter ahead in the text book. As long as the children meet certain requirements, the state does not take action. I just cannot see Andy listening to some smuck teaching a class on how to educate kids, especially how he sees public education as "liberal".--Nate River 00:31, 31 January 2009 (EST)

That's what I thought, but Andy extended the definition to basically any form of tuition that is not conducted in a public school (US definition). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:27, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I still think that saying these credentials are "not known" comes across like Conservapedia saying that Obama "claims to be a Christian" or whatever the exact quote is. I find it really hard to take this information as NPOV, and I'm concerned it'll come across as deliberately biased to somebody conservative. We ought to kindly ask Schlafly for his credentials, and update the sections appropriately, eg with "he refuses to give evidence of his credentials" if (and only if) we have made several requests which have either been ignored or actively refused. If I wrote in a thesis "it is not known whether Georg Simmel's sociology was discussed in the correspondence between Adorno and Benjamin" you'd ask why I can't be more certain, or at least explain how this information is "unknowable". For now, I think I'll change the text to say that there is no readily accessible evidence of Schlafly's credentials, but in the long term it'd be good to be able to say whether he does or doesn't have them. 92.40.170.8 14:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I've asked. I doubt there'll be much in the way of a candid response. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:49, 2 February 2009 (EST)

All in all, I'd say that went pretty well. Neveruse513 15:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, & they have a pretty loose definition of "anagram" at that site. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:29, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Haha, well it seems that "he refuses to provide evidence of his credentials or training..." then! "Our attempts to glean the appropriate information at Conservapedia have previously resulted in blocking," or words to that effect. Who wants to do the honours? 92.40.21.69 15:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, shit...this was supposed to be NPOV? Neveruse513 14:33, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Well, I get what you mean, but it is my understanding that the main article for Schlafly is to be a serious and factual page on the man, without jokes, and we should be proud that unlike Conservapedia we do not present ludicrous claims as fact. This is pretty much an unbiased article as it stands... can you think of anything that's missing that should go in? Is he an exceptionally wise man, and respectable educator, and have we chosen to neglect crucial information for our own heinous liberal means? No. We're counterbalancing the bias presented in Conservapedia, but we're doing so in an article that gives an unbiased account of his character and abilities. I hope that there are Conservative individuals who will see the value in this page, rather than just other people who share our views and are already keen to ridicule him. 92.40.238.31 15:04, 2 February 2009 (EST)

You're right. I forgot that the NOTE at the top was not simply moar sarcasm. Please just make sure to keep your liberal NPOV-pushing clear of the real article. Neveruse513 15:18, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Well maybe I'm wrong and we need a discussion. That last comment got me blocked by ListenerX with the reason "Inserting incense/gibbering into pages". Block ID #6367. 92.40.21.69 15:28, 2 February 2009 (EST)

That or you were mistakenly caught up in the removal of today's very determined troll. Neveruse513 15:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, thanks Neveruse - I hope so. If not could ListenerX let me know? If I've been taken to be gibbering or inserting incense I've been misinterpreted, as my intentions for this site and article are for the best. I should register, I know, especially since at home I use a USB modem which changes IP address every time I plug it in. But so far I hope I have retained a continuity between my posts so everyone can tell who I am. 92.40.21.69 15:48, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, well I've registered with the first name that came to mind. Madeleinebiscuits, after Proust. Bunchanumbers was already taken! I realised confusion could arise with still being anonymous and with an ever-changing IP address, and thought I'd been posting here long enough to merit my finally taking the plunge. Madeleinebiscuits 16:04, 2 February 2009 (EST)

This is a moderately important piece of information. In California, a homeschool instructor needs a teaching crediantal. [1] If anyone from California considers Andy's class, they should be aware that it does not meet the requirements. See §48224 There is a way around this - Andy needs to register with California as a private school... failing to do that, the lack of credentials becomes an issue. A teacher at a private school needs only be capable of teaching (§48222) while the private tutor needs credentials. A recent court case on this can be read at http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/extras/B192878A.PDF - see page 24. --Shagie 20:38, 3 February 2009 (EST)

This is really interesting. I wonder if we can find a way to underline this importance within the article without it being too much of a distraction? Perhaps one sentence at the start of the paragraph stating the importance of having teaching credentials in the public domain, and another sentence after "declined to respond" that states how important this is. In other words, conveying how asking for his credentials in the first place isn't just "stirring up trouble" (which is pretty much the way CP took our request). Madeleinebiscuits 05:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I've added these links to a section on the legal status of homeschooliong. Thanks for the info Shagie. DogP 13:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Liberal Deceit

This discussion was moved to Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

Question from a Brit

parents should be mindful to not refer to this course as an "AP course" on any college application, as such a false statement could imperil a student's chances of acceptance if the claim were examined by the college.

- does this need a citation? I no nuffink abowt edumacashun so i don't know if this is general knowledge or not. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 17:38, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that lying on a college application by giving false credentials will hurt your chance of acceptance. Calling Andy's class for the mentally challenged an AP course is doing just that. DickTurpis 17:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)

The problem is that Andy always master gloats about his class is an AP course and once the kids finish, they're ready for Harvard. However, if a parent or a student really takes this crap seriously and lists this class as an AP exam, they're in danger of getting themselves disqualified from admission for lying on the exam. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 18:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

in which case they could sue him, which would be... interesting. wouldn't help the poor kid who go their education ruined though. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 14:02, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Don't think that he ever has actually made that claim. There was a whole lot of talk with HSmom about it & I think that he just knocked the AP.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 14:26, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think in the distant past he has bragged about the AP scores his "studints" earned after coasting through his "class", but I'm not sure he has ever claimed that it was an "AP Prep" class (since it isn't). ħuman 18:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Not sure if this should be added at some point

Under "patriotism" perhaps? That new hate anthem he calls an essay is an instant classic, especially the much improved wreckage of it. ħuman 19:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Oh yes. It should. Shows how stupid he is. What's even funnier is that it says, 'Feel free to add' but the page is locked. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Well, someone managed to "improve" it, briefly. We have to figure out a way to mention it that doesn't sound too snippy though. But it is an instance of the "adult leadership" he is providing by example. I can almost imagine him leading his homskoll class in chanting it... also, he is pretty nasty to people on the talk page. I don't think it will stay around much longer, though. ħuman 19:26, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Quick- copy and paste it someplace. We can't let this go. Ever. We. Can. Never. Let. Him. Forget. This. E. V. E. R! By the way, how did they 'improve it?' This. . . this is hilarious. I couldn't actually read the page, but the screenshot was awesome. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

It was "improved" gradually, painfully (a lot of work went into it!), but the very first version is this, so you can see how it changed. One of the lines in this first version is 'And I even mispronounce the "Taliban"', like Schlafly believes it to be a book or something: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.%21&diff=prev&oldid=618246. Hilariously, this was corrected by somebody in an edit that was of course promptly reverted! (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.%21&diff=next&oldid=618333)

The brilliant version that briefly took the place of this magnificent "essay" was a slight at Schlafly and is an improvement in the true meaning of the word. Here's the link to the vandalised version: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.%21&diff=next&oldid=618409. I love the summary for this edit: "Fixed tempo, added a few verses"! Madeleinebiscuits 14:03, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I'll put a copy here for now for you. ħuman 20:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I've added the link from Human's first post in this topic to Wikipedia's Conservapedia talk page. Thought I'd spread the word, I'm sure Schlafly would appreciate it. Madeleinebiscuits 04:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

PS - to AwesomeJack16 who made that improvement: that was brilliant! Madeleinebiscuits 04:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)

External Linkage

I'm of the opinion that we should not link to RW articles in this article, e.g. linking to our AAPS article rather than their actual website. While it pains me to link to them, I think if you're in the target audience and click on the link to our AAPS article, only to read the first sentence which refers to them as "conservative quacks, cranks and fundamentalist zealots", I think at that point you're reading no further. I think it's better to simply have all links be external - to CP, or to the relevant sites. The strength of this article is that he's condemned entirely by his own words rather than our own editorialising. What do others think? DogP 00:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I disagree. Now that this is the main article, the links should be to RW first, and others in footnotes and EL section. This is now our main article on AS, and it is a cover story. Surely it should then be webbed into the rest of our wiki? The "target audience" argument has ceased to exist, to me, if this is our main article on the twat. We made this our main article for maybe 20 sets of parents next term, perhaps 2 of whom will read it? I think not. They are the only ones who would be "reading no further" - or, would they? Perhaps they don't know the creeps he associates with? ħuman 00:18, 4 February 2009 (EST)

The second sentence isn't up to much either - "It is sufficiently batshit insane to have retained Andrew Schlafly as its general counsel and is strongly suspected of consuming their own newborn infants". There's a real inconsistency in thinking here - e.g. the YEC article we internally link to is sober and well argued. But writing a sober article, only to link to something batshit insane, is the same as writing something batshit insane in the first place. It doesn't give off much of a sense of objectivity. And I don't see why all our links have to be internal anyway - what do we care? DogP 02:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Just to chip in my voice, for whatever it might be worth - I agree with DogP on this. As I understand it, we made this the main article on Schlafly because we want it to perform an actual service to people who might otherwise be dragged into the world of Schlafly. You only need to read the talk pages on Conservapedia to see that most conservatives think Schlafly and that site take things too far. Many think the site is in fact a liberal spoof because it's so ridiculous! It's towards reasonable but under-informed conservative parents that (I argue) this article reaches out, and linking to pages that say "it is sufficiently batshit insane" undermines this very noble intention. We don't want these people to think that we're adolescent idiots running a site that's to be taken no more seriously than uncyclopedia. If even 2 people in our "target audience" a year read this, and 1 of those decides as a result to not let Schlafly teach their child, then I'll feel this has been worthwhile. I suppose we could argue just for reducing the nonsense in the articles that this page links to, but it would be inappropriate to do so if that means gradually altering what rationalwiki actually is. Better, I think, is to treat the main Schlafly page as if it exists in a bubble, outside the rest of rationalwiki, and as such it should avoid linking internally to overly daft or disingenuous articles. Madeleinebiscuits 05:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)

At MB, that is true as far as why we wrote this - but it was also because the "main" article back then was the crazy snarkathon. But back to the topic - my suggestion is that these internal links should be followed and cleaned up a bit - IE, no words like "batshit insane", at least on the first screen or so. That doesn't mean diluting them, it means making them better (ie, less UCish, I guess?). The trouble with treating this page as a "bubble" is it will slowly drop on search engines, losing its potential impact. I don't see why we should treat one crazy person differently than others we write about. People like Behe and that Expelled guy reach far more people than Andy ever will, and their articles are fully meshed with the site. ħuman 14:50, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I agree with Human. As an entry point article, this should give a good range of links to other RW articles. Some of them might just need to tweaked slightly to better quality standards (although not necessarily to the extent that this one is). Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)

That's great, whatever works best. I don't know very much about how google searches work but I can imagine the "bubble" treatment having that effect if you suggest it would. Madeleinebiscuits 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

OK, I totally get it now, and see your point Human - I wasn't thinking of search engines, and you're right. OK, so let's use it as a mission to improve the articles we link to and make it a better portal of entry. Thanks for 'splainin'. DogP 13:02, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Grade Inflation

The grade inflation section begins "Mr. Schlafly complains about grade inflation in liberal schools", but according to the history of CP's grade inflation article, Mr. Schlafly has made no contributions. I'm going to change the opener to "Conservapedia derides grade inflation in liberal schools" until evidence of Mr. Schlafly complaining is available.

Sucidal, are you? Schlafly gets credit no matter what. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 15:43, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Unbiased articles are unbiased. I'm sure evidence exists, we just need to find it before making an explicit claim about Schlafly himself complaining. The change from last to cur is insubstantial, yet it removes bias. Would you rather have a {{fact}} tag? or even a {{nofact}} tag? Neveruse513 15:52, 4 February 2009 (EST)

We need to update this section to include the newest PHAIL from the World History Homework submissions. My memory is foggy, but I think one student received a 5/10, and then there's the whole Student 16 (Publius?) Homework 4 debacle. Perhaps someone with more time and skill could do a side-by-side comparison between Student 16 and Student 4,8, or 18, along with Senor Schlafly's comments? If this is meant to be a factual reference for uwary parents, that might be pretty powerful in the war on Schlafly. Just a thought... The Foxhole Atheist 07:58, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes I completely agree. I started adding the question, answers and snarky grading to the section last week, but I cancelled it because it didn't really fit to just stick them in there, and I had no time for some decent editing. But that WIGO which compares the grading of a liberal student vs a conservative student is just perfect evidence of his extremely biased grading. --GTac 08:02, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps we should make a subpage with a complete, detailed analysis of his homework (and test) grading, and just summarize and link to it? So as not to clutter this up too much with big old tables full of numbers? ħuman 16:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeh I'm up for that. I find the fact that he teaches kids the most offensive aspect of Andy, and nothing displays this better than his homework. I may be able to look into this in the weekend. --GTac 07:25, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

"a numerical list that reads "...thirteen, fiveteen, fifteen..."

I feel tempted to remove this example, because it seems petty in the larger scheme of things. We've all made mistakes like this, haven't we? And if you look at the source for this, the list also has two "student five"s so the error under analysis here is obviously a copy-paste one. Anyone object to me removing this? Madeleinebiscuits 11:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I see your point, although there is also the issue that teh assfly jumps on anyone who disagrees with him for the slightest typos, and yet, he saves endless amounts of stupid. If I were in his shoes, I would triple-check every damn post I made for erors. The fact that he doesn't is an embarrassment to him. Not to say that you aren't right, of course ;) ħuman 23:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)

It should definitely be noted somewhere. If it's being taken out of this article, it should be added into the other Andrew Schlafly article. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)

It should stay, though we have enough typo examples now. While I would be more than happy to cut anyone slack for typos (I'm one of the worst myself), the point is that Andy doesn't - he pounces on typos and insists they explain an editor's slack, public school education and that HE would NEVER make such a mistake. Then routinely makes a bazillion of them. DogP 12:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)

One of the first encounters I had of Schlafly was through the CP talk page for Obama - I didn't contribute to it myself but read his various petty responses to grammar which showed he had no interest in pursuing the criticisms at hand. He appears to habitually shift attention towards the grammar and spelling of the other person as a way of not making his articles encyclopedic or whatever is being suggested. Basically: "you are not worthy of communicating with me, because you aren't making sense" or whatever. And then somebody will say "are you actually going to respond to the question you were asked though?" and he'll just not reply to that last question. What I'm getting at: would it be reasonable for me to select some appropriate examples of Schlafly doing this, and link to them here (this talk page), with the suggestion that we use them (in the article) as context for highlighting his own typos? I just think that such a context will make that "numerical list" example seem less petty. Or do we already feel that this aspect of Schlafly is adequately covered? I won't alter the article without complete agreement being reached here first. Madeleinebiscuits 07:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds like a good idea. We have the Lack of emphasis on grammar and spelling section, about him apparently not giving enough grammar guidance to his students, & making lots of mistakes himself. We should definitely also mention the fact that he often lashes out at other people's spelling/grammar/typos as a petty way to deflect criticism & dismiss their suggestions. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

It seems to me that the currently problematic statement 'Conservapedia as a "source" reinforces this problem, and it appears as if bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, and writing practices are evident throughout the "encyclopedia"' is the place to expand in this direction. There's no clear indication here yet of how Conservapedia "reinforces" the problem, other than the examples showing it to be rife with errors. Also I think the phrase 'it appears' is a bit non-committal. Highlighting how the sysops of CP (and Schlafly in particular) apparently regard themselves to be guardians of sense and intellect, and use spelling and grammar attacks to undermine reasonable communication, would be a logical way to bring CP into the paragraph, and justify the examples that then follow. Madeleinebiscuits 08:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Here's one of my favourites, but it's not really relevant for this section. The "I won't listen to you unless you take the effort to be more concise - your problem not mine" argument: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=550649#I.27m_noticing_a_very_disturbing_pattern... (subject 19 on the list if it doesn't take you straight there). I'll try and find one that's more consistent with the "spelling and grammar" theme, though. Madeleinebiscuits 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Found one. See subject 71, "Editing some of the crazy stuff" - the link should take you straight there. Schlafly is in "your spelling remains atrocious" mode, and completely ignores the question raised. There are better examples out there though, and I'm happy to hold back until we've found the best ones. Madeleinebiscuits 10:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, that's good stuff, Mr.Biscuits. Don't hold back from editing the article with your own wording - it all seems good. DogP 10:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I think, too, that we must also point out the hypocricy behind Andy's spelling, perhaps with examples of him using opponent's misspellings against them during debates (or at least the "learn out to spell 'superior'", that's just a classic. NightFlare 11:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)

That's the one I was looking for I think!!! Do you have a link? Madeleinebiscuits 11:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Great, thanks for that. I will have a go once I have the time to compose something properly. For now I'll use this as a kind of notepad to collect links if that's okay, and if anyone knows of better examples they'd be appreciated. This might be one to top them all off - English rather than American spelling of the word "honour/honor" is attacked as being non-American and liberal, although I have a feeling we've addressed this somewhere else. Schlafly may have even changed his mind on this at some point, permitting English spelling for certain purposes, but I can't remember. Can anybody shed a light for me? Madeleinebiscuits 11:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I've made a start on this, but it still needs work. The structure is appearing though, I think. Madeleinebiscuits 13:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

You're not clueless, Biscuits, and despite the fact that your clealry a liberal, you're improvements to this encyclopedia are noted. If others wouldn't vandalize and contribute to this great project as you are! Godspeed! DogP 13:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

My pleasure sir! I love being a humourless liberal claptrapper as much every anarchic parodist! Godspeed! Madeleinebiscuits 17:44, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I've copied over a few "spelling/grammar" classics from the satirical page, including the "learn out to spell 'superior'" one that NightFlare remembered above. I still think that the "numerical list" example comes across as us scraping the bottom of the barrel though, when we've no need to. The best examples have a double function - showing not merely his incompetence in this respect but also either his hypocrisy (where he's criticising somebody's grammar and or spelling with his own appalling gaffe) or the stupid notions that he takes as fact (like the "girls are injured more easily in sports than boys" and "childbirth/breast cancer" ones). The numerical list - I don't know, it still seems petty to me but I won't go on about this if everyone really wants it to stay. Madeleinebiscuits 07:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I say - go for it, lose it if you want. I doubt anyone is married to any specific examples. Don't be shy about barging in and improving the article if you want to. I've done a lot of work on it, but am about to get very busy, so I welcome someone else improving the article. DogP 12:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Well-balanced Conservatives often find Schlafly so absurd and extreme that they take him to be a "liberal parodist"

A thought to pursue here in the article, what do you think? If this link doesn't take you there immediately, scroll down to subject 61, "This Is Why Obama Is Wining" (sic): http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=550649#This_Is_Why_Obama_Is_Wining. The argument being that it's not just woolly-minded, anarchic Liberals like us who think Schlafly is a nutcase, but level-headed and intelligent Conservatives as well. Emphasising Schlafly's extremity here, and observing that parents ought to bare this in mind when seeking education for their own children. If there are other discussions at CP that help to underline that this is a common criticism of Schlafly and his blog, rather than a one-off concern (by a string of unanonymous editors who haven't signed in), we should find them and stick them in our article I reckon. Madeleinebiscuits 10:01, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Another: "Disgusted Conservative": http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive5#Disgusted_Conservative. I wonder who created most of those replies though, like the "liberal bellyaching" one. It's frustrating that they aren't signed. Is it a problem with their archiving process that the signatures seem to have "fallen off"? Another on the same theme, with the familiar "where's the substance?" reply from Schlafly (subject 18): http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive6#For_the_love_of_God.21.21 Madeleinebiscuits 10:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)

If you dig back into the history of the talk page itself, you should be able to see who added various comments. Those talk page difflinks make better references, if you can find them, too. Oh, also, it's better to set up the links using "ref" tags so they become footnotes (that's the way most of the article is), although of course anyone can fix that. ħuman 15:20, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks Human, I'm learning about this all the time. My internet has turned sluggish now, so I'm not going to make any more edits tonight, but most of the talk page links are now to difflinks. I still need to make the "ref" tag replacements - my initial thought was that it'd be good to integrate certain things within each sentence but I take your point about getting these edits to match the conventions of the article. I'll do it tomorrow morning if someone doesn't get there first. Madeleinebiscuits 17:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks! ħuman 17:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I've added a section to the article on this topic. I'm quite pleased with it at the moment but I'm not sure if it's in the correct place. I think it should be near the top, but I don't want it to break the flow of the article building up from Schlafly's background through his status as an educator. Trouble is the latter section is so long that anything following it is immediately near the bottom of the article! Any ideas? Madeleinebiscuits 14:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for moving it DogP. Madeleinebiscuits 18:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps that very long section with a zillion sub-headers could be carefully broken up into several main topics? ħuman 14:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah I agree, Human - it's become very long and raggedy. How about some suggested headings we could group subtopics under?

• Qualifications
• Standards
• Influences
• Behaviour
• Disagreements

Any suggestions? DogP 13:35, 13 February 2009 (EST)

This is great, and thanks for making the change. I'm sorry - I tried to give my support to this idea earlier but my internet was being too slow. I think the restructuring works well and it was really needed. Madeleinebiscuits 09:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Coincidence?

I checked the source on some of Mr. Biscuit's edits...Anyone notice anything funny about the numbers used in the hypothetical situation posed? Neveruse513 14:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)

You mean 90/10?!! Well, 90/10 is the way the world should be run. CP is 90% nonsense, 10% sense, so it fits. DogP 15:16, 9 February 2009 (EST)

CP has that much sense? ħuman 15:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

What's the suggested coincidence? Were these figures used elsewhere? The quote just seemed like a good explanation of NPOV to me, and a good way to link into Conservative discomfort towards CP and Schlafly. From the Wikipedia conversation I thought they'd just picked the 90/10 numbers randomly, could have been anything. Madeleinebiscuits 17:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, it could have been anything. That's why got a little laugh when they coincidentally used "90/10". I wonder if the WP coincidentally used 90/10 or if it was a sly jab. You're familiar with Conservapedia:90/10_Rule, no? Neveruse513 17:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, no I wasn't familiar with that! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing! Thanks! Madeleinebiscuits 17:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I keep encountering the words "this project" whenever I read Conservapedia's own description of itself (for example in a quote on that 90/10 page). It always makes me think of Jonestown, for some reason. Without a doubt Schlafly being Conservapedia's very own Jim Jones. Madeleinebiscuits 17:37, 9 February 2009 (EST)

And let us not forget: "If you spend 90% of x on the period between 1500 and 1700, then you will do poorly on 90% of the questions, because they will be from the period 1700 to 1877." Words of wisdom. Madeleinebiscuits 18:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Clerk?

Where's evidence that Schlafly clerked? His official Eagle Forum bio states: "Mr. Schlafly...is a member of the bars of the U.S. Supreme Court and more than a half-dozen other federal and state courts." What would he necessary do there as a bar member? --AP 01:38, 11 February 2009 (EST)

It ought to be findable. It's almost certain that he would have had a high-profile clerkship, coming out of Harvard Law and being on the Law Review (note that biogs of Obama often make a point of his not taking a Supreme Court clerkship in order to do that community organizing stuff). ħuman 14:11, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not finding anything about his clerkship either. Being a "member of the bar" is a fancy lawyer way of saying you're entitled to practice in that jurisdiction, whether it's by having passed the bar exam, getting admitted on motion, or simply filling out the application (as for most federal district courts). CPNuisance 14:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

"or that one in five liberals crave attention"

That's not what he said. To quote, "Show me a group of five people, one of whom craves attention, and I'll show you a liberal." The implication is that all libs crave attention. I am deleting it for now, I think it's a bit picayune. [2] ħuman 23:43, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's test format

Hey,is it only homework where he does short answer? I just wanted to make sure he never did it on tests so our info is totally accurate. EternalCritic 09:48, 18 February 2009 (EST)

While I would ask that you not quote me on this, my understanding is that his tests are all multiple choice. At no time, from what I can tell, does he expect his students to actually write or synthesize ideas into well formed papers. It's not an "english" or "writing class" I think he has said. (Which is just sad, cause history should be cored in writing skills, composition skills, and analytical skills.)--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 10:29, 18 February 2009 (EST)

In the article I was just curious as it discusses a comparison between Andy and the AP, and all the Andy Class sample answers were in short answer format, not multiple choice. EternalCritic 10:35, 18 February 2009 (EST)

From what I've seen, the homeworks are all "short answer" format, and the tests are all multiple guess. ħuman 22:18, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Speaking of craving attention

Do you think that we are the "cause" of Andy Schlafly? Just think about how much crazier he is now compared to the early days of CP. Don't children strive for negative attention if it means that they'll at least get attention of some sort? I wonder how much of CP is "real" and how much is Andy craving our negative attention? Wasn't there a discussion like this during the Lenski affair? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Hmmm. I doubt it. After all, he's been battling liberals for decades, closely involved with wingnut doctors, Mommy and the Eagle Forum. He's been on television arguing his case. I doubt he sees us a much more than an annoyance, and I don't have the hubris to imagine that we're the ones who are driving him insane - he's doing it all on his own, I'm quite sure. DogP 15:35, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Travel

Given how often Andy rants and raves about how shit everywhere in the world is apart from the Fantastic Brilliant USA Greatest Goddam God-Bothering Country in the Fucking World YeeHaw (see the current debate over British healthcare, for one - there have been many others). Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada, etc the list goes on of the countries that Andrew Schlafly thinks are shit. His disgusting arrogance seems to view all other countries as if they are populated by knuckle-dragging neanderthals who wouldn't have a clue how to eat let alone take a dump. Given all of this, do we have any reason to believe that the man has ever travelled abroad at any time in his life? And hence, maybe he doesn't even have a passport? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he's barely even left New Jersey. Anyway, I just wanted to say yet again how much I hate that scumbag. Sorry, I just had to get it off my chest again. DogP 16:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I concur. --^Input The Resistor^Output 19:09, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, he's too busy homeschooling and censoring Conservapedia to get out of his shelter. But he's lived all over the U.S.A: He spent his childhood with his famous mom in St. Louis or somewhere like that, attended Princeton (in his home state New Jersey), worked for Intel (Santa Clara, CA) and Johns Hopkins (Baltimore) and Bell Labs (dunno where that could be), got his JD from Harvard (from the great liberal state of Massachusetts), moved to North Virginia to run for Congress in 1992 (epic fail) and finally settled in Tony Soprano's neighborhood, from where he prays, teaches, litigates, and types. --AP 01:11, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Your link is now dead, DogP, so here's the working one for now til its archived. --AP 13:01, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

High school education

We should find a source other than Wikipedia and its clones to support that claim that he attended a certain Catholic high school. --AP 01:14, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I tried digging through the school website to find an alum list, to no avail. I guess I should dig through the WP article history (and talk page) and see who added the alums and where they got their info. Hey, if you delete that section again, can you copy it here for easy reinsertion? Thanks. ħuman 17:00, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Roger has edited WP's article on it before. A user named Jrk3150, on Feb. 23, 2007, added the claim that Andrew attended that school. That statement was removed by Roscoestl on Dec. 4, 2007. --AP 00:10, 7 March 2009 (EST)

But do those edits relate to the question at hand? Roger deleted some crap added by an IP, totally irrelevant. The Jrk3150 edit is the one that matters. I guess I'll ask him/her/it where they got their info. Note that none of the current "notable alumni" are footnoted. I think the big issue is that A.S. is not notable enough to be listed. he is, after all, a two-bit failed lawyer and general jackass. Kevin Kline? Famous. Etc. the others. I suspect the source was probably something like yearbooks. Shall we chase it there on the talk page? ħuman 01:02, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I think all of Phyllis's children went to that school. --AP 18:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I know it's not "evidence" but it makes sense. Due to the presence of numerous Catholic schools in this country, Catholics (of which, of course, PS is one) usually send all their kids to the same one. Usually one in their neighborhood, of course. ħuman 18:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's qualifications as an attorney

While Wachtel is a fancy pants law firm, I am not finding that Andy did any substantial work as a practicing attorney prior to going into "solo" practice (read writing crank amicus briefs for crank quacks). Judging by the poor quality of his analysis in the FBI incident, I suspect he never actually did much trial court practice, hence his predilection for fanciful and frivolous readings of the law (how can it be wandalism if he *invites* people to edit pages on CP?) Am I missing that someone has already done a more complete analysis of Andy's professional work prior to "solo" practice? CPNuisance 14:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree; I googled and couldn't find any notable work Schlafly did with WLRK. But I did find some work he did to try to appeal to the Terri Schiavo case [3] [4]. He also gave a lecture about the recent DC v. Heller case. [5] All he's notably done is, well, "cranky". --AP 18:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

He's also been quoted in USA Today commenting about bioterrorism law [6] and The New York Times about the HPV vaccine.[7] (Don't forget that MSNBC interview!) [8] --AP 18:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, but "being quoted" is not "legal work". However, he did a stint working for AT&T (I think it was them), there's some stuff on line where he is getting pwned for shoddy legal work... I don't think that job lasted long. ħuman 18:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I still find it hard to believe that he had any legal training. Hes just so... Jack Thompsonish.DSFARGEG 19:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I doubt he had much - law school and passing the bar exam isn't really "training", that's why people clerk, etc. He never developed a specialty, other than his later-in-life willingness to submit "briefs" on behalf of nutbags over his signature. ħuman 20:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

About "shoddy legal work", you mean this? I also found a book online that quoted Schlafly about some Ponzi scheme. [9]--AP 01:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Assistance request

Can anyone give me a definite quote showing Andy's stance OEC v YEC please. See here for the reason I ask. _and marmite 07:05, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's contributions

From Huffingto Post:

• Andrew L. Schlafly
• Attorney
• Self-Employed
• Updated
• Q1/2008
• Mike Huckabee
• $1,000

 

 

• Andrew Schlafly
• Attorney
• Self Employed
• Updated
• Q4/2007
• Mike Huckabee
• $500

I'm not Murcan, so don't know if this should be in the article.   .  ^{So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos}

Yep, it's already in there. DogP 11:05, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I looked but I'd missed it. Sorry DogP. (Note: "self employed")   .  ^{So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos} 15:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Expertise

Shouldn't there be a new "ignorance" section because of how Schlafly is ignorant of pre-Christian comedy? --AP 00:23, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

"Inflated Sense of Expertise" section improvements

This section has become kinda sprawling and a bit hard to digest with all the examples, etc. The content is all totally solid though. Anyone got any suggestions as to how we could make that section better organised and written? DogP 11:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I've been watching this article get dangerously close to a "PG" version of the nasty one. There's a deterioration, in the sense of things going from "WIGO" to here as if this is the repository of all things that are "Schlafly stupid". I suspect it could use tightening up, reducing to key points that are strongly referenced. Remember the "mission" of this article is to make a point to people who are predisposed to like Andrew, not to list every wankery we can find. This rant has been on my back burner for a few weeks now, since around the time an edit comment was "straight from wigo". This article should not (in my opinion) change with the wind. We should present the evidence, reasonably "concisely", and quit mucking it up every two days with more things Andrew said that we think are stupid. Keep in mind the intended audience. ħuman 23:30, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

So would it be possible to do some things as rewrite this in prose rather than list form, to omit some of the more trivial items like on entertainment/"Hollywood values" etc.? How can we try to make the point that Andrew tries hard to be the "expert on everything" when he's really not? --AP 01:28, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Sounds good to me - maybe we should sandbox a draft, or work on one here? It's definitely a strong topic, but I suspect our approach has weakened the result at this point. (Perhaps we could also maintain a linked subpage with every example?) ħuman 02:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

pared down the list of expertise and linked to a separate more comprehensive list. Tell me what you think. EternalCritic 17:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The nice thing about this being a wiki, is that we can make pages of lists. There is no reason we need more than Human's suggested "Andy likes to think of himself as expert in all things. This is most dangerous for students here (XX), and here(xx). However, for fun, this link is a list of the things Andy has at some time or another claimed expertise on". I'd far rather see that, then lose the list. --En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 17:53, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I did add a link to the comprehensive list page i added. EternalCritic 17:55, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I think this is a good direction to go in. We still need to make sure we're not claiming something without a cite though. If there's no cites, it doesn't go in. DogP 18:18, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The master list needs to either be a subpage or in the CP namespace; also we shouldn't refer to Andrew as "Andy", especially in a page title. Otherwise, it looks great! (I'm a gonna move the list now). ħuman 20:49, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Math Course Section

Since as far as I can tell, no such course ever finally arose, may I suggest just nixing that section. It's two years old information at this point and nothing ever emerged from it. EternalCritic 14:51, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

It's still on the Main page just above the "Guest World Treasure". _and marmite 15:51, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

And so it is. Silly me. EternalCritic 16:00, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

FWIW he specifically states in his SES app that he won't be teaching mathematics. Nutty Roux 19:33, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Has he edited his blog's main page to reflect that yet? Looks like he did. PS, that main page is a pig to load. Too much Kencruft and Borken Newscruft. ħuman 23:33, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Comparison between his course and the AP course

Anyone else think that's a bit long-winded too? Can I recruit some help to edit that down a bit? DogP 21:43, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

I dunno, it doesn't seem too bad to me? ħuman 21:51, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

References should be perma or diff links

Example: <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers </ref>

This might change, so the link should at least be copied from the "permanent link" thing at the bottom of the left side menu thing. ħuman 21:49, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Qualifications

See here and discuss. Neveruse513 16:45, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Eagerly awaiting email with unredacted copies... ħuman 23:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

educational conference

Apparently, Schlafly spoke at a conference called "The Gay Agenda and Our Schools / How to Handle Bullying" --AP 19:26, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Awesome. ħuman 23:35, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Continuous presence online & more

I'm not sure this section carries much weight - if anything, it shows he is rather dedicated to CP. It's a bit like saying "He spends all day talking to students, how can he possibly get any teaching done?"

Also, the "entire period" is not "roughly three years", it's been 30 months sice CP went on line, almost.

I would suggest axing the section.

Furthermore, if I may whine slightly, this article has to be careful not to turn into "WIGO CP without swear words" - it should be strong and fairly scholarly, not updated with every new gaffe of Andy's or idea we come up with.

Also also also, what's with the header levels? Why are we using = blah =, it makes the header as large as the title at the top. ħuman 17:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, hang on a sec. As you know, I'm 100% with you that it shouldn't be an extension of WIGO, and have repeatedly argued that myself. But if he's supposed to be teaching students in a class, he's not exactly concentrating on it all bloody day long, is he? I don't think even the best contemporary teachers, accepting that a lot of education nowadays does happen online, turn away from their students for a few angry red-faced minutes every 25 minutes, hammering away on the keys with a reply to some online troll. As you say - it shows he is dedicated to CP. But A) he's supposed to be teaching about 50 of those cherubic students in that class, with blackboards and the like; and B) as you know, the vast majority of his postings have NOTHING to do with any curriculum anywhere, and are instead stupid flame wars about who's the great composer, etc. We may debate about how the information is presented, but I certainly intend to fight for the information staying in some way, shape or form as a representation of his complete distraction from the business at hand, which is supposedly the education of youngsters. As to header levels, sure, help wanted - I can't figure out a way to present this info clearly. DogP 17:44, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Trouble is, Dog, that section is one of the poorest bits of analysis I have ever seen on RW - no offense taken, I hope. Let me see if I can explain why clearly. First and foremost, his class meets for two or three hours once a week, and the image of him turning away from a student to make a red-faced angry edit just doesn't hold water with me - and I think he's a complete tool! Evening editing, which we say is more prevalent, presumably comes after "serious" work. Presenting "average edits per hour" isn't a very clear way to represent what he's doing, since we can't tell how long he spends working on each edit. First we say x edits /day, then we point out there are more in the evening - so maybe he only makes a few edits from 9-5, which is easy. The thing about not taking out time for meals - that's just lying, with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Getting the 3 year/30 months thing wrong is egregious and shows a lack of effort on our part. Keep in mind he is only teaching one class, and can easily be "researching" (yeah I know) and grading and writing homeworks between CP edits - they all take place at the same desk.

As far as "I certainly intend to fight for the information staying in some way" - I don't actually see any "information" there yet, just some hand-wavey statistics. I think I actually edit RW more than he does CP, but I still have time for endless hours at a time away from keyboard, doing other things. Also, when I am "editing", it's often mixed up with answering emails, making/taking phone calls (and being on hold...), doing data entry, etc. Like I said originally, all we are really proving is that he is dedicated to the project, and it would be very hard to convey our assessment of the quality of the time he spends on CP to a neutral to favoring Schlafly third party. As far as the vast majority of his posting having nothing to do with his education project, that might be very hard to quantify. Yes, we think he's a sloppy teacher, and we mock his grading, etc., but we don't have access to his "timeclock" as it were.

As far as the headers, they probably should all be knocked down one level to start with. Maybe some of the bland biog stuff should at the end instead of the beginning, or even in a sub-article, since this isn't really a biog, it's about him as a teacher? ħuman 19:44, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Data. Might want to look at this and this. ħuman 19:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Continuous presence online

The following cut from article to discuss per above further:

An April 2009 study of his use of the site

Schlafly maintains an almost continuous online presence at his website Conservapedia, editing and writing articles, responding to comments from other editors, and performing maintenance and admin tasks such as blocking users, archiving talk pages, and discussing the management of the site. In an April 2009 analysis of his usage of the site, Schlafly had spent a total of 851 of the previous days active at the site, performing over 29,000 edits in that time. This graph shows his site activity over that period of time. We can see that between the hours of 7am and 10pm he makes an average of between 35 and 70 edits per day, with almost no interruptions for lunch or dinner. On average, he made 34.1 edits per day over the entire (roughly two and a half years) period, or one edit every 26 mins. The higher editing rate in the evenings indicate one edit approximately every 12 mins. The vast majority of his posts have nothing to do with his educational program or curriculum.

That he maintains such a continuous and busy presence online is impressive, especially considering that he also runs what must be a busy an educational program with approx 50 students. Exactly what might be the effect on students of a teacher so heavily distracted by internet chat and postings, we are unaware, but it is clear that his focus is very divided and not fully upon on their education.

End of paste. ħuman 19:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Sentence by sentence:

• First sentence is an unsupported, and pointless, observation.
• Second, the analysis is very bizarre - 851 of the previous days means what, exactly?
• The graph only shows what times of day he edits more, on average.
• An average is not "between 35 and 70" - it should be a number, the lunch/dinner thing is completely unsupported.
• Are we assuming a 16-hour day for the 1 edit/26 min. thing? And don't abbreviate minutes, it looks lazy.
• I just looked at his recent contribs, and the phrase "World History" utterly dominates them.

Second pp, don't abbreviate "approx". He's teaching one class that meets 2 hours a week. On top of that there's grading - done at the computer, test prep and grading - done at the computer, and "improving" his lectures - done at the computer. As far as admin work, he's handed off a lot of the deflection of "troublemakers" to the volunteer TK. To me, again, it looks like we are "accusing" him of putting in 16-hour workdays, working virtually non-stop on this project and his class. I do, however, eagerly [await] the strong rebuttal of my flimsy points. ħuman 19:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

aye, I agree to remove this. I maintain almost constant vigilance here on RW yet I still manage to churn through work, write the essay I am writing on Maciavelli, ghost write a novel and still have sex with my girlfriend on a regular basis. Oh yeah, and eat. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:01, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

OK, I have to confess that I am entirely happy to withdraw this, on the basis of my own mistaken assumption - I had NO IDEA he only took one class a week for two hours, no idea at all. I have always simply assumed he was teaching kids five days a week, 9-3, or something. And that does, indeed, entirely blow my entire thesis out of the water. I really was bemused at how much he edits, and trying to imagine how that went down with the students. I'm happy you yanked it, as it was indeed wrong on that basis. Consider my imagination to have run away with itself, and thanks. OK, apologia over, is there anything we want to usefully say from that data? DogP 20:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I have to say, editing in a very multi-task thing that (like human and Ace mention) is a break from the real world. My question, though, which I thought of when Human says "spends time grading at his desk", is if we can some how address his apparent laziness and lack of attention to students in a different manner. how much he edits, or how much he takes smoke breaks, or how much he spends time vacuuming is irrelevant. BUT, the fact that his homework comments are about as inspiring as his wiki edits "Improved" "good job...but capitalize Ohio" seems to have merit, if you can work from that angle.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 20:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm glad we worked that out, and glad I caught the info that was throwing off your perspective. As far as anything useful... it has occurred to me, while working on this section, that it would not hurt our arguments one bit to actually say whatever we can that we know that is positive as well and the relentless critique. You know, telling "the whole truth" and not just one side. And his rabid strong devotion to CP could be considered a plus. People are more likely to believe the negative from a source that also reports the positive (which, admittedly, is hard to find from our perch - he's probably kind to dogs, but we can't tell). The only time he isn't editing CP is when he's eating with his family, at church, or leafleting WDC over abortion. And, oh yeah, the trip to Columbia. I don't think he's even taken a vacation in the two and half years that I can recall. Just a thought. ħuman 20:52, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

@Human, I think quite a long holiday last summer. remember he was gone (posted very irregulary) for about or so weeks. I think Ed Poor mentioned he was on holiday or something. Ace McWicked^Revolt 21:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't have any problem at all with some positive stuff. "Schlafly is dedicated to his beliefs and maintains consistent positions throughout his encyclopedia. He keeps a watchful eye on the content posted at his site, and he and his admins never allow racy or obscene material, offensive language or terminology, or racism to remain on the site. He is clearly dedicated to his site, and routinely makes 30-plus edits a day to the content." Ew, now I feel dirty. DogP 21:08, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

EAG, if you increased your post by one more character, you would have a count of 666. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 20:53, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

My bad on the vacation, see how blinded we can become? Anyway, DP, that's actually not too bad. I think we should lead with the + before the -, Goat knows it will be dwarfed? Any more thought on moving the bio out of the top? ħuman 22:24, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

BNP

There is a brief mention of Andy's approval for some of the BNP's platform. While this is technically true, I thinks perhaps it might be unfair to mention it without any context. In his mind, with what little he knows about the BNP, the group being labeled 'fascist' could just be an example of liberal deceit. Such a brief mention, worded the way it is, implies that he supports the group. Something similar, and we can use a fascist example, would be to say that someone supported parts of Hitler's platform. This could be true, even if the person absolutely disavowed the Nazi party. And in Andy's case the question of context is magnified because he is unfamiliar with the BNP as well as having a borderline psychotic delusion about liberal deceit. I would propose the mention be removed or, preferably, expanded upon. Anyone agree? CarwreCk 07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone purporting to teach history up to the present day should be informed about such things as the nature of the BNP (added: or should not comment on them at all). It is either that he is ignorant about the subject he is teaching (true) or he knows and approves of the BNP (possibly also true). His role as teacher disqualifies him from being given the "benefit of the doubt". _and marmite 08:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What the slightly browned Susan said. ħuman 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

May be true, Toast, but the BNP is a sensitive topic of British politics, and it is a very serious allegation to throw at someone - people risk their jobs if they're found to belong to it. It is true that Schlafly did say "The BNP would get my vote for education (or whatever it was)" but the point in the article could at least be expanded upon to incorporate his later "defence" of his point. SJ ^Debaser 09:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I's a Brit, you know. (& my father was a member of Mosley's mob, to my shame) ;-) _and marmite 09:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He was interned on the IoM for 2 years, I think I'm the result of his release. ;-) _and marmite 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you were or not, but given those facts I have no right to lecture you about the history of British fascism :) but I'm going to add to the article what Schlafly commented on specifically and his later defence. SJ ^Debaser 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover story?

Please do not archive this section

Do you think this article qualifies to be included on the main page? JJ4e^{Guava marmalade!} 10:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps in time, yes, but for now it's not remotely ready for that. Needs lots more research, less snark, more focus. We need to move away from the article's current CP focus - it's not about CP, but CP provides us with evidence for how he is. DogP 17:15, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if anyone thinks this might be ready for prime-time now? DogP 18:36, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I do. it's awesome. PFoster 18:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I think this is now of a sufficient quality to be a cover story article. Thoughts? DogP 13:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I want this on the frontpage under one condition. Fun:Andrew Schlafly (satire) appears under the best of fun. - User $\pi$ 05:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I've no problem with that at all, apart from the fact that there is no 'Best of Fun' category. I added the 'Best of amusement' category instead. DogP 10:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Another Bloody Vote

Place vote here to vote for this as a Cover Story. No goats will be harmed if you vote the wrong way. Well, maybe one goat will be harmed.

Yay

• DogP 10:53, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Pinto's5150 ^Talk 10:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• AYE  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 13:01, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Corry^{Those are balls.} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Neveruse513 13:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Z3ro^talk 15:00, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Do it already... ħuman 15:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Yey. $\pi$ 17:07, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• Please. It is relevant, useful and a potential lifesaver. JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 19:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• YAY --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:45, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• I'm saying "yay" to this (as long as I'm entitled to vote, that is). Don't know how google works but is it possible doing this will raise its search ranking? Madeleinebiscuits 11:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Possible Yay's

Presuming their votes still hold from the old discussion above, we may also have the support of:

• PFoster
• Mr.Mathematical Signature

Nay

• I think we should hold fire on this until we decided who's entitled to vote. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)
• I don't think it's a good idea to have this the front page material. It's not accessible to an outsider and even if it's anti-CP, it's rather indirectly mission-related. Sterile^rationalize 19:44, 3 February 2009 (EST)
  • Sterile has a good point there, re: the mission. Although I just cleaned up the intro and added some links, and surely Schlafly is on-mission? And the article is a good one? ħuman 00:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)
  • Agreed...good point on the mission. But I don't think it should stop us. Familiarizing the community with factual evidence about Schlafly, Hovind, Ham, etc. is on point. Neveruse513 14:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Discussion of votes

Genghis - do we really have to drag all future votes on things off into the realm of 'qualifications for voting' and all this mad-eyed bureaucracy that's beginning to overwhelm this site? How will we know if we have a quorum? Will the votes cast have a fair gender balance? Will voters come equally from blue-collar and white-collar backgrounds? RW is rapidly developing the 'British Disease' of the late '70's, Brother. And as for Sterile's point - isn't the man principle we've all adhered to against Schlafly that he's welcome to his opinions, just not to promote them to children under the guise of it being 'education'? I can't see what could be more 'refuting the anti-science movement' than that? And what outsiders? Who comes here who doesn't know about Conservapedia anyway? Finally, if we remove this, then there's at least three other Conservapedia-related article that need to also come out of the Cover Story article list. We could discuss that, but we'll need to pay a stipend into a fund for the American Auto Worker first. DogP 20:44, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Anyone and everyone should be entitled to a vote. Even Fall Down (only one sock, though). Even TK. They have rights, even if they don't deserve them. That's what makes us different from CP- everyone and anyone has rights. If we start restricting voting, then we become little better than the people who we set up the wiki to protest against. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 20:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I concur with CUR. DogP 20:50, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks. More on my position: When we start restricting votes, we creep towards right-wing authoritarianism. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 21:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Minors can't vote ;). ħuman 00:11, 4 February 2009 (EST)

But you don't know that I'm a minor. I just say I am. And that law doesn't count for wikis. Here, everyone is equal. Some are just more equal than others. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Promotion

In the abscence of any Nays (at the time), this article was promoted to be a cover story article. DogP 16:54, 3 February 2009 (EST)