Conservapedia:Censorship

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Who's worse? The people who censor scientists who disagree with the prevailing theory of evolution? Or the people who falsely accuse this website of censorship when it blocks users who post false or misleading information about the censorship of those scientists?

Blocking users who post relevant information

I was the various users MakeTime, TakeTwo, TakeThree, JanEngerlund and HarrietJones, all of whom are blocked. My crime was to post a review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Time magazine in the Conservapedia article about the movie. Although an undeniably negative review of the movie, I posted a selection of quotes from the review in the already existing 'Reviews' section of the Expelled article. One would imagine an uncontroversial addition to an article - no matter how disagreeable the opinion, which is after all what a movie review is - would be a review by the biggest-selling weekly news magazine in America.

Ed Poor took offense to this line in the review -

"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup."

He then removed the review, stating there was "no evidence" Stein says this - despite not having seen the movie himself. (At this point in time, the movie had been seen by the journalist concerned, but could not have been seen by Mr.Poor as it had not yet been released). He further accused the reviewer of "putting words in Steins mouth". This unfounded opinion was then placed in the 'encyclopedia' article.

A debate on the Talk page began between Ed Poor[1], ASchalfly[2] and myself[3][4][5], where I was accused of supporting a viewpoint on Intelligent Design and/or Evolution - which was never my position, and nor did I ever proclaim an opinion on such matters. I continued to simply argue for the review to be included. I was repeatedly blocked for arguing that whether or not one agreed with the review, it should remain in the the article for Fair Balance, and for pointing out that it was not me who quoted Stein, but the reviewer, who was in fact the only one of the three of us who could know what Stein "asks" in the movie. The reason given for the blocks was "misquoting", despite the fact that I only ever posted direct transcriptions from the Time magazine review[6][7][8][9][10].

Eventually, Ed Poor admitted that he had not seen the movie, and therefore was not in a position to comment on what Stein did or didn't say in the film. Ed Poor went on to remove some of his opinion(admitting it was "incorrect"), leaving others, and finally removed most of the reviews of the movie, claiming that a movie review is "is unrelated to the movie". My blocks were not lifted, however my comments were mostly removed from the Talk page[11][12].

The whole farce is yet another cogent example of censorship in Conservapedia, which always censors information and blocks editors for posting material with which the sysops disagree. Not only that, but it presents pretty low ethical standards, as Ed Poor presented an opinion and slanders a reputable journalist without the slightest foundation. Aggrieved 17:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

ID and expelled are the sacred cows of this site, you attack them and they will release the power of the block, ALL USER ARE CREATED EQUAL, BUT SOME MORE EQUAL THEN OTHERS. ---user:DLerner--- 13:36, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I never wished to debate ID - I simply posted a review of the film. My complaint is not with my blocks, but with Ed Poor's outright lie wherein he claimed to know more about the movie than someone who'd actually seen it, unlike him. He took a position on the content of the movie and fabricated entire sections of a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' article only later to admit that he had, in fact, not a hope in hell of knowing if he was right or wrong. And he was wrong. If an encyclopedia is prepared to allow such personal invention, then every article is completely suspect. Aggrieved 14:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

They're both pathetic

The blocking here is almost as bad as the silencing of scientists! I'm a very conservative person, but sometimes this site makes me cringe! Saksjn 17:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

People who make exaggerated appeals to emotion make me cringe! This is not an opinion blog, but a project to create an encyclopedia. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Encyclopedias are supposed to be as objective as possible. How can one be objective if one refuses to show BOTH sides of the issue?

Hyperbole/Editorializing Weakens Stance

First, I want to thank Ed opening this discussion, the latest act in a trend of fairness I'm beginning to notice. My edits always come with (sometimes overtly) long justifications, and a plea to discuss any reverts with me. Hopefully this is the place to do it. I consider any reverts of edits (excluding vandalism) without an adequate discussion to be censorship.

So, I'd like to make a request to discuss the matter of a "liberal" Variety Magazine in the "Expelled" article with Aaschlafly, and Ed Poor as well. I'll accept it here or back on the article's talk page. SeanF 23:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)