Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 10

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Update the brief note on Dawkins' lawsuit against Josh Timonen. It appears that, worse than being sloppy financial oversight on his part - the lawsuit itself was entirely baseless, and quite possibly defamatory and fraudulent. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Josh Timonen is now suing Dawkins and others. However, charges of sloppiness remain valid with respect to Dawkins oversight and involvement in said lawsuit:

In October 2010, Richard Dawkins and RDFRS filed a complaint against Josh Timonen, Maureen Norton, and Timonen's production company, Upper Branch Productions - alleging that the defendants had embezzled funds from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and owed Dawkins personally money.[1] In August 2011, the lawsuit against Timonen et al was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were awarded to the defendants.[2] (See page 15 of document cited.)

In December 2012, Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions filed a complaint against The Richard Dawkins Foundation, Richard Dawkins, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Cornwell, and Innerworkings Incorporated, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and numerous counts of copyright infringement.[3] The following statements made in paragraphs 22-24 of Upper Branch's First Amended Complaint against RDFRS et al are particularly notable, with respect to the nature of the allegations made against Timonen by RDFRS and Dawkins in October 2010, regarding Timonen's operation of the online store and RDFRS and Dawkins' knowledge of same:

"22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities.”

23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.

24. Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”"

Emphasis added.

Also note the facts that Josh Timonen was never an employee of Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. He was an independent contractor.

Thanks, I deleted it. Conservative 13:51, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Dawkins and Superstition Studies

I noticed on the issue that Dawkins has not rebutted "studies" that showed Christians are more resistant to superstition than atheists (which can also be interpreted as that it is because it conflicts with their own beliefs rather than superior logic but that's besides the point) only one study is cited (done by a private Baptist university published in an op-ed in a religious section and not a real article) and encyclopedically speaking is misleading to use the plural "studies" when only one study is used to support it. I move we either cite additional studies or we change the language used. I would do it myself but the article appears locked.--Dsherman 12:42, 22 November 2013 (EST)


Develop Elevatorgate article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. Conservative 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --SamCoulter 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Please be more specific about book addition. Conservative 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

There's certainly one called Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--CPalmer 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. Conservative 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [1] (see also: Atheism and cowardice, Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience, etc.).Conservative 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

False dichotomy

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. Baobab 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards often frequented by suicidal atheists. Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the Question evolution! campaign very successful in 2012![2] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) Conservative 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! RedGoliath 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see your jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? Baobab 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

Another book

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. See here. I think this should be added to the list of books.--CPalmer 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--CPalmer 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [3] Conservative 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. RachelW 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wouldn't this be an example of gotcha journalism? Ayzmo :) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[4] Second, the 15 for evolutionist show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience and Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler and Atheism and cowardice. Plus, see: Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception Conservative 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! RachelW 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --RedGoliath 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)

Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the Question evolution! campaign will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with William Lane Craig (see: Atheism and cowardice). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: Atheism and deception). Conservative 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --Bdor24 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important: I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers. I still know what they contained. Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?

LucoDaw 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Why does Dawkins matter so much to you?

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. GarryG 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. Karajou 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png
GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity and that global atheism is shrinking while global Christianity is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: Compete graph) and according to Google Trends as can be seen HERE (relative to latter part of 2006). Conservative 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)

GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder?  :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) Conservative 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. JLefkowitz 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)

In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [5] Conservative 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)

I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. JLefkowitz 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women? Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen HERE (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [6] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the Richard Dawkins article and in the Richard Dawkins' worldview article. Conservative 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. LucoDaw 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: .

Create this article: Richard Dawkins and infanticide Conservative 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

abrasive, colossal bore

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed "supporters of the Question evolution! campaign" - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

AugustO 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@User:Conservative: please have an eye on Special:RecentChanges and look out for vandals! Thanks AugustO 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. Conservative 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Suggested correction

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "Daily Mail" should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! PaulDiFoglio 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

I will make the correction. Conservative 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Article Length

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. LucoDaw 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's Christian apologetics article (see: ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created atheism and this resource was created: Atheism
Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

(see license agreement)
As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, Daniel Came, an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: Atheism and cowardice So have William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.Conservative 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [7] Conservative 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Table of Contents

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! Dvergne 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)


I noticed this recent edit.

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is his own blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --ReginaldF 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)

Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the genetic fallacy which is illogical for you to do. Conservative 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --DamianJohn 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is his own blog?
If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --ReginaldF 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Perhaps you can use use information from here: to add to the article--Tomqua 16:26, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
  1. Courthouse News Service. (2010-10-22). Retrieved on 2012-06-11.
  2. Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint (2012-12-10). Retrieved on 2013-03-08.
  3. Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint (2012-12-10). Retrieved on 2013-03-08.