Talk:Main Page/Archive index/135

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Popular articles at Conservapedia

The current view count is lead by:

Article Page views
Homosexual Agenda 6,700,715
Atheism 5,582,034
Barack Hussein Obama 2,734,448
Adolf Hitler 2,255,249
Wikipedia 2,150,728
Muslim agenda of the Obama administration 2,054,564
Counterexamples to Relativity 1,998,699
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia 1,550,956
Conservative Bible Project 1,524,396

I suggest that we pair back the list on the left column to just these or at most to the top 25 articles. A present the list seems to be the favorite articles of a few administrators rather than a list representing the page views of our readers. This creates a mis-impression of our reader's interests. Thanks, Wschact 12:37, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Rounding out the top 25 would be:

Article Page views
Sarah Palin 1,078,400
Liberal 1,078,002
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer 781,045
Homosexuality and Parasites 780,921
Atheism and obesity 779,023
Homosexuality 658,817
Evolution 656,228
ObamaCare 610,019
United States Presidential Election, 2008 579,521
Joseph Biden 575,876
World famous paintings 509,483
George W. Bush 471,628
List of dictators 442,356
Abortion 426,857
Global warming 426,511
Democratic Party 420,749

It is very strange that some of our top 25 articles are missing from the list, and there are a number of articles on the list that are not in our top 25. Could someone with editing rights on main page left please fix this? Thanks, Wschact 12:49, 27 November 2014 (EST)

Interesting suggestion, but insight is obviously not a popularity contest. The list of most-visited pages is already automatically compiled and readily available. The most noteworthy popular pages should be a different list.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 27 November 2014 (EST)
Some of the articles view counts such as Homosexuality and Parasites are the result of clickbots. There are no good reasons to have the enemies of Conservapedia dictate which articles are featured on the main page due to their view counts listed at the bottom of their pages. Furthermore, some of the articles have underestimates of their view counts due to the articles being temporarily deleted. For example, the evolution and Richard Dawkins articles are underestimated by about 500,000 page views if memory serves. Conservative 15:59, 28 November 2014 (EST)

You're right. Insight is not a popularity contest. But the header above the list says "Popular articles at Conservapedia". So that title succumbs to the "popularity contest" mentality. I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "Our Most Insightful Articles", or "Conservapedia's Best Articles" or "Flagship Articles" or something like that. There also ought to be a way for people to see, for better or worse, which articles are popular in terms of page views. As Andy says above, this is accessible under Special:PopularPages. Perhaps there ought to be a note telling people where to find it. Perhaps, after the "Most Insightful Articles" list, there should be a note along the lines of "You can see our most popular articles here. Then we can get the best of both worlds.

I would also suggest that any listing of our "most insightful articles" be pruned more carefully than the present list. One interloper that comes to mind is the Humor about atheism and evolution page. It is absurd, and gives all of us a bad name. It has pictures of a pony, a bear, and a "flying kitty". That may have been funny once, but it has long outlived its humor value. Furthermore, it is locked. A page that is locked can't possibly be considered "the best of the public"! Now some pages are admittedly vandalism magnets, but I think people are overreacting. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

SamHB, what are your thoughts related to the social science data contained in this article: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Conservative 01:05, 29 November 2014 (EST)

Subject Matter Experts

I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) This person was blocked, apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits. Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism. I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. SamHB 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

Best Troll Detection of the Public
You have no proof that the person who was blocked was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a troll as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. VargasMilan 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)

I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them, and people who use spectacularly recondite sentences while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as Conservapedia:Desk, but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the molar mass edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) SamHB 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! VargasMilan 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

Thousands of Europeans Take to the Streets to Drive Out Islam

Tell me, is it now Conservapedia policy to support soccer hooligans just because they are anti Islam? Because there is no doubt these people are criminal scum who have made many more people than Muslims victims, including many 100s of deaths. After spending a week condemning rioting in the USA you support it in Europe. Can someone with some understanding please remove this article.--Tomqua 15:52, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Why is their "no doubt"? Please provide evidence of these 100s people killed by these individuals.
Second, reporting on an event is not necessarily in support of an event. For example, if the front page reports on ISIS attacking the Iraqi Kurds, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia is in favor of ISIS attacking the Kurds.
Third, my guess is that these soccer hooligans are not conservative, devout Christian Europeans, but non-religious, liberal Europeans. It is the secular left that is known for their unruly mobs. So if these mobs are made up of violent individuals as you claim, they are probably non-religious leftists. Conservative 16:41, 1 December 2014 (EST)
[1][2]. That is over 100 I can come up with without even thinking. Being involved in soccer hooliganism is a crime, in every nation on the planet so there is "no doubt".--Tomqua 16:46, 1 December 2014 (EST)

You said these specific hooligans caused hundreds of deaths. We both know that this was a claim that you did not support. You should not have made it.

Next, Vox Day predicts that the Muslims will be driven out of Europe. This may happens due to worsening economic conditions and culture clash, but I tend to agree with Eric Kaufmann who said:

"Ethnicity and race may succumb to liberal modernity, but committed religious populations cannot be assimilated to liberal secularism fast enough to compensate for their demographic advantage in a world of plunging fertility and growing migration. In the end, it is a battle between religious fertility on the one hand, and, on the other, religious decline through the 'assimilation' of religious offspring into secularism. This paper argues that the weakness of secularism and a widening secular-religious fertility gap points toward a religious victory...

The principle of tolerating and 'celebrating' diversity is a corollary of postmodern relativism which opens up space for antimodern religious 'diversities' to take root. If they are demographically-powerful religious movements like Islamism or evangelical Chrisianity, they will exploit this weakness to progressively erode the hegemony of western secular humanism....

In the Europe of tomorrow, immigration and religious fertility will increase the proportion of committed Muslims and Christians, many from the developing world. It may seem fanciful to imagine a moral conservatism uniting white and nonwhite Christians as well as Muslims against 'secular humanists'. However, a version of this process has occurred in the United States, and it can be argued that the cocktail of cultural relativism, secular exhaustion and demographic change is even more potent in Europe than America. The division between native ethnic groups and immigrant groups is currently more important in Europe, but as the Muslim and religious Christian minorities grow, they will become as important for conservative politicians as the religious Hispanics of America whom the Republicans have so assiduously courted. At some point, it will make more electoral sense for European conservatives to appeal to a trans-ethnic coalition of moral conservatives than it will to stress anti-immigrant themes and ethno-nationalism. The liberal-left will find it extremely difficult to craft a defense of secularism given its investment in cultural relativism, the exhaustion of its secular religions, and its laissez-faire attitude to demographic change.

Standing back from the fray, we can think of demography as the achilles heel of liberalism."[3]

Kaufmann also said:

"I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[4] Conservative 17:01, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Agreed, as for Mr Day however, is he the same Vox Day that makes A rhetorical case for segregation?"[5]--Tomqua 17:06, 1 December 2014 (EST)
I am not a segregationalist. Second, Europe has a history of intolerance and disharmony and economic instability is just fuel for the fire. Here are some examples: The Spaniards drove out Muslims in their country in the 1400s and also drove out the Jews. Many people fled Europe due to religious discrimination in the past. There is currently white, non-religious population flight out of London in an increasingly ethnic religious population in London. Atheism/agnosticism are secular religions and the economic future of Europe does not look bright. History may repeat itself. Conservative 17:23, 1 December 2014 (EST)
You're right, and the security situation is not bright also. The EU and Russia seem to be on a collision course. The seeds of a European cold war have already been sown.--Tomqua 17:28, 1 December 2014 (EST)

The economic future of Europe looks gloomy and Russia will probably stay about the same as a global power for the foreseeable future.[6] The USA has a lot of problems and 17 trillion and debt, but it has a history of dynamism and bouncing back. The fast growth of Hispanic evangelicals in the USA is a positive thing given the history behind the Protestant work ethic and economic dynamism.[7] [8] In short, I am pessimistic about the economic future of Europe for the foreseeable future and the jury is still out on the future of the USA, but I am hopeful. If Europe is rechristianized due to religious immigration, it could bounce back in the long term. Secular Europe is not sustainable in terms of its demography and economics. Conservative 18:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

I think I am going to bow out of future main page talk discussions due to demands on my time and my current priorities. Conservative 18:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)