Talk:Andrew Schlafly (no jokes)/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Statements worth including

Can we get some of his more egregious edits/statements here? Anyone want to troll our archives?

• Girls are dumb statement

Discussion of links

Is that a joke? Where did he say girls are dumb? Bohdan2

He did, but I think we need to do better than that, really. Although, the example does show how weak his reasoning is. Remember, we are theoretically writing this for conservative, Christian parents who might be considering paying him to teach their kids. We need to inform them without offending the hell out of them. ħuman 22:41, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

In that case, "Sadly, the man is not just a pro-Christian, pro-American conservative, " should go..PFoster 22:45, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

He did? Where? Bohdan2 22:42, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

I think he's referring to this though there's a difference between "dumb" and "worse than guys at math". NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 23:24, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

One thing we really should do here is point out the low quality of his American history lectures, for instance. ħuman 22:42, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

"reason"

I thought this article didn't include jokes? Bohdan2 22:33, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

I hate to agree with Henry, but he's right...PFoster 22:35, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

This: The reason for this article, which will maintain a thoughtful and respectful as possible tone, is that our "mostly jokes" article on Mr. Schlafly has attained a very high ranking on search engines. , and we feel that we do parents of his prospective students a disservice to not also offer some straightforward information on him. should be on the talk page, not the article IMHO...PFoster 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

It's there to explain to the reader why it exists. Tell you what - before we just delete it all, let's write something, then pare the lesser material? Or at least discuss deletions here where they can be defended first? ħuman 22:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

A major difficulty is that Andy's crappiness is largely down to his attitude. a) difficult to put into words; b) a lot of his potential (RW Xtians) clients will agree with him.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:49, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

True that. Which will make it more challenging to write, since we aren't preaching to the choir. But I think his "spinning" of news to the ugly extremes and the overall lack of quality in those Am Hist lectures are good fodder. I dunno. We'll think of some things soon, I'm sure. ħuman 23:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

A look through his writing homework assignments might prove fruitful I've had a look but it just freaks me out.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

And what about that exchange he had with the Liberally taught student who did well on his history (?) test and was called a liar as a result?   ^Contribs_Talk 23:08, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Link, anyone remember, and can we figure out a way to share that? ħuman 05:16, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Potential examples

Shall we try to list things we think might be good to chase down in one section?

One thing that occurs to me right now is the flagrant disregard for copyright law. Presented well, it might be a bit of a shocker to the potential "customer"? ħuman 00:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Lenski affair - it represents the head-in-the-sand approach and his "I'm an expert on everything" problem. Same goes for Hollywood Breast Cancer. HPV Vaccine. The Dawkins thing is a total distraction and should be removed - it's just a personal hobbyhorse of his, and isn't something a conservative parent would give a flying fuck about. As Human said below, we need to be much less petty, and we also need to revisit the entire fun-filled history - our answers lie in BOWIGO. DogP 11:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion

I see that Icewedge created an article on Wikipedia [1], currently proposed to be merged with WP's Conservapedia. Could we use some of that material, which is rather good? --JayJay4ever^??? 16:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely! ħuman 17:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Strengthening this

I think the 'Denial of Reality' and 'Obsession with Liberals' examples are weak. It reads very snarky, and really all we're doing is addressing our own concerns - they're like WIGOs. I think we should write this for conservative parents, and address concerns that they can relate to. They might, for example, love the idea that he's obsessed with fighting liberal bias in the media, and everyone's definition of 'reality' is different. Certainly mine is right now. DogP 04:18, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Then let's delete or improve them. I think the obsession with liberals thing might work with some effort - our audience may be Christian homeschool parents, but they're not insane. As far as the denial of reality, it might be weak, yes. I was only trying to boink this thing into being better. I see you have done a lot of work on it, so thanks! ħuman 05:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps "Denial of Reality" should focus more on "Revisionist History," using clear and sourced examples of Andy "misinterpreting" history to his own ends and reliable neutral sources explaining what actually happened? I think this would be especially pertinent to parents who are going to trust their children's education to him (i.e., his ridiculous U.S. History lectures). --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:03, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Sure... we have to go back deep into the archives, eh? It's like last May all over again, never made me feel so young again.... AND remember, the hardest part - our audience in this article are people predisposed to hire teh assfly - they are YEC, socially conservative people. This is our greatest and grandest task: To convince "them" that Schlafly is a poor choice for their dollars and their children's time. ħuman 05:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Debatable sections

I pulled the following sections from the article - my view is that these are pure, unadulterated, RW snark and completely off-base. They have no bearing whatsoever on this article, which is not yet another page on RW to mock Andy. If this article is to work, it should lay out coherent, focused an undebatable argument against the man, with no petty opinion. Also, it will have to avoid petty items like the Dawkins thing - it's simply not relevant to a conservative parent whether or not Dawkins is or isn't a professor. The Leif Ericson thing is a distraction, it's simply our current WIGO thing. If it is to make it into the article, it has to have a point.

The liberal section is especially egregious, as a conservative parent would love to know that he disagreed with liberals about stuff. We have to lay out incontrovertible evidence that the man is an inappropriate choice as the educator of your children, that's all. DogP 11:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

One I would defend is the Ericson thing. Sure, it's a recent WIGO, but it is relatively neutral politically and religiously - and history is what he is offering to teach. I agree re: the liberals stuff & Dawkins, and the hardest part of this is trying to write persuasively in a tone that will be "accepted" by the likely YEC types who might be considering letting Andy "educate" their kids. So many of "our" reasons why that's a bad idea would seem like arguments "for" using him to our target audience! ħuman 15:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd be inclined to defend the Dawkins one. It's so absurd to claim that a professor isn't a professor because he says things that AS doesn't like.--Bob^{bing up} 15:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps we can present as shallow or weak criticism? "Andy can't do any better to criticize the infamous atheist Richard Dawkins than to claim doggedly that RD is not a real professor" or some such? ħuman 01:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Denial of reality

Mr. Schlafly denies that Leif Ericson ever founded a short-lived settlement in the New World, in spite of academic historians all being in agreement that the finds in Newfoundland date to roughly 1000 AD and are definitely evidence of Scandinavian culture.

He's also dead-set against the idea that Benjamin Franklin was a Deist.

Mr. Schlafly denies that atheist and evolution-promoter Richard Dawkins is a "professor", in a clumsy attempt to attack his credentials. The fact that Dawkins' employers at Oxford University refer to him as "Professor Dawkins" is portrayed by Mr. Schlafly as just another example of the Liberal Bias and Liberal Fraud that he claims are endemic to the academic world. This page shows the lengths Mr Schlafly will go to in order to deny this basic fact and the scorn he pours on detractors of his view.

Mr. Schlafly believes that Einsteins theory of relativity is used by liberals to promote moral relativism, in order to further their own agenda.

Obsession with either/or politics

Mr. Schlafly has created numerous "articles" on his "encyclopedia" demonizing liberals, and systematically censors any suggestion that liberals have ever had a positive role in society.

Mr. Schlafly systematically opposes inclusion of even single examples of conservative errors in articles like "deceit".

Rewriting the Bible

Schlafly indeed said that the adulteress parable should be reverted, but does this mean that he is rewriting the Bible, or that he plans to? I have no doubt that Schlafly would rewrite the Bible if he could, but in conclusion there's no strong evidence. JayJay4ever^??? 14:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Good point - it (the parable thing) works to show that he argues with what he considers at times to be absolute truth. Bringing up "rewriting" is going beyond what we can "prove". ħuman 15:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

OK, I reworded that, having reconsidered. DogP 11:56, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Sysop "section"

What I was trying to do was point out how inappropriate an environment Schlafly created on CP for children, by describing some of the grownups he got on board and let run amok. There might not be a good way to address the issue, sadly. But imagine if you heard the private school you were gonna send your kids to had people like Ken, TK, Karajou, (Bunlger, Jinxyshoes) etc. as hall monitors and classroom "rule" enforcers... These are effectively his "employees" and their style sheds light on his judgement. ħuman 15:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree, it gives the reader a good scope of how Conservapedia works. --JayJay4ever^??? 20:05, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

We just have to figure out a way to present it, I guess. ħuman 20:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I think we can make it work. And the leif Ericson thing can work too-but we can't just make the argument that "these esteemed researchers think it Is so, because anyone who's even remotely considering a Schlafly education would surely also be rejecting these "liberal professors" too. DogP 20:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I think Schlafly's the only right-wing nut job who has a "professor problem". Perhaps the parents have some respect for relatively recent (post Deluge) history? And want their kids to learn it right? ħuman 01:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Grammar comments

I do realize how ironic that someone like myself (who can't use a comma to save her life) would point this out... but i figure if *i* can see them, they must be pretty damn bad.--Waiting for Godot 15:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, fix 'em if you see 'em? That's what I do... ħuman 18:29, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

On CP's page? I figure that if you leave it there, it will make people think twice about sending children to his "school". I would!97.118.80.70 20:09, 5 August 2008 (EDT) hell, that was me... gots to remember to log in. --Waiting for Godot 20:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you meant there. I do fix some there, but it would take an army of dedicated proofreaders to get them all. I thought you meant here. Oh, and WFG, if you want, your IP could be blocked to remind you to log in (is it static, or fairly so?). Just ask any sysop, or do it yourself if you are one. ħuman 20:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Props all around

I am thrilled that this is getting attention and you guys are doing excellent work! 24.36.227.74 20:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Trent, you bum, you forgot to log in again. ħuman 20:56, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

number of students

I think it should say "runs a homeschooling program in his home state of New Jersey, where he has taught over a hundred high school age students."

1. I'm fairly certain it's over a hundred by now (check his cp user page?). Wasn't the class that "built" CP something like 57 kids?

2. We don't have to worry about the past tense changing - it will never go down. At any given time, who knows how many he will have?

Oh, I checked his luser page: "I have enjoyed personally teaching 145 homeschooled teenagers in ten different courses since 2002"

I'm a gonna edit it now. ħuman 21:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Amusing factoid...

Does anyone else find this: "He was homeschooled until the age of seven." as amusing as I do? (original NYT citation: "She breast-fed each child for six months, and home-schooled her four sons and two daughters through age 7.")

Does that mean, basically, that there was no kindergarten or pre-school program, and perhaps she held them back from first grade for a year? Weren't virtually all of us "home schooled" until the age of 5 or 6 or so? I still chuckle every time I read that line. ħuman 21:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Since this is a serious article, I also find amusing that --intentionally or not-- we're referring to him as 'Mr. Schlafly'. Weird. JJ4e^?!?!?!?! 00:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's decent default style. It reminds us not to refer to him in a disrespectful manner, as is our habit. Sometime we should probably drop some of the "Mr."s, and maybe even call him Andrew or Andy once in a while. But we are better off not doing much of that. Trying to avoid an "assfly" slipping in (it's easier to type). ħuman 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Title

Wouldn't it be more logical to have this article as the main Andrew Schlafly article, and to move the current Andrew Schlafly to the Fun: space instead? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I actually think that's an excellent idea AK. Others? DogP 12:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, the other one has more "facts" than this one will ever have. This one is more of an afterthought, an appendix if you will, to the other. Also, would swapping them around affect their google rank (I know we usually don't worry, but it was our "high position" that prompted making this one). I think our main article should be the one with jokes. However, we also have no precedent to help us decide. ħuman 14:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I support the switching idea -- this one should definitely be in the "Andrew Schlafly" slot. But what to do with the other one? It's pretty much out flagship article in terms of snark. We can't just shuffle it off into the Funspace, can we? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 14:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't support it (the switch). The other one is RW's "main" article on AS, this one is a specialty item for a very small number of people who may not want to wade through the snark, but are curious as to who the man is and how good of a teacher he might be for their children. ħuman 15:25, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I do support the namespace move. And I think the "(no jokes)" bit should be removed from the title. This should become THE article on the net about AS. We will always have the other joyful slamfest. DogP 17:20, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the other one is the article on the net about AS. It pulls no punches. This one is a bit too refined to be our main article on him. Also, having "no jokes" in the title is important, since it reminds editors what it is for, and the other article is where they can add their venom fresh from dealing with him at CP. ħuman 17:37, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, with the template thing on the main article, our (very high) hit on Google reads:

"Andrew Schlafly - RationalWiki
If you came to this page looking for information about Andrew Schlafly, particularly as a potential teacher, please click this link. ..."

Which is perfect. ħuman 17:39, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Frankly, (or Samly, or Tonylee) I came because of the amusing side to things like the Schafley article. It would be a shame to hide it in the "fun" space, as most one-hit users do not know there are even other "spaces". RW is not an encyclopedia, and when you lose the more "fun" aspects of the site, i think you lose some of your draw. imo of course.--Waiting for Godot 17:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I just saw how google has us linked now....perfect. tmtoulouse ^nettle 17:53, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Despite being a purist when it comes to namespaces, I do feel that the (kind of) prominent link to this alternative article is sufficient; Andrew Schlafly is, like it or not, one of our flagship articles and hiding it away in the funspace (without a redirect to it) would be a shame. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Anti-Vax

The current version of the article says this: "He is currently a legal representative for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and has appeared on television as a voice for the anti-vaccination movement." It seems to me that this is not quite accurate. The video linked shows Andy arguing against the HPV vaccine. His argument is idiotic, but it does not put him in with the "anti-vax" crowd as defined by our article (also linked). The anti-vaxers argue that the vaccines do more harm physically than they prevent, where as Andy argues that vaccines will somehow encourage behaviour that he finds icky. I think that the anti-vax reference should be removed from this specific point (but the video should definitely stay). Are there better examples of Andy or the AAPS supporting the anti-vax movement?-Antifly 13:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, yes, he is very heavily anti-vax. Check his stuff on CP and you'll see he's far more rabidly anti-vax than he was on the CNN interview. He very definitely thinks they're a threat to health, not just morals in the HPV case. DogP 17:18, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

two words: Ambulance chaser.--Waiting for Godot 17:43, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

See also link to essay

I'm not really sure we want that link on this article, it's not strongly representative of what we have to say, and certainly isn't "ready for prime time" yet. Maybe after it gets improved? ħuman 15:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

That's odd, I could swear I deleted *Essay:Christianity and the 6th Commandment from the see also section before. Just had to do it again... ħuman 16:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

article links vs. CP diffs

This is a good question. I think we have to use our judgement - ie, the Lenski affair is a good one to use here, but some of our articles might be a bit over the top. Which is sad, because they might be better than a couple of diff links, since they tell the story, and have the links anyway, usually. ħuman 17:33, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I think, in fairness to the audience we're writing this for, we should favour CP diff's, as a) our articles are likely to be so snarky we will put off readers who find their way there; and b) it's kind of better to provide incontestable evidence from the source, don't you think? It would give a conservative reader a lot less to argue with. Hence my suggestion that the list can contain a two or three line synopsising paragraph on each field - kind of like an inoffensive mini-WIGO. DogP 17:36, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Makes sense. It also gets them used to actually going there. By the way, where did you suggest that? An edit comment? (I started this section based on an edit comment you made) EC's are very fragile ways to discuss things, although they are saved, they vanish into the past quickly at times. It's a good idea, anyway. It would be nice to see a handful of links for most of our assertions on the "expert" list. ħuman 17:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'll get around to a minWIGO for each, and a set of diffs, but anyone who wants to help out - please do so. DogP 18:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I would, but I'm boycotting CP for another, what, two weeks or so? ħuman 18:15, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Order of the article

As this is primarily aimed at parents who maybe considering placing students in Andy's care, should it not have Matters relating to his status as an educator before Conservapedia and to make it flow better have a comment like; "Typically part of Andy's courses will either take place on or will be directly related to his online encyclopedia, Conservapedia. When considering whether to have Andy as your a teacher of your students it is important to consider the environment they will be exposed to on Conservapedia". And then start our CP venting. $\approx$$\pi$ 19:08, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree. ħuman 20:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh well looks like I have a job ahead of me. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Paranoia

An idea. Should we have a section on things that Andy has decided are sources of his paranoid "liberal bias". As Andy has stated that all medical journals, science magazines, the internet, Variety magazine, most television stations and even the dictionary contain liberal bias perhaps parents should be aware that their children are only going to be exposed to small slice of material that Andy has deemed free of bias. Just a thought but I think this is important. Ace McWicked^whisky 21:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Well he does routinely denounce reputable organisations so it might be worth mentioning if you can find some diffs and compare them to the original site. The one that comes to mind is the what ever the US major cancer organisation is (its name escapes me at the moment) and it direct statement that there is no causal link between breast cancer and abortion which Andy denounced as liberal bias and political correctness. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Well I can easily grab the diff where he rejects the dictionary for being liberal (explains his spelling) but I'll work on the others later tonight (my time). I'll cobble something together and post it here. I think it is worthy to note because I certainly wouldn't want my children distrusting some of the most well established medical/scientific organizations at the behest of one Andrew Layton Schlafly Esq. Leave it with me.

Ace McWicked^whisky 21:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't help it. this is one of the most remarkable things I've ever read. The talk page is great, too. Corry^Talk 00:06, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Ouch, boycotting is hard. Will you remember to WIGO it in a couple weeks? ħuman 01:03, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have been, ahem, filing. It is one of the greatest articles ever, but we must not make a fuss about this, else we will start WIGO madness. We must restrain ourselves. Do not look. Well, maybe a peek, but do not allow yourself to be drawn in by the madness. Turn away from the light! DogP 01:48, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, I appreciate your work on this. Me, I like teh boycotts, mostly because it makes for so much fresh madness to check out when they're over. But your work requires CPism, and I do not fault that at all. ħuman 02:03, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Writing in the ground"

I think this section is a low blow. While it's tempting to draw attention to Schlafly's spelling / grammatical errors, since he is so eager to point triumphantly at other people's, he is hardly a dyslexic or a serial misspeller. The example given is not a good one either. First, assuming he meant to say "writing on the ground", reflect on the fact that I and O are adjacent on QWERTY keyboards, and could be easily explained as a typo. A spellchecker would not notice. And so, Andy, busily attending to other matters on his blog, doesn't properly proof-read before posting.

Besides which, even if Andy intended to write in, the in/on distinction is excusable. One writes on the ground, but writes in dirt. It's an easy, understandable mistake to make, and I think it's very petty of us to issue a solemn warning to parents about it. I think we should either change the example to a more serious one or, better still, remove that paragraph entirely. Johann 05:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the section needs help too, pointing out those mistaeks as they're currently presented in the section feel like a cheap shot that attempt to undermine the guy's intelligence rather than show the reader that he's not suitable as a model for children. I think if we're going to keep that section, we must either point out how those errors exist in his teaching material (where they do speak about his ability to teach) or point out how Andy uses other's errors to smear and dismiss their arguments, thus showing his hypocritical nature. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 05:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. But if someone on CP had typed the word "mistaeks", as you did, it would be trumpeted on WIGO as "OMG!! Another irony meter just exploded!!!". We're better than that.... right? Johann 06:21, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

A valid point, but the "in/on" thing is not the only thing wrong here - describing instead of described, the unnecessary switch between active and passive, and the weird use of the word beseech, which really turns the whole situation on its head. Plus the whole sentence is just weak. Lord knows I'm not one who should point fingers when it comes to spelling, but I'd really expect at least a little more effort from someone who tries to teach classes for children. --~~ ^{— Unsigned, by: AKjeldsen / talk / contribs}

I think the best example would be one where he rudely chides someone for grammar/spelling but ignores their point. Ideally, he would make an error while doing it. I think we have one of those archived, but I'm not sure. ħuman 15:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Also (I agreee with AK above by the way), Andy is a serial poor writer. Hey, we all make typos, and let the occasional spelling or grammar error slip through, but 1) that example is horrific, it speaks of a muddled mind (and if he was tired or tipsy he shouldn't be "writing" for kids?) and 2) most editors fix their errors relatively quickly after slipping and clicking "save". Heck, Kendoll will edit mainpageright twelve times in a row until he gets it right. ħuman 16:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Can I say, since I wrote the association of education and bad spelling -- it is NOT meant to be a bash on Andy per say, just as a "low blow". That was not my intent, and note that I do not go and bother with generic "he's an idiot" on this particular page. What my problem is, and always has been, is that AS AN EDUCATOR, it's is paramount that you make sure your pages are clear, are well written and are grammatically correct. I myself am dyslexic. When I write for publication, I have at least two trusted people read through it before I even submit it, just because it is not appropriate to submit something that is not correctly written. These pages are constantly being purported as "educational resources." no teacher, anywhere, should say that something written carelessly is appropriate to teach children from. the "dyslexia" comment is not meant to be a slight. many very intelligent people are dyslexic and struggle with things that the rest of the writing world takes as second nature. But that does not excuse the writing, it just means you should have it edited. Or, it's carelessness... either way, it is not an acceptable "text" in the form Conservapedia stands.--Waiting for Godot 16:40, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

From the other Andy article:

See if you can learn out to spell "superior".

NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 17:57, 22 August 2008 (EDT)