Speculation exists that Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia can't be taken at face value. If you read the P_Rayment page above, Rayment and other users have brought "parodist" (e.g. TK) activities to Schlafly's attention, only to be dismissed. That Schlafly would be so violently opposed to moderate conservatives expressing their opinions but is so nonchalant about the idea that most of his site's inner circle is actually "liberal" parodists seems a little...too much to be true. 69.242.40.140 ( talk) 03:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why there isn't an article about Schlafly? I'll happily create one, but my suspicion is that there isn't one because there shouldn't be, and I won't waste my time if that is the case. -- Leon ( talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Vanity Fair has a new article on Conservapedia. It's a bit of a hatchet job, but can we use it here? Totnesmartin ( talk) 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if, under Criticism, there could be a mention of Conservapedia's disdain for articles relating to non-American subjects. I can provide a reference for one such case, where their article for Up the Chastity Belt was deleted on the grounds that it was "trash", and another reference where articles for various Supermarionation series were dubbed as "time-wasting". I shan't add anything, though, until I know that it's OK with everyone else here. Crablogger 12:02 GMT, 28 April 2009
Uncyclopedia's viewpoint is to be found here [2] Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned for amusement value. As CP has been #accused# of being a parody site as well as having articles "creatively edited" (and see the original entries for falafel and Milton Keynes) the real parody site can be useful/amusing. How does Vladimir Zhirinovsky match CP's definition of a liberal? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Conservapedia's elitist attitude towards its own users, as well as it's overzealous dislike for anything it considers liberal, could such behaviour actually be classified as cyber-bullying? Crablogger ( talk) 07:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate." The word alleged is inherently NPOV, and Stephanie Simon did not use it in the referenced article. I would suggest a change to something like "...Conservapedia's presentation of scientific information...", but there is a bigger problem: Simon herself makes that statement without citing any sources. I have looked on the web for a similar statement from an educator or scientist and have so far not found one, though I would be surprised if someone has not made that point. If nobody knows of any, should we just attribute that statement to Simon? Peter Chastain ( talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose adding "notable articles (their definition of liberal will spin your head for a loop) & pointing out that the site is lacking in credible citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 ( talk) 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A way to test for bias is this: look at wikipedia's and conservapedia's articles on Bush and Obama, and in each of these four articles, count the number of sentences that are favorable/neutral/unfavorable for that person (MVH, August 7 2009).
One of Conservapedia's sysops has blocked just about everyone on the site. It is down to something like 8 active contributors now. We should find some reliable sources that reference this, and add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Total Krackhead ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I read on another site that subjects like Furry Fandom have been deleted from the site.
Why is that? Werewolffan98 ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well i know that not all of us furries are into yiff. Werewolffan98 ( talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed some stuff about CP's "obama is a muslim" stuff. True, it does say that, but we've already established that we can't use Conservapedia as a source for this article due to the WP:PRIMARY, otherwise the article would turn into RationalWiki's "what is going on" page rather than a good encyclopedia article. Totnesmartin ( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Does CP belong under "Controversial Topics"? What's the controversy? The amount of positive feedback on it has been extremely small, the amount negative large; the only controversy is amongst Wikipedians on what goes into the article!-- Leon ( talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
http://ak.podcast.foxnewsradio.com/talk/ACSCLIP/100609_colmes_biblefull.mp3 -- Leon ( talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know we are not suppose to treat this area like a forum, but guys have a look @ this article: http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia. It's even more ridiculous than most of its articles. Apparently all of us here are a bunch of "teenagers and unemployeed persons", LOL. Children of the dragon ( talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the most recent edit's comment that the Conservapedia Bible Project probably doesn't warrant much comment yet, but PZ Myers posted about it on his Blog if people are looking for sources to include it. Quietmarc ( talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I added the section because I thought it was significant. I recently found about this in Conservapedia's news section. I was shocked to find out that a Wiki would be involved in making a new Bible translation, especially since they don't have any manuscripts to translate from as far as I know. What they are doing is not very encyclopediatic in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.185.229 ( talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
More news about conservapedia's Bible project just came out on the news section of conservapedia on the right side of its main page. I think it's definitely significant to include in the article since conservapedia is making a big deal about its project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.185.229 ( talk) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We now have a section on it that is better sourced and is likely extensive enough for now. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On the October 7, 2009 episode of the Colbert Report Stephen Colbert asked the people to edit the Conservapedia bible project to include himself. You can bet that perhaps thousands of people will try. I did. I was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.12.110 ( talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence "(Both passages are missing from many early manuscripts; most Biblical scholars see the adulteress story as a later addition,[75] and many see the "forgive them" line in the same way.[76])" that seems like something a CP editor would sneak in, to the best of my knowledge it is at best a debate among biblical schollars, not the conclusion of most. Anyone who knows more willing to take a look? -- Opcnup ( talk) 08:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the
King James Version or the
Douay Bible will still be better (anyone know the Orthodox and other equivalents?): and would the various books included in some versions of the bible but not others (eg the
Book of Odes (Bible)) or which are currently considered apocrypha? Otherwise the project is likely to remain as 'mere tweaking of words.'
Jackiespeel (
talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Would the article in The Grauniad on the subject be worth adding?
Jackiespeel (
talk) 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Does it have additional information that seems relevant? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian article is at [3]. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I presume any reference to reading the Grauniad is an automatic disqualifier for editing Conservapedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
On the October 7, 2009 episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert has requested fans add his name to the Conservative Bible Project by making him a biblical figure. IE "Stephen Colbert parted the Red Sea." I tried logging on to conservapedia.com as soon as he made this request, but conservapedia's server has been down. I'm assuming it has been overloaded due to Stephens request. pfrankie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrankie ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. There seems to be some disagreement about including the sentence I've sourced to the Tennessean about the general impact that the Conservative Bible Project may have on Conservative Christians attitude towards Conservapedia. Is it well-sourced enough to be included? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I´ve never heard om him (Joseph Farah), but it seems he´s written some books. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113599
He seems to agree with the others mentioned in the article, so I´m unsure if it adds anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
See [6] - a selection of variously interesting terms. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
After editing some history articles on Conservepedia to correct glaring inaccuracies (including grammatically correcting some sentences that seemed to have been written with a 3rd grade reading level), my account was blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "provocative language" ? I guess saying that Muslims aren't bloodthirsty killers or using proper English was too controversial... I can't believe I wasted my time editing articles in that cesspool... Intranetusa ( talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion - direct comments on CP be added to [7]. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a little bit about statistics in the article, but I think it would be informative to tell readers that aside from the main page and internal essays, the top viewed articles on Conservapedia are currently: [8]
I think this says a great deal about the site, and I'm curious if there are other secondary sources that discuss the psychology behind active editors on these topics. For example, considering the relatively low numbers of atheists and homosexuals in society, and their almost nonexistent threat to society on every level, why would Conservapedia users be so concerned about these lackluster topics when there are so many other pressing issues on their agenda that fail to get attention? Viriditas ( talk) 09:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it also worth mentioning that it currently seems impossible to create a new account on Conservapedia? Seeing as only members can edit Conservapedia articles - and many of their articles are protected even to members - that would seem fairly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.94.2 ( talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Conservapedia no longer allows the creation of new accounts
As a French teacher and translator, I have to wonder just how the founders are checking the credentials of the people who will be translating the content for "The Conservative Bible" from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Does the founder himself hold any degrees or certifications in these tongues ?
I tried to look into this myself, but Convervapedia was down. Moreover, will the translators be signing their work ?
Another interesting subject for research: where is Schlafly drawing his theological justification for editing down the Bible from ? I was of the understanding that a passage from Revelations forbade the addition or subtraction of any material from scripture.
Is anyone else watching this now? (chuckles) Does anyone think this should be mentioned in here? *shrugs* A8 UDI 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they got on colbert at all is newsworthy, you could also mention that andy said that there is no evidence that wiklipedia has ever helped a student, that should be in this article in the section about why CP exists. -- Opcnup ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There needs is no citation that Conservapedia is written from a young earth creationist. The article linked by the cite doesn't say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.155 ( talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should list the ones that Conservapedia tries to pass off as the truth?
Also it lists Dick Cheney as "American Patriot" and talks about "The Obama Administration's hate for American values" on the front page. -- Craigboy ( talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The importance of lies being in an encyclopedia?-- Craigboy ( talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On their 2-sentence page on Rosa Luxemburg, they claim that she was a terrorist. Rosa Luxemburg was not a terrorist. She was a revolutionary. A terrorist is someone who tries to elicit fear in either the government or the civilian population by killing civilians. A revolutionary is someone who tries to replace a government and/or arouse a civilian population to join them (part of Luxemburg's idea of revolutionary spontaneity. I have tried to get in and edit the facts in, but I don't see any option that says EDIT THIS PAGE. Commissarusa ( talk) 16:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Making a list of the page and the lies ~Barack Obama- "as President, Obama ridiculed disabled people who compete in the Special Olympics" ~"Liberals and uncharitableness" page on the Obama page ~Global warming - "The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy". ~Liberal - "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."
~ And they very short article on homosexuality and a very long one on ex-homosexuals. I'll add more later -- Craigboy ( talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it will violate NPOV entirely, and it's not about "getting back at them". There's just some things on there that are entirely ridiculous, and the article should mention these ridiculous statements. And them covering up information and facts. -- Craigboy ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If we can't criticize conservapedia here, we should make a wiki and criticize it there. I give up75 ( talk) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I am far more concerned about conservapedia's gross misinformation on scientific topics. Read their entry on Einstein or Sagan for an example. -compunerd007 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Compunerd007 (
talk •
contribs) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is common practice on wikipedia for articles to have a criticism section. This article only has one sentence that is well sourced. There is no reason to continue to remove that sentence. Since it is well sourced, I can't agree with the claim that such 'comments' give credence to any claims made by conservapedia. Who cares what claims they make. Thats no reason to alter content here. Beach drifter ( talk) 04:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on
"The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race."
And their views on Joseph McCarthy. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is - looking for 'bizarre articles (as distinct from 'articles of a distinctive viewpoint) on Conservapedia is fun.' Can 'the proverbial someone' set up a page for quoting them? This would resolve the 'quoting CP thread' issue.
Strangely, given CP's views on Wikipedia, the Dalek article has now been amended.
Otherwise, as a general statement about websites/groups adopting a particular viewpoint 'by their words and by their needs shall ye know them.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
'At a guess' the overlap of 'science fiction readers/viewers' and 'Conservapedia contributors/ intended readership' is likely to be significantly below the average for any wikis (g). 'The areas of non-interest' can also define a wiki. Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
As someone who works as a translator, I added a section proposing that someone look into Conversvapedia's efforts to re-translate scripture with the goal of producing a "conservative Bible." I wondered what Andrew Schlafley's credentials in this area were and what those of his contributors might be. Have any reputable Biblical scholars or historians commented on this ? It seems perfectly appropriate to ask since the Jefferson Bible and King James Only Movement both enjoy their respective articles.
My comments are no longer viewable on the front discussion page, and neither are the contributions of "Nunh-huh" and "Daniel Leivick". I do not want to assume contentious editing or bad faith on anyone's part(s), but I do want to know where my comments went to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 ( talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake then; I was only concerned because (as of my last viewing of this page) the addition was missing, while the rest of the page was largely the same.
When I mentioned bad faith and contention in my prior post, I meant that I was NOT assuming that either were reasons for the change; that something like what did occur could have been the reason.
Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 ( talk) 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs more of a conservative, Christian, American bias) Library Seraph ( talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the article clarify that the "Conservapedia Commandments" are not in effect at all, given an administrator's admission that administrators can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it? -- IrrationalAtheist ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would take issue with the false premise / false flag statement of the original post here. Setting policy below the CP Commandments, has nothing to do, and cannot logically be interpreted as, placing an Admin above those Commandments. The fact that this whole section was started by an Administrator of a known vandal site (according to the Los Angeles Times) gives one pause... -- TK-CP ( talk) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sir, you are an Administrator at a known vandal site, recognized by third parties as being such. Nothing was admitted by me, either on CP or anywhere else, except in your own mind. The Commandments guide every Conservapedia user, including Admins. Since you cannot provide any third party link to show the Commandments aren't our primary rules, I have reversed your removal (without cause) of the Commandment portion of the story. Your own good ideas are just that, but hardly "proof" of any kind. As a vandal site administrator, I would think you, of all people, should be precluded from editing pages about your targets. Perhaps some Wikipedia Admin will also agree. -- TK-CP ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Speculation exists that Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia can't be taken at face value. If you read the P_Rayment page above, Rayment and other users have brought "parodist" (e.g. TK) activities to Schlafly's attention, only to be dismissed. That Schlafly would be so violently opposed to moderate conservatives expressing their opinions but is so nonchalant about the idea that most of his site's inner circle is actually "liberal" parodists seems a little...too much to be true. 69.242.40.140 ( talk) 03:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why there isn't an article about Schlafly? I'll happily create one, but my suspicion is that there isn't one because there shouldn't be, and I won't waste my time if that is the case. -- Leon ( talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Vanity Fair has a new article on Conservapedia. It's a bit of a hatchet job, but can we use it here? Totnesmartin ( talk) 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if, under Criticism, there could be a mention of Conservapedia's disdain for articles relating to non-American subjects. I can provide a reference for one such case, where their article for Up the Chastity Belt was deleted on the grounds that it was "trash", and another reference where articles for various Supermarionation series were dubbed as "time-wasting". I shan't add anything, though, until I know that it's OK with everyone else here. Crablogger 12:02 GMT, 28 April 2009
Uncyclopedia's viewpoint is to be found here [2] Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned for amusement value. As CP has been #accused# of being a parody site as well as having articles "creatively edited" (and see the original entries for falafel and Milton Keynes) the real parody site can be useful/amusing. How does Vladimir Zhirinovsky match CP's definition of a liberal? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Conservapedia's elitist attitude towards its own users, as well as it's overzealous dislike for anything it considers liberal, could such behaviour actually be classified as cyber-bullying? Crablogger ( talk) 07:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"There is concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate." The word alleged is inherently NPOV, and Stephanie Simon did not use it in the referenced article. I would suggest a change to something like "...Conservapedia's presentation of scientific information...", but there is a bigger problem: Simon herself makes that statement without citing any sources. I have looked on the web for a similar statement from an educator or scientist and have so far not found one, though I would be surprised if someone has not made that point. If nobody knows of any, should we just attribute that statement to Simon? Peter Chastain ( talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose adding "notable articles (their definition of liberal will spin your head for a loop) & pointing out that the site is lacking in credible citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 ( talk) 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A way to test for bias is this: look at wikipedia's and conservapedia's articles on Bush and Obama, and in each of these four articles, count the number of sentences that are favorable/neutral/unfavorable for that person (MVH, August 7 2009).
One of Conservapedia's sysops has blocked just about everyone on the site. It is down to something like 8 active contributors now. We should find some reliable sources that reference this, and add this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Total Krackhead ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I read on another site that subjects like Furry Fandom have been deleted from the site.
Why is that? Werewolffan98 ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well i know that not all of us furries are into yiff. Werewolffan98 ( talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed some stuff about CP's "obama is a muslim" stuff. True, it does say that, but we've already established that we can't use Conservapedia as a source for this article due to the WP:PRIMARY, otherwise the article would turn into RationalWiki's "what is going on" page rather than a good encyclopedia article. Totnesmartin ( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Does CP belong under "Controversial Topics"? What's the controversy? The amount of positive feedback on it has been extremely small, the amount negative large; the only controversy is amongst Wikipedians on what goes into the article!-- Leon ( talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
http://ak.podcast.foxnewsradio.com/talk/ACSCLIP/100609_colmes_biblefull.mp3 -- Leon ( talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know we are not suppose to treat this area like a forum, but guys have a look @ this article: http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia. It's even more ridiculous than most of its articles. Apparently all of us here are a bunch of "teenagers and unemployeed persons", LOL. Children of the dragon ( talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the most recent edit's comment that the Conservapedia Bible Project probably doesn't warrant much comment yet, but PZ Myers posted about it on his Blog if people are looking for sources to include it. Quietmarc ( talk) 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I added the section because I thought it was significant. I recently found about this in Conservapedia's news section. I was shocked to find out that a Wiki would be involved in making a new Bible translation, especially since they don't have any manuscripts to translate from as far as I know. What they are doing is not very encyclopediatic in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.185.229 ( talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
More news about conservapedia's Bible project just came out on the news section of conservapedia on the right side of its main page. I think it's definitely significant to include in the article since conservapedia is making a big deal about its project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.185.229 ( talk) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We now have a section on it that is better sourced and is likely extensive enough for now. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
On the October 7, 2009 episode of the Colbert Report Stephen Colbert asked the people to edit the Conservapedia bible project to include himself. You can bet that perhaps thousands of people will try. I did. I was locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.12.110 ( talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence "(Both passages are missing from many early manuscripts; most Biblical scholars see the adulteress story as a later addition,[75] and many see the "forgive them" line in the same way.[76])" that seems like something a CP editor would sneak in, to the best of my knowledge it is at best a debate among biblical schollars, not the conclusion of most. Anyone who knows more willing to take a look? -- Opcnup ( talk) 08:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the
King James Version or the
Douay Bible will still be better (anyone know the Orthodox and other equivalents?): and would the various books included in some versions of the bible but not others (eg the
Book of Odes (Bible)) or which are currently considered apocrypha? Otherwise the project is likely to remain as 'mere tweaking of words.'
Jackiespeel (
talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Would the article in The Grauniad on the subject be worth adding?
Jackiespeel (
talk) 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Does it have additional information that seems relevant? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian article is at [3]. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I presume any reference to reading the Grauniad is an automatic disqualifier for editing Conservapedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
On the October 7, 2009 episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert has requested fans add his name to the Conservative Bible Project by making him a biblical figure. IE "Stephen Colbert parted the Red Sea." I tried logging on to conservapedia.com as soon as he made this request, but conservapedia's server has been down. I'm assuming it has been overloaded due to Stephens request. pfrankie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrankie ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. There seems to be some disagreement about including the sentence I've sourced to the Tennessean about the general impact that the Conservative Bible Project may have on Conservative Christians attitude towards Conservapedia. Is it well-sourced enough to be included? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I´ve never heard om him (Joseph Farah), but it seems he´s written some books. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113599
He seems to agree with the others mentioned in the article, so I´m unsure if it adds anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
See [6] - a selection of variously interesting terms. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
After editing some history articles on Conservepedia to correct glaring inaccuracies (including grammatically correcting some sentences that seemed to have been written with a 3rd grade reading level), my account was blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "provocative language" ? I guess saying that Muslims aren't bloodthirsty killers or using proper English was too controversial... I can't believe I wasted my time editing articles in that cesspool... Intranetusa ( talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion - direct comments on CP be added to [7]. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a little bit about statistics in the article, but I think it would be informative to tell readers that aside from the main page and internal essays, the top viewed articles on Conservapedia are currently: [8]
I think this says a great deal about the site, and I'm curious if there are other secondary sources that discuss the psychology behind active editors on these topics. For example, considering the relatively low numbers of atheists and homosexuals in society, and their almost nonexistent threat to society on every level, why would Conservapedia users be so concerned about these lackluster topics when there are so many other pressing issues on their agenda that fail to get attention? Viriditas ( talk) 09:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it also worth mentioning that it currently seems impossible to create a new account on Conservapedia? Seeing as only members can edit Conservapedia articles - and many of their articles are protected even to members - that would seem fairly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.94.2 ( talk) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Conservapedia no longer allows the creation of new accounts
As a French teacher and translator, I have to wonder just how the founders are checking the credentials of the people who will be translating the content for "The Conservative Bible" from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Does the founder himself hold any degrees or certifications in these tongues ?
I tried to look into this myself, but Convervapedia was down. Moreover, will the translators be signing their work ?
Another interesting subject for research: where is Schlafly drawing his theological justification for editing down the Bible from ? I was of the understanding that a passage from Revelations forbade the addition or subtraction of any material from scripture.
Is anyone else watching this now? (chuckles) Does anyone think this should be mentioned in here? *shrugs* A8 UDI 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they got on colbert at all is newsworthy, you could also mention that andy said that there is no evidence that wiklipedia has ever helped a student, that should be in this article in the section about why CP exists. -- Opcnup ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There needs is no citation that Conservapedia is written from a young earth creationist. The article linked by the cite doesn't say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.155 ( talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should list the ones that Conservapedia tries to pass off as the truth?
Also it lists Dick Cheney as "American Patriot" and talks about "The Obama Administration's hate for American values" on the front page. -- Craigboy ( talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The importance of lies being in an encyclopedia?-- Craigboy ( talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On their 2-sentence page on Rosa Luxemburg, they claim that she was a terrorist. Rosa Luxemburg was not a terrorist. She was a revolutionary. A terrorist is someone who tries to elicit fear in either the government or the civilian population by killing civilians. A revolutionary is someone who tries to replace a government and/or arouse a civilian population to join them (part of Luxemburg's idea of revolutionary spontaneity. I have tried to get in and edit the facts in, but I don't see any option that says EDIT THIS PAGE. Commissarusa ( talk) 16:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Making a list of the page and the lies ~Barack Obama- "as President, Obama ridiculed disabled people who compete in the Special Olympics" ~"Liberals and uncharitableness" page on the Obama page ~Global warming - "The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy". ~Liberal - "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."
~ And they very short article on homosexuality and a very long one on ex-homosexuals. I'll add more later -- Craigboy ( talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it will violate NPOV entirely, and it's not about "getting back at them". There's just some things on there that are entirely ridiculous, and the article should mention these ridiculous statements. And them covering up information and facts. -- Craigboy ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If we can't criticize conservapedia here, we should make a wiki and criticize it there. I give up75 ( talk) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I am far more concerned about conservapedia's gross misinformation on scientific topics. Read their entry on Einstein or Sagan for an example. -compunerd007 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Compunerd007 (
talk •
contribs) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is common practice on wikipedia for articles to have a criticism section. This article only has one sentence that is well sourced. There is no reason to continue to remove that sentence. Since it is well sourced, I can't agree with the claim that such 'comments' give credence to any claims made by conservapedia. Who cares what claims they make. Thats no reason to alter content here. Beach drifter ( talk) 04:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on
"The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race."
And their views on Joseph McCarthy. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is - looking for 'bizarre articles (as distinct from 'articles of a distinctive viewpoint) on Conservapedia is fun.' Can 'the proverbial someone' set up a page for quoting them? This would resolve the 'quoting CP thread' issue.
Strangely, given CP's views on Wikipedia, the Dalek article has now been amended.
Otherwise, as a general statement about websites/groups adopting a particular viewpoint 'by their words and by their needs shall ye know them.' Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
'At a guess' the overlap of 'science fiction readers/viewers' and 'Conservapedia contributors/ intended readership' is likely to be significantly below the average for any wikis (g). 'The areas of non-interest' can also define a wiki. Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
As someone who works as a translator, I added a section proposing that someone look into Conversvapedia's efforts to re-translate scripture with the goal of producing a "conservative Bible." I wondered what Andrew Schlafley's credentials in this area were and what those of his contributors might be. Have any reputable Biblical scholars or historians commented on this ? It seems perfectly appropriate to ask since the Jefferson Bible and King James Only Movement both enjoy their respective articles.
My comments are no longer viewable on the front discussion page, and neither are the contributions of "Nunh-huh" and "Daniel Leivick". I do not want to assume contentious editing or bad faith on anyone's part(s), but I do want to know where my comments went to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 ( talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake then; I was only concerned because (as of my last viewing of this page) the addition was missing, while the rest of the page was largely the same.
When I mentioned bad faith and contention in my prior post, I meant that I was NOT assuming that either were reasons for the change; that something like what did occur could have been the reason.
Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.212.10 ( talk) 06:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs more of a conservative, Christian, American bias) Library Seraph ( talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the article clarify that the "Conservapedia Commandments" are not in effect at all, given an administrator's admission that administrators can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it? -- IrrationalAtheist ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would take issue with the false premise / false flag statement of the original post here. Setting policy below the CP Commandments, has nothing to do, and cannot logically be interpreted as, placing an Admin above those Commandments. The fact that this whole section was started by an Administrator of a known vandal site (according to the Los Angeles Times) gives one pause... -- TK-CP ( talk) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sir, you are an Administrator at a known vandal site, recognized by third parties as being such. Nothing was admitted by me, either on CP or anywhere else, except in your own mind. The Commandments guide every Conservapedia user, including Admins. Since you cannot provide any third party link to show the Commandments aren't our primary rules, I have reversed your removal (without cause) of the Commandment portion of the story. Your own good ideas are just that, but hardly "proof" of any kind. As a vandal site administrator, I would think you, of all people, should be precluded from editing pages about your targets. Perhaps some Wikipedia Admin will also agree. -- TK-CP ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)