This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eagle Forum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Eagle Forum was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Surely there must be some controversies we can dig up on this group. Let's find some evidence of hate speech, vitriolic rhetorical, and examples of bigotry. I am sure the stuff exists, we just need to dig it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.202.86 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Conservapedia charged Wikipedia with liberal bias - pffft
Secular content is not biased. Conservapedia, on the other hand, uses outright fundamentalist bias to attack Wikipedia. How Americancentric can you be to deem Wikipedia biased for including substitutions of labor with labour. And if Wikipedia uses censorship too much, what can defend Conservapedia's prevention of even creating an account. Fundamentalists need to cry somewhere else, Wikipedia is a home of secular objectivity. 68.163.32.207 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The premise behind it is equally laughable. Given that any Wikipedia editor, if challenged, will have to justify their neutrality with logical arguments, Conservapedia is essentially saying that logic has a liberal bias... Baggabagga 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like they're in a DOS attack or just can't deal with the load. Also, the divided government article mentions how Clinton only experienced surpluses/balanced budget with a Republican-controlled House but not the record deficits experienced during Ronald Reagan's administration where the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Tomhormby 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guys, it's a phenomenon now! Has to be time to bring back the old Conservapedia article. Undelete, I say (58.6.94.72 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)matt)
The present article seems misleading to me, as it does not adequately describe Conservapedia. --Theosch 07:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
why does conservapedia redirect here? i came here looking for info. i want to know about it's origins, who's sponsoring it, criticisms, etc. there's over a quarter million hits for 'conservapedia' on google, yet barely two sentences about it on wikipedia. this is a notable site, why is wikipedia lagging behind on covering it? 74.101.213.92 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Conservapedia needs its own article a.s.a.p. The situation has moved on since the AfD in December. There's little sense in a redirect here with information about Conservapedia beginning to clog up this article. Bondegezou 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree it needs its own article. Their page on 'liberal' is humourous though. (Elephant53 01:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
I've just looked at the Wikipedia page on 'liberal' and that isn't very good either. (Elephant53 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
This should maybe go on the Conservapedia page when it goes up: its entry on Wikipedia complains: "The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American." Hello? Most people are in fact not American... --Hugh7 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kelly Ramsey 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm on a related note. Looking at this article's history, the "dominionist" label was apparently a point of contention recently. It was, too, for the Free Congress Foundation article. As far as Eagle Forum is concerned, there currently isn't any documentation with reliable sources. The main source for the categorization, TheocracyWatch, is another activist group so it really doesn't qualify.
I'm taking off the "dominionism" template until this article has proper verification for the label. - Kelly Ramsey 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In this edit, a user changed the traffic rank from ~10,000 to being in the 500,000s. The daily traffic was close to 10,000 (the bit in the graph), but the 500,000s seems to be the overall (longer term) rank. Oh, the joys of original research! Andjam 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(Some comments refractored to BJAODN) Andjam 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this sudden surge is notable. How is it original research? It just quotes Alexa. Paul Studier 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
With the recent coverage in Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0%2C72818-0.html?tw=wn_index_3) and New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/02/conservative-rival-for-wikipedia.html) as well as the attention all over the various blogs, at what point does conservapedia actually reach enough notoriety to have an article and not simply a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it? Tmtoulouse 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
look people! I just copied exactly word for word what a wikipedia definition says and what a conservapedia definition says???...how in the hell...is that POV?...its showing the differences...and conservapedians should be proud of their definitions! why would you attempt to hide me presenting them on this page?...anyways Im being careful in the future, it seems that I will indeed go to Hell if i ever dare to believe dinosaur bones are older than 6,000 years. What happens to me if I disagree with "dinosaurs still roam the earth" and that they were all "vegetarians"...??? 83.78.181.214 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
....aaaahhhhggggg......im being eaten by a Tyranosaurus!!!...help conservapedians... help help!!!...no...no wait...its just my african violets and orchids it is eating!!!...phew!...that was a close one...(i always wondered about those large teeth, they seem to work really well on getting the nectar out of the orchids!) 83.78.181.214 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"I'm personally really pleased in conservapedia, it will prove very interesting, perhaps at times even entertaining, and it will be nice to see how the conservapedians think of and view the world...as you know what conservapedians?...I have a distinctly right wing streak in me sometimes, and it can prove very useful to have such knowledge over how people are thinking...very useful..and while i may lean rightwards at times, yet still think this business of 6000 year old dinosaur bones is absolute rubbish, its very useful to know how y'all think!!!...and anyways Im sure that you may eventually have some definitions perhaps better than wikipedia on certain subjects, we will at least get all the dirt on the democrats yes?, I suppose we next need a "liberalapedia" so we can see all the dirt on the republicans also without it being blocked and erased out 83.78.181.214 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"
Irony when this guy actually went to Conservapedia he became depressed, athiest, and democratic haha
well I just want to state that I have been immediately blanked out for showing the definitions from wikipedia vrs conservapedia, copied word for word, if someone wants to try and state wikipedia has a "liberal" bias then try editing on this page! and you might change your mind!!!...83.78.181.214 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So i am proposing something!!!..We really do start a liberalapedia, we selectively block out editors who dont uphold our standards, we take instead of just minor facts compatible with american religious extremists from current wikipedia like conservapedia does, we instead take everything currently in wikipedia, and go from there working with that and slowly but surely editing to our exact preferences, yet we stay very close to neutral still...we would want to stay very neutral still, yet eliminate all conservative bias, and we load up the trash on republicans, yet careful to stay neutral, and only accurate trash, if its speculation we state it being speculation, we really could perhaps outdo wikipedia if we stuck to accuracy yet just flushed out the conservative bias in it, and we'd trash democrats when they deserved trashing, there would be far less time taken up in edit wars, the wars could be solved more peacefully and harmoniously and with consensus, vandals would have no access, no time taken up with minor anonymous vandals, you have a try out period and can be quickly blocked if you arent compatible, it would be a closed community of editors, yet open for new ones to try if they showed good editing skills compatible with the rest, wed need some editors highly critical to cruise around it to make sure we didnt go overboard and maintained the best internet encylopedia there is...yet really we wouldnt want a liberal bias, so we wouldnt call it liberalapedia, wed just want a very accurate document with no room for conservative bias, just the input of moderates, the center, and slightly left, the hard left we could let have their say which they dont on wikipedia, yet wed clearly state "the left feels" when they said something...we could call it perhaps "accupedia"..for accuracy..or perhaps "realpedia" 83.78.181.214 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
this was joshuaz earlier on this talk page "one could argue that Wikipedia is so biased with liberalism that what passes for logic and sourcing on Wikipedia is skewed."...83.78.181.214 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, i thought that might have been the case, thanks for clearing that up...83.78.181.214 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
well, Im not supporting the article on the eagle review be deleted, we need an article on conservapedia, it needs to be explained what it is by those from the wikipedia forum, just like the conservapedians explain on their site their view of wikipedia, the only difference is that on the wikipedia site we have a broad range of editors right, left, and middle commenting & that can ruthlessly delete if they dont like something, so i could never negatively ramble on about conservapedia in the article itself, the conservative wikipedia editors would remove it...83.78.181.214 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
anyways like I say its good this conservapedia...i think its a good idea, segregation is the answer, people on the radical right need their own forum, they are wasting their own time and also the majority of wikipedians' time in ridiculous edit wars...wikipedia needs to be a highly accurate document, we dont need crazies telling people they will go to hell if they dont believe dinosaur bones are only 6,000 years old or less and that the dinosaurs were all vegetarians and walk the earth to this day! plus their arguments about being a "christian" encyclopedia are rubbish! Ill betcha the vast majority of editors on english wikipedia are christian! some may not be so psycho extremist, but they are still christians! conservapedia should set up their operations base in afghanistan next to the taliban religious extremists! I'll betcha they could come together on an encyclopedia!...anyways!...segregation is the answer!!!...(sorry for my right wing bias!, i tend sometimes to be a right wing elitest exclusionist! after all i tested out 99.9 percentile on my SATs, 1 per 1000!...lucky for y'all i have a "soft leftie" compassion for the rest of you!) 83.78.181.214 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
and PS! dont waste ur time wikipedians on conservapedia! if you have any rationality and common sense you will not waste your time...let them say what they want! dont bug them! their whole idea is so they can have their say without meddling from the people not on the hard right. respect their wishes!. lets see just what kind of encyclopedia they put out!..we already know what an encylopedia looks like with people from all sides and mainly moderates (mostly from the united states) editing it!...83.78.181.214 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
and!!! PS to the conservapedians! Jesus was just about the biggest leftie that ever walked this planet! All you have to do is read a few lines to figure that out! He would be so far left of the american democrats!!! Im not trying to convert you to be left or right! covert yourselves I say!...just get real! Jesus was a leftie liberal anti-imperialist! He was the radical left of his day and age, and undoubtledly would be today as well. 83.78.181.214 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
what is truly amazing! More so than Jesus "walking on water"..is that the hard right in america can use a document put out by the radical left: The New Testament for their ends and purposes...its the ultimate example of doublespeak 83.78.181.214 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The first article I looked at was about James I, described as a confirmed bachelor, not sure what that is about as he was married to Anne of Denmark and had at 3 children including Charles I. Very strange
I've started a new draft based on reliable sources - User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia so we can be ready to stick it into the page when the DRV closes. Feel free to edit it. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I spruced up the article, included more examples of biases, corrected spelling errors and added more sources. It should be made clear in the final draft that Conservapedia by its very nature is biased, since its stated aim is to correct the perceived liberal, anti-Christian, anti-American bias on Wikipedia. They do not strive for neutrality. Kronix1986 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this article needs to stress that Conservapedia is "conservative" only in a single, rather narrow American sense of the word? I'm in the UK, I'm moderately Conservative by UK standards and I intend to vote for the Conservative Party in the next election. I don't really perceive WP as having a liberal bias, and I think most of the material in Conservapedia is laughable (I love their entry on France: "A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol [sic] is Paris, France [sic], which was founded in the Middle Ages" - that's the whole entry). However, blithely associating Conservapedia with a "conservative" viewpoint tars me, other European conservatives, and intelligent American conservatives with the same brush as these ridiculous hillbillies. I know that's basically the fault of the site's creators for calling it Conservapedia, but I think we need to define the type of "conservatism" that's implied in the name. I don't particularly want to be associated with a bunch of bible-thumping rednecks, thanks very much. Bedesboy 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly I find it appalling that they're calling themselves the "conservapedia." Conservatives in the US have a bad enough name as is. As a conservative myself, I am horrified to be included with such radical and misinformed Christian viewpoints.
I would like to add some constructive pages and fix a spelling error (not of the -our -or kind) but Conservapedia does not appear to have a Create Account option? Help needed please.
Tabletop 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is now a separate article on conservapedia so most of that information can be removed from here which doesn't leave much left. The references are blank and not much information about "Eagle Forum" lets see what sources we can find and get something worth having here. Tmtoulouse 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
On reading it, I was left with a multitude of unanswered questions. Below are a few of them as a guide on what could be added:
The Eagle Forum is almost certainly a controversial organisation, due to it's far right wing views. Why is there nothing about confrontations with people on the other side of politics? - Eagle forum, and their founder, make numerous appearances on www.rightwingwatch.org
How is the organisation linked to the church? - It seems there is a link since in creating Conservapedia they were concerned that Wikipedia was anti-Christian.
History Section
What is the Education and Legal Defense Fund used for? What/who's legal problems are defended using the fund?
What does PAC stand for? (as in Eagle Forum PAC). Who have been their main & most controversial targets for donations?
Organisation Section
There is no mention of the structure of the organisation. Are there any full time employees? What are the offices for? Is there any significance to the location of the offices.
Do members pay a fee? How much? How do they raise other cash?
Are non-caucasians permitted to be members/leaders? Why are almost all of the state leaders women? What are the demographics and geographics of the members?
Scope of Activities section
This section lists a number of issues in which the Eagle Forum is involved, but there is no detail of how they are involved. Who/how/where do they lobby? How much influence do they exert?
Anti-Evolution/pro-Creationism and anti-conscription could added to the list.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --Ozhiker 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop putting unsourced allegations about Dominionism into the article. They are false. The Eagle Forum views can be found on its web site. Roger 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two external links currently being used to make this the identification. In the first I cannot find any mention of Eagle Forum; would Tmtoulouse or FM please quote the sentence you think is relevant here? The second describes Eagle Forum as a "Christian Right advocacy group". Unless you are claiming that Christian Right = Dominionism, then I don't see a connection here either. Further, the association should be attributed to Chris Hedges, the author of the second article, who is not necessarily speaking even for TheocracyWatch (who published the article), much less CRESP (which only provides infrastructure for TW) or Cornell University. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
At User:Schlafly's request, I am posting this here:
User:Schlafly has repeatedly added a statement to the effect that cited sources in the "Criticism" section do not actually say that EF is Dominionist.[1] While this is true, it is not relevant, as the text does not say that they do. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger, if you want to get this settled to your satisfaction, your best approach is to find a reliable source you can quote that says, in so many words, that Eagle Forum is not dominionist. If there is a statement to this effect published somewhere on the Eagle Forum website, it would IMHO be highly appropriate to include that in this Wikipedia article. If there is not--and a Google search on "site:www.eagleforum.org dominionist" doesn't find anything--and if you have contacts in Eagle Forum who are concerned about the Wikipedia article, then someone ought to draft something addressing the issue and publish it on the Eagle Forum site. If possible, the statement should be clearly identifiable as having been made by someone who speaks for the Eagle Forum.
I would strongly support a brief summary of, and a link to any such statement.
If you are seriously interested in achieving a change in the content of the article, I'm about 95% sure that would work.
Simply deleting well-sourced statements you disagree with, or adding your own unsourced statements, probably won't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I added: "None of these sources actually says that Eagle Forum is dominionist." I would suggest removing the stuff on theocracy and dominionism. Roger (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The references in this article are of poor quality - URL's are not enough, full references should be provided, possibly using Template:Cite web.
Many of the references do not properly match the sentence or phrase they are attached to:
--Ozhiker (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section says that Eagle Forum has been criticized for its views. I don't think that this is notable, as all political organizations get criticized for their views. But if this article is going to have a Criticism section, then it should list some actual Eagle Forum views, and list some people who have actually criticized those views. The article does not. It lists some obscure essays by people who are unhappy about Dominionism, but nowhere does any of those sources say that Dominionism is an Eagle Forum view. This nonsense does not belong. Elstong (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For your information,
Currently, there are four sources to support saying Eagle Forum is a dominionist organization.
One is an article by Glenn Scherer. The Godly Must Be Crazy:
Three others are links from TheocracyWatch's website. They all take the numbers that Glenn Scherer compiled to group Eagle Forum with the Christian Coalition and the Family Resource Council:
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not in sympathy with Eagle Forum or with Phyllis Schlafly, yet at my first glance at the image chosen my instant reaction was that it was an unflattering image. So I did a quick Google image search for "phyllis schafly" and turned up the image used in the article, but also many far more attractive-looking ones. The first Google Image hit, for example, was
http://www.patrolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/schlafly+phyllis.jpg
This image does not look phony or airbrushed, and yet her smile makes her look far more attractive.
I don't know what Wikipedia policy is or could possibly be with regard to image selection, and I understand the issues with finding free images, but I really have a problem with the image that's in the article now. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor reverted my change from "The organization is [[pro-life]]" to "The organization is [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion|opposed to the legalization of abortion]]", commenting "this is how they self-describe; no consensus for this change". I'm aware of no policy that requires WP to use self-descriptions; WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" with caveats (emphasis mine), but WP:NPOV requires that WP "Prefer non-judgmental language". The articles on abortion advocacy are actually titled "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" and "Support for the legalization of abortion" for NPOV, and articles that link to them should do the same. AV3000 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
ANTI ISLAM AGENCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4606:4C00:4CD0:9C0B:47F1:4B18 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
ANTI ISLAM AGENCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4606:4C00:4CD0:9C0B:47F1:4B18 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)