![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
It might be worth adding that Conservapedia once prominently displayed a quote from George Orwell: "All issues are political issues." In context: "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia." (Politics and the English Language) I'm not sure when or why the motto was dropped. Perhaps they realized that they were distorting the meaning by taking the words out of context but were unwilling to characterize their own politics with Orwell's vituperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that "Keynesian economics" ought to be added to the Conservapedia article section "Conflict with scientific views" since the real Conservapedia contains a page on Keynesian economics that is extremely partisan and unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbonner1982 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
These things have nothing to do woth scientific views at all.(As a new user here I don't know how to edit it but "Partisan Politics" has nothing to do with science.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephaniah204 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the things I liked about Conservapedia (and which is not mentioned anywhere in this Wikipedia article) was the inclusion of a "Debate" tab. The discussions found there, particularly the essays on the views of science vs. religion, are well researched and worth reading by anyone with an interest in either.
Unlike Wikipedia, there is little or no editing effort exercised in the Debate sections to suppress views and opinions only distantly related to the debate topic. When a debate subject is edited, it is only to remove items that are personal attacks, bogus citations or plagarism. Danshawen ( talk) 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)danshawen
(1) Discussion about Wiki doing this does not belong on this article's talk page, but at the village pump. (2) Discussion about whether mentioning it on this article would improve this article is pointless without an RS to discuss. See WP:OR. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Can any parties comment on the discussion here, which has some relevance to CP? It's a very low traffic page, so I'm not expecting anyone to happen upon it naturally, but it could use the views of more editors. - R. fiend ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the section on RationalWiki needs updated. Judging from the conversations in the archive, it seems that at one time it was all about satire, but I don't see that now. It seems to be a backlash site with pretense of objectivity. AngusCA ( talk) 03:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This site is so rife with right-wing crap that I just had to bring this up.
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Is there a way to include this in the article? Most of the stuff I see in that site could easily have been planted as parody by others. In fact I was tempted myself.
This article quotes Schlafly saying "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".
I'm not a conservative, and I don't edit political articles -- I stick to entertainment type stuff, music and comics mostly -- and I've HAD this exact experience. Within 60 seconds! That shouldn't happen -- it just shouldn't happen! It gives ammo to Wikipedia's detractors. Wikipedia has gotten far too deletionist, and that takes most of the fun out of contributing. When I read "editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach", I could only sympathize. Even without taking political positions, one can find oneself in this quandary.
A little off-topic, perhaps, but does it matter? I mean, "Conservapedia"? Is that site even still up?
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Does this thread contain an RS-based suggestion for an article improvement and if so, would someone please re-state what it is? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Bold edit? I don't see why my addition of Metapedia to the see also section is bold or confusing: it's another online, free wiki encyclopedia written from a right-wing perspective running MediaWiki software. This is exactly the sort of link that belongs in a "see also" section. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems relevent to me. A right-wing wiki that also has an English language edition, following to Metapedia, would show the differences between different strands of right-wing thought. Bevo74 ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed a source from the section Conservative Bible Project: the content weren't dealing with the sentence (possibly out-dated or an invalid link). It is said that:
The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid. [1] [1]
I checked the site and there are, however, only 25 notes on that page (the link itself directs to Matt. 1:1). At Matt. 7:1 (which the link describtion might suggest), there are only 34 notes. So far, the link isn't really related to the sentence.
The second source links to the wikipage of New International Version of Bible. There are no fragments available there (Joh. 7:53–8:11 suggested by the source). Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first sentence I'd like to see the egregious Andy Schlafly described as "a son of..." Phyllis, even though she has at times spoken of "my son the lawyer," giving the impression she only acknowledged one son.
John, the nurse, is an Internet acquaintance from when we were both studying pathology online some years ago; he is smart, decent, conservative (in the Canadian sense, i.e. conservative, not reactionary, neo-Confederate, wingnut or fascist), and fwiw gay.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The late Tim Russert is quoted at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/schlafly.outing.reaction-KNIGHT.RIDDER as though John, the gay nurse, and Andy, the wingnut lawyer, are the same person. This is not my impression, but I cannot be absolutely sure. Certainly the gay one stuck me as a decent guy, while the lawyer doesn't.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
List of newspapers in Germany Afronig ( talk) 12:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of all the environmentalism articles on Conservapedia, why has the Pacific Northwest tree octopus (which no longer appears there) been singled out? It looks like the least notable article. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that their YEC article says, in the lead,"Scientists who advocate an old earth regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as radiometric dating and biological observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many anomalies associated with the old earth/universe position." Their "Age of the Earth" article says "The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[1][2][3]" Their article on evolution - well, you get the point. Interesting, I had no idea it was that anti-scientific. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
While I find Conservapedia an interesting website to explore minority views, their sourcing seems to be worse than the average Wikipedia article. Their article on Young Earth Creationism includes 91 citations, but few of them actually mention which book, author, or website is being cited. For example, the article contains two citations το a page called "Question evolution!", which are used to support the existence of a "grass-roots movement" of Young Earth Creationists . The link actually links to a page in the wider website "creation.com", maintained by Creation Ministries International. There are also multiple links to a website maintained by Answers Magazine, a publication of the Answers in Genesis organization. Most of these links do not seem to link to any specific article. Conservapedia lists this among its featured articles despite its sourcing problems.
Another featured Conservapedia article is that on Wikipedia. Its lede includes the following sentence: "Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy." The citation fails to explain who is doing the criticism. It leads to a 2011 article by someone called David Swindle, who is writing for FrontPage Magazine. The publication seems to be owned by David Horowitz.
Frankly, I do not mind the anti-scientific bias that much, but the fact is that I have seen pages on Memory Alpha with better sourcing. Dimadick ( talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On 27 June 2017, the www.conservapedia.com website stopped responding to inquiries normally, instead responding as follows:
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.5 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.conservapedia.com Port 80"
. The Internet Archive was able to access it the previous day per
this link. —
Jeff G. ツ
(talk) 02:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Self-described is the accurate phrase to use.
Disbelieving in the theory of relativity or believing King James is the only true biblical version (even though the Bible was not written in English) is not conservative. It's arguably indicative of mental illness. RationalWiki does a great job in pointing out that many of the extreme editors may be "parodists". YouCanDoAnything ( talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This description somewhat begs the question. In all likelihood, the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was an old tradition which was not originally part of any larger book, and so was later slotted into John to preserve it. To say that it's categorically "in" John without any further explanation is to conceal the existence of many scholarly controversies. AnonMoos ( talk) 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is playing down how extreme and inaccurate Conservapedia is. Conservapedia is a propaganda site which is masquerading as an encyclopedia. It isn't merely an encyclopedia from a conservative point of view. It is obsessed with demonising liberalism, homosexuality and atheism - saying that they go together and they blame them for all sorts of things, including crime, obesity, poverty and mental disorders. It paints every conservative as brilliant and every liberal as evil. It claims that evolution is pseudoscience, that every species of animal (including penguins and polar bears) boarded a boat together in the Middle East and that people had lifespans of hundreds of years merely because it says so in the Bible (which they treat as a historical book) and that the world is only a few thousand years old. They categorise George Tiller as a murderer and state that Stephen Paddock was a liberal atheist. Any real encyclopedia would not state such things as facts. Jim Michael ( talk) 13:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki is "more popular" because it has a decent number of active users and updates frequently. Conservapedia has a history of banning its most active users for little to no reason, and has a dwindling community of users. The front page of the website has received no updates since "18 August 2015" (quoting the website), and by far the most active current editor is "User:Aschlafly" ( Andrew Schlafly himself). Cornservapedia's Alexa rank is currently 73,952nd, and it ranks 17,689th among United States-websites. It does not seem to attract many visitors, nor does it get as much press attention as it used to. Dimadick ( talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does anyone agree that Conservapedia is full of lies? The site is not even a conservative or Christian site. Rather, it is some sort of cult. Even fundamentalists would be appalled by the site. 2600:1:F150:C875:A028:D0FF:A611:83FB ( talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
47.147.16.228 ( talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)An encyclopedia founded on the belief that people are basically good cannot be “unbiased.”
August 22, 2011
David Swindle
[copy from https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle removed]
I removed a quote of Joseph Farah which was sourced to WorldNet Daily. This is not a reliable source, even for an opinion. @ 1990'sguy: could you please explain your reversion? – dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible"been published by a reliable source? – dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're telling me you re-wrote the Bible to fit your political viewpoints? So you guys are basically just completely removing words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus Himself just so it fits your political opinions. If the Bible is inspired by God does that mean you're saying God is wrong? Messed up, man, messed up. Keaga ( talk) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"If the Bible is inspired by God" More likely inspired by entheogens and the religious experiences associated with them. And good-old psychosis could account for a lot of the visions and false prophesies of the Bible.:
The quote from Conservapedia on Liberalism was updated [5] to reflect the latest entry from two days ago. Besides reading badly so it will probably be changed again soon I don't believe we should be monitoring Conservapedia this way. It should reflect what was the case when the citation referring to it was written if anything and only a link put in to Conservapedia if people should look for the latest version. I don't think it really makes sense to just say it has changed since and pluck a version from Conservapedia. I don't know if there is some guideline about this - anyone know anything relevant? Dmcq ( talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,
This is incorrect. In the actual article on conservapedia, all they do is mention that multiple politicians use the theory of relativity as justification for moral relativism. 180.190.182.168 ( talk) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Could this article point out that it is more difficult to set up a userpage on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia - I keep typing in passwords at Conservapedia, only to get told they do not match. Also, I do no think one is allowed to create new pages on Conservapedia unless logged in with a user page. Vorbee ( talk) 08:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Could this article point out that, unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not have a category "Living people"? I have brought up the question of whether there should be such a category on Conservapedia, only to be told there would be no point in having such a one in CP, it would be worthless and it would have to be updated every time some one dies. Vorbee ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The new section on Socialism seems solely based on a conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper and two citations of Conservapedia itself. Anyone got a better source to cite or should it just be removed? Dmcq ( talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be a reason to "just present what is said on Conservapedia". WP:WEIGHT is established by what aspects of the subject receive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Wikipedia editor deciding that one particular bit of content on Conservapedia is more worthy of note than others gets into original research. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that we need to remember the common sense approach comes before Wikipedia Policy. This is a politically charged subject matter that is so polar that it just simply isn't pragmatic to utilize political commentators as a source for what is supposed to be fact- as then we have the whole business of separating opinion from fact, which is unweilding at best. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 05:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I nominate this article to be checked for complete compliance with WP:NPOV . This article appears to violate NPOV given that the subject matter and references appear to be highly politically charged. It seems that a lot of the reference citations contain material which is opinion material that has no place in a citation on Wikipedia, or at minimum, needs clear attribution and exact wording to avoid potential misconstruction. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see that violates NPOV is the fact that because there is an apparent feud between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, it becomes that Wikipedians understandably have a conflict of interest in the matter, and therefore things become quite suspect of being anything but "Neutral", especially when "Opinion" is involved that is highly politicized. If we use attribution we avoid the problem to some extent, but we should then make an effort to cite sources that go against that position as well in order to make things truly neutral, when discussing things that have a political element. The problem here, is that I don't see conservapedia's viewpoint represented at all, except to an extent which implies the derogatory. Also, it is quite clear that the opinion column is not considered a reliable source. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
( talk)I don't think your seeing the point. The problem here is that outside of what would be considered Original Research, the only thing that can be found on the subject is opinion matter on one side or the other on what seems to be extremely and highly controversial root issues that seems rooted in politics and religion. Its notable that most of Conservapedia's articles have a significant minorty viewpoint to support them, but this article currently seems to attempt to promote that there isn't any support whatsoever, which is intellectually dishonest. My point here is that this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources that rely on what is clearly pre-established narrative of the major political parties and/or various religions. I also am taking note here that Atheism can be considered a religion in so far as it promotes a specific viewpoint. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources"still falls within WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. If you go through the cited references and believe one does not comply with WP:Reliable sources you can delete it, or ask about it on the talk page first, or ask about it at the WP:RSN first. But proceed slowly please, else you might accidentally appear to be doing vandalism of stuff you don't like. If you do find cites that violate RS then we'll be in your debt for cleaning them up. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
But given the consensus here, I will withdraw the NPOV issue and edit the article for clear attribution here, which seems to be the consensus here. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 01:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Their page Arkancide contains cases connected to the German town of Wiesbaden. It is incorrectly written there "Weisbaden". I do not wish to register as an editor. Source: Map. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:E1C2:7861:28AD:B875 ( talk) 00:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Conservapedia's views on the recent election, and associated events, are worthy of comment, surely. Rwood128 ( talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple instances of quotations from Conservapedia, and when I checked two, I found the quotations inaccurate. The problem, of course, is that Conservapedia, like Wikipedia, changes frequently. I have some concerns about such quotations and related issues.
First, statements on Conservapedia are ephemeral, and it seems to me that quoting something as "current" is inviting error before long.
Second, statements on Conservapedia reflect a range of posters and not necessarily the site itself. Consider, for example, how many racist or homophobic remarks have been posted on Wikipedia as acts of vandalism. It would be accurate to state that "Wikipedia frequently uses racist language," I think, but it would also be grossly misleading to make the claim without further asserting that almost every instance is reverted within seconds.
Third, finding errors on Conservapedia or claims that contradict, say, established scientific views is trivial. It's not that hard to do the same on Wikipedia.
Fourth, outdated claims on Wikipedia--such as the statement "The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing', since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, 'the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible'" are proved outdated. (I checked the Conservapedia version of the Bible, and the quotation is, more or less, in there ("Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.").
Fifth, Conservapedia has a wealth of information (including misinformation). How do we select what to rebut? For example, the claim that abortion leads to breast cancer is covered, but there is no mention of the claim that the suffix "-ic" cannot be added to a proper noun to form an adjective ( https://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party) despite words like "German" and "Germanic" or "Slav" and "Slavic."
To be clear, I'll expose my bias. I enjoy Conservapedia. I find it amusing for the absurdity of many of its claims. That said, it seems to me that this page seems to jettison encyclopedic style in favor of piling on. In the process, it uses false (meaning no longer correct) statements to do so.
I suggest a revision that focuses on Conservapedia's stated aims and outside criticisms (such as those of Zimmer et al.) would be an improvement over the current approach, which seems to rely on original research in the sense that it appears people went to Conservapedia, looked up some of the absurd claims, and then found easy-to-find sources to rebut those claims.
I realize that this request may be rambling, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the page. 174.195.138.25 ( talk) 00:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Should the subject of this article be categorized with Category:Conspiracist media? Free Media Kid! 09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 United States presidential election was held on November 3, 2020, but Democrat political machines stuffed the ballot box with millions of mail-in ballots, many improperly cast. In fact, the entire article is promoting one huge conspiracy theory. Similarly you could pick their Coronavirus article, which has in the lead,
Early treatment of this disease by hydroxychloroquine has been reportedly successful in dozens of studies[3] and numerous individual situations. India, for example, uses hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis[4] and has one of the smallest mortality rates per million residents of any country.[5] In the United States, liberal government officials have impeded its widespread use to minimize potential credit to Trump in an election year, resulting in a skyrocketing mortality rate higher than in many comparable, but much poorer, countries.The site as a whole overwhelmingly pushes conspiratorial narratives. — Czello 09:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How's that for a start? The problem is that Conservapedia has become an echo chamber for 5 angry white guys, and is ignored by everybody, especially their new target market of the alt-right, Trump-land crowd, so getting any up-to-date impartial sourcing on the conspiracies they spew will be difficult. Psygremlin ( talk) 08:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be categorized as a pseudoscientific medium if possible (because it promoted alternate cures for COVID-19 and downplayed vaccines and evolution), as that is a far greater concern than the political viewpoints expressed on the site. Félix An ( talk) 12:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A surprising amount of edit warring going on. If you want this category to be here, find sources which explicitly call it a fake news website and add them to the article. Fake news websites are not just any site that publishes false statements. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments) 03:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Are these items worth adding. Views on the war in Ukraine, and Putin, transgender issues, Covid 19 and lockdowns, that Michelle Obama is a man. Maybe added to the ideology section? There is an interesting essay on "open mindedness" on Conservapedia. Does more need saying on Conervapedia's views on women's place in society, the clothes that they should wear, etc? The current tone of the article is admirably retrained. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Re the recent removal of the word " conspiracist" from the opening sentence. While Conservapedia does have many encyclopaedia-style articles, it also works in some areas more like a conspiracy theory blog. The article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a prime example, 99% of which has been created by one editor. Here the view is that Putin is involved in a "holy" war against naziism. Covid articles is another area where conspiracy theories are central, as is the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. One of the most absurd is that Michelle Obama is a man, or transgender, and that the Obamas are a homosexual couple. Maybe "conspiracist" can be restored with the addition of a more explicit source? The word "encyclopaedia" is used as a facade. Rwood128 ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Conservapedia promotes numerous conspiracy theories, such as the belief the 2020 US election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden and the Great Reset theory. Or any of the other conspiracies they promote. — Czello 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
It might be worth adding that Conservapedia once prominently displayed a quote from George Orwell: "All issues are political issues." In context: "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia." (Politics and the English Language) I'm not sure when or why the motto was dropped. Perhaps they realized that they were distorting the meaning by taking the words out of context but were unwilling to characterize their own politics with Orwell's vituperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that "Keynesian economics" ought to be added to the Conservapedia article section "Conflict with scientific views" since the real Conservapedia contains a page on Keynesian economics that is extremely partisan and unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbonner1982 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
These things have nothing to do woth scientific views at all.(As a new user here I don't know how to edit it but "Partisan Politics" has nothing to do with science.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephaniah204 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the things I liked about Conservapedia (and which is not mentioned anywhere in this Wikipedia article) was the inclusion of a "Debate" tab. The discussions found there, particularly the essays on the views of science vs. religion, are well researched and worth reading by anyone with an interest in either.
Unlike Wikipedia, there is little or no editing effort exercised in the Debate sections to suppress views and opinions only distantly related to the debate topic. When a debate subject is edited, it is only to remove items that are personal attacks, bogus citations or plagarism. Danshawen ( talk) 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)danshawen
(1) Discussion about Wiki doing this does not belong on this article's talk page, but at the village pump. (2) Discussion about whether mentioning it on this article would improve this article is pointless without an RS to discuss. See WP:OR. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Can any parties comment on the discussion here, which has some relevance to CP? It's a very low traffic page, so I'm not expecting anyone to happen upon it naturally, but it could use the views of more editors. - R. fiend ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the section on RationalWiki needs updated. Judging from the conversations in the archive, it seems that at one time it was all about satire, but I don't see that now. It seems to be a backlash site with pretense of objectivity. AngusCA ( talk) 03:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This site is so rife with right-wing crap that I just had to bring this up.
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Is there a way to include this in the article? Most of the stuff I see in that site could easily have been planted as parody by others. In fact I was tempted myself.
This article quotes Schlafly saying "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".
I'm not a conservative, and I don't edit political articles -- I stick to entertainment type stuff, music and comics mostly -- and I've HAD this exact experience. Within 60 seconds! That shouldn't happen -- it just shouldn't happen! It gives ammo to Wikipedia's detractors. Wikipedia has gotten far too deletionist, and that takes most of the fun out of contributing. When I read "editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach", I could only sympathize. Even without taking political positions, one can find oneself in this quandary.
A little off-topic, perhaps, but does it matter? I mean, "Conservapedia"? Is that site even still up?
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Does this thread contain an RS-based suggestion for an article improvement and if so, would someone please re-state what it is? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Bold edit? I don't see why my addition of Metapedia to the see also section is bold or confusing: it's another online, free wiki encyclopedia written from a right-wing perspective running MediaWiki software. This is exactly the sort of link that belongs in a "see also" section. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems relevent to me. A right-wing wiki that also has an English language edition, following to Metapedia, would show the differences between different strands of right-wing thought. Bevo74 ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed a source from the section Conservative Bible Project: the content weren't dealing with the sentence (possibly out-dated or an invalid link). It is said that:
The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid. [1] [1]
I checked the site and there are, however, only 25 notes on that page (the link itself directs to Matt. 1:1). At Matt. 7:1 (which the link describtion might suggest), there are only 34 notes. So far, the link isn't really related to the sentence.
The second source links to the wikipage of New International Version of Bible. There are no fragments available there (Joh. 7:53–8:11 suggested by the source). Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first sentence I'd like to see the egregious Andy Schlafly described as "a son of..." Phyllis, even though she has at times spoken of "my son the lawyer," giving the impression she only acknowledged one son.
John, the nurse, is an Internet acquaintance from when we were both studying pathology online some years ago; he is smart, decent, conservative (in the Canadian sense, i.e. conservative, not reactionary, neo-Confederate, wingnut or fascist), and fwiw gay.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The late Tim Russert is quoted at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/schlafly.outing.reaction-KNIGHT.RIDDER as though John, the gay nurse, and Andy, the wingnut lawyer, are the same person. This is not my impression, but I cannot be absolutely sure. Certainly the gay one stuck me as a decent guy, while the lawyer doesn't.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
List of newspapers in Germany Afronig ( talk) 12:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of all the environmentalism articles on Conservapedia, why has the Pacific Northwest tree octopus (which no longer appears there) been singled out? It looks like the least notable article. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that their YEC article says, in the lead,"Scientists who advocate an old earth regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as radiometric dating and biological observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many anomalies associated with the old earth/universe position." Their "Age of the Earth" article says "The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[1][2][3]" Their article on evolution - well, you get the point. Interesting, I had no idea it was that anti-scientific. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
While I find Conservapedia an interesting website to explore minority views, their sourcing seems to be worse than the average Wikipedia article. Their article on Young Earth Creationism includes 91 citations, but few of them actually mention which book, author, or website is being cited. For example, the article contains two citations το a page called "Question evolution!", which are used to support the existence of a "grass-roots movement" of Young Earth Creationists . The link actually links to a page in the wider website "creation.com", maintained by Creation Ministries International. There are also multiple links to a website maintained by Answers Magazine, a publication of the Answers in Genesis organization. Most of these links do not seem to link to any specific article. Conservapedia lists this among its featured articles despite its sourcing problems.
Another featured Conservapedia article is that on Wikipedia. Its lede includes the following sentence: "Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy." The citation fails to explain who is doing the criticism. It leads to a 2011 article by someone called David Swindle, who is writing for FrontPage Magazine. The publication seems to be owned by David Horowitz.
Frankly, I do not mind the anti-scientific bias that much, but the fact is that I have seen pages on Memory Alpha with better sourcing. Dimadick ( talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On 27 June 2017, the www.conservapedia.com website stopped responding to inquiries normally, instead responding as follows:
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.5 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.conservapedia.com Port 80"
. The Internet Archive was able to access it the previous day per
this link. —
Jeff G. ツ
(talk) 02:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Self-described is the accurate phrase to use.
Disbelieving in the theory of relativity or believing King James is the only true biblical version (even though the Bible was not written in English) is not conservative. It's arguably indicative of mental illness. RationalWiki does a great job in pointing out that many of the extreme editors may be "parodists". YouCanDoAnything ( talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This description somewhat begs the question. In all likelihood, the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was an old tradition which was not originally part of any larger book, and so was later slotted into John to preserve it. To say that it's categorically "in" John without any further explanation is to conceal the existence of many scholarly controversies. AnonMoos ( talk) 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is playing down how extreme and inaccurate Conservapedia is. Conservapedia is a propaganda site which is masquerading as an encyclopedia. It isn't merely an encyclopedia from a conservative point of view. It is obsessed with demonising liberalism, homosexuality and atheism - saying that they go together and they blame them for all sorts of things, including crime, obesity, poverty and mental disorders. It paints every conservative as brilliant and every liberal as evil. It claims that evolution is pseudoscience, that every species of animal (including penguins and polar bears) boarded a boat together in the Middle East and that people had lifespans of hundreds of years merely because it says so in the Bible (which they treat as a historical book) and that the world is only a few thousand years old. They categorise George Tiller as a murderer and state that Stephen Paddock was a liberal atheist. Any real encyclopedia would not state such things as facts. Jim Michael ( talk) 13:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
RationalWiki is "more popular" because it has a decent number of active users and updates frequently. Conservapedia has a history of banning its most active users for little to no reason, and has a dwindling community of users. The front page of the website has received no updates since "18 August 2015" (quoting the website), and by far the most active current editor is "User:Aschlafly" ( Andrew Schlafly himself). Cornservapedia's Alexa rank is currently 73,952nd, and it ranks 17,689th among United States-websites. It does not seem to attract many visitors, nor does it get as much press attention as it used to. Dimadick ( talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does anyone agree that Conservapedia is full of lies? The site is not even a conservative or Christian site. Rather, it is some sort of cult. Even fundamentalists would be appalled by the site. 2600:1:F150:C875:A028:D0FF:A611:83FB ( talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
47.147.16.228 ( talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)An encyclopedia founded on the belief that people are basically good cannot be “unbiased.”
August 22, 2011
David Swindle
[copy from https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle removed]
I removed a quote of Joseph Farah which was sourced to WorldNet Daily. This is not a reliable source, even for an opinion. @ 1990'sguy: could you please explain your reversion? – dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible"been published by a reliable source? – dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're telling me you re-wrote the Bible to fit your political viewpoints? So you guys are basically just completely removing words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus Himself just so it fits your political opinions. If the Bible is inspired by God does that mean you're saying God is wrong? Messed up, man, messed up. Keaga ( talk) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"If the Bible is inspired by God" More likely inspired by entheogens and the religious experiences associated with them. And good-old psychosis could account for a lot of the visions and false prophesies of the Bible.:
The quote from Conservapedia on Liberalism was updated [5] to reflect the latest entry from two days ago. Besides reading badly so it will probably be changed again soon I don't believe we should be monitoring Conservapedia this way. It should reflect what was the case when the citation referring to it was written if anything and only a link put in to Conservapedia if people should look for the latest version. I don't think it really makes sense to just say it has changed since and pluck a version from Conservapedia. I don't know if there is some guideline about this - anyone know anything relevant? Dmcq ( talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,
This is incorrect. In the actual article on conservapedia, all they do is mention that multiple politicians use the theory of relativity as justification for moral relativism. 180.190.182.168 ( talk) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Could this article point out that it is more difficult to set up a userpage on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia - I keep typing in passwords at Conservapedia, only to get told they do not match. Also, I do no think one is allowed to create new pages on Conservapedia unless logged in with a user page. Vorbee ( talk) 08:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Could this article point out that, unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not have a category "Living people"? I have brought up the question of whether there should be such a category on Conservapedia, only to be told there would be no point in having such a one in CP, it would be worthless and it would have to be updated every time some one dies. Vorbee ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The new section on Socialism seems solely based on a conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper and two citations of Conservapedia itself. Anyone got a better source to cite or should it just be removed? Dmcq ( talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be a reason to "just present what is said on Conservapedia". WP:WEIGHT is established by what aspects of the subject receive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Wikipedia editor deciding that one particular bit of content on Conservapedia is more worthy of note than others gets into original research. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that we need to remember the common sense approach comes before Wikipedia Policy. This is a politically charged subject matter that is so polar that it just simply isn't pragmatic to utilize political commentators as a source for what is supposed to be fact- as then we have the whole business of separating opinion from fact, which is unweilding at best. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 05:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I nominate this article to be checked for complete compliance with WP:NPOV . This article appears to violate NPOV given that the subject matter and references appear to be highly politically charged. It seems that a lot of the reference citations contain material which is opinion material that has no place in a citation on Wikipedia, or at minimum, needs clear attribution and exact wording to avoid potential misconstruction. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see that violates NPOV is the fact that because there is an apparent feud between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, it becomes that Wikipedians understandably have a conflict of interest in the matter, and therefore things become quite suspect of being anything but "Neutral", especially when "Opinion" is involved that is highly politicized. If we use attribution we avoid the problem to some extent, but we should then make an effort to cite sources that go against that position as well in order to make things truly neutral, when discussing things that have a political element. The problem here, is that I don't see conservapedia's viewpoint represented at all, except to an extent which implies the derogatory. Also, it is quite clear that the opinion column is not considered a reliable source. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
( talk)I don't think your seeing the point. The problem here is that outside of what would be considered Original Research, the only thing that can be found on the subject is opinion matter on one side or the other on what seems to be extremely and highly controversial root issues that seems rooted in politics and religion. Its notable that most of Conservapedia's articles have a significant minorty viewpoint to support them, but this article currently seems to attempt to promote that there isn't any support whatsoever, which is intellectually dishonest. My point here is that this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources that rely on what is clearly pre-established narrative of the major political parties and/or various religions. I also am taking note here that Atheism can be considered a religion in so far as it promotes a specific viewpoint. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources"still falls within WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. If you go through the cited references and believe one does not comply with WP:Reliable sources you can delete it, or ask about it on the talk page first, or ask about it at the WP:RSN first. But proceed slowly please, else you might accidentally appear to be doing vandalism of stuff you don't like. If you do find cites that violate RS then we'll be in your debt for cleaning them up. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
But given the consensus here, I will withdraw the NPOV issue and edit the article for clear attribution here, which seems to be the consensus here. 24.155.244.245 ( talk) 01:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Their page Arkancide contains cases connected to the German town of Wiesbaden. It is incorrectly written there "Weisbaden". I do not wish to register as an editor. Source: Map. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:E1C2:7861:28AD:B875 ( talk) 00:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Conservapedia's views on the recent election, and associated events, are worthy of comment, surely. Rwood128 ( talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple instances of quotations from Conservapedia, and when I checked two, I found the quotations inaccurate. The problem, of course, is that Conservapedia, like Wikipedia, changes frequently. I have some concerns about such quotations and related issues.
First, statements on Conservapedia are ephemeral, and it seems to me that quoting something as "current" is inviting error before long.
Second, statements on Conservapedia reflect a range of posters and not necessarily the site itself. Consider, for example, how many racist or homophobic remarks have been posted on Wikipedia as acts of vandalism. It would be accurate to state that "Wikipedia frequently uses racist language," I think, but it would also be grossly misleading to make the claim without further asserting that almost every instance is reverted within seconds.
Third, finding errors on Conservapedia or claims that contradict, say, established scientific views is trivial. It's not that hard to do the same on Wikipedia.
Fourth, outdated claims on Wikipedia--such as the statement "The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing', since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, 'the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible'" are proved outdated. (I checked the Conservapedia version of the Bible, and the quotation is, more or less, in there ("Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.").
Fifth, Conservapedia has a wealth of information (including misinformation). How do we select what to rebut? For example, the claim that abortion leads to breast cancer is covered, but there is no mention of the claim that the suffix "-ic" cannot be added to a proper noun to form an adjective ( https://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party) despite words like "German" and "Germanic" or "Slav" and "Slavic."
To be clear, I'll expose my bias. I enjoy Conservapedia. I find it amusing for the absurdity of many of its claims. That said, it seems to me that this page seems to jettison encyclopedic style in favor of piling on. In the process, it uses false (meaning no longer correct) statements to do so.
I suggest a revision that focuses on Conservapedia's stated aims and outside criticisms (such as those of Zimmer et al.) would be an improvement over the current approach, which seems to rely on original research in the sense that it appears people went to Conservapedia, looked up some of the absurd claims, and then found easy-to-find sources to rebut those claims.
I realize that this request may be rambling, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the page. 174.195.138.25 ( talk) 00:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Should the subject of this article be categorized with Category:Conspiracist media? Free Media Kid! 09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 United States presidential election was held on November 3, 2020, but Democrat political machines stuffed the ballot box with millions of mail-in ballots, many improperly cast. In fact, the entire article is promoting one huge conspiracy theory. Similarly you could pick their Coronavirus article, which has in the lead,
Early treatment of this disease by hydroxychloroquine has been reportedly successful in dozens of studies[3] and numerous individual situations. India, for example, uses hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis[4] and has one of the smallest mortality rates per million residents of any country.[5] In the United States, liberal government officials have impeded its widespread use to minimize potential credit to Trump in an election year, resulting in a skyrocketing mortality rate higher than in many comparable, but much poorer, countries.The site as a whole overwhelmingly pushes conspiratorial narratives. — Czello 09:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How's that for a start? The problem is that Conservapedia has become an echo chamber for 5 angry white guys, and is ignored by everybody, especially their new target market of the alt-right, Trump-land crowd, so getting any up-to-date impartial sourcing on the conspiracies they spew will be difficult. Psygremlin ( talk) 08:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be categorized as a pseudoscientific medium if possible (because it promoted alternate cures for COVID-19 and downplayed vaccines and evolution), as that is a far greater concern than the political viewpoints expressed on the site. Félix An ( talk) 12:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A surprising amount of edit warring going on. If you want this category to be here, find sources which explicitly call it a fake news website and add them to the article. Fake news websites are not just any site that publishes false statements. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
tnr
(debate me)
(my accomplishments) 03:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Are these items worth adding. Views on the war in Ukraine, and Putin, transgender issues, Covid 19 and lockdowns, that Michelle Obama is a man. Maybe added to the ideology section? There is an interesting essay on "open mindedness" on Conservapedia. Does more need saying on Conervapedia's views on women's place in society, the clothes that they should wear, etc? The current tone of the article is admirably retrained. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Re the recent removal of the word " conspiracist" from the opening sentence. While Conservapedia does have many encyclopaedia-style articles, it also works in some areas more like a conspiracy theory blog. The article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a prime example, 99% of which has been created by one editor. Here the view is that Putin is involved in a "holy" war against naziism. Covid articles is another area where conspiracy theories are central, as is the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. One of the most absurd is that Michelle Obama is a man, or transgender, and that the Obamas are a homosexual couple. Maybe "conspiracist" can be restored with the addition of a more explicit source? The word "encyclopaedia" is used as a facade. Rwood128 ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Conservapedia promotes numerous conspiracy theories, such as the belief the 2020 US election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden and the Great Reset theory. Or any of the other conspiracies they promote. — Czello 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)