From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Conservlogo late april.png

This Conservapedia related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Incoherent, lumpy, jargon-filled and not a good intro to an outsider. We need this article to be really good because we are the go-to site on Conservapedia.[dubious]

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, (new)


[edit] Vandalism Spree

I've been engaged in a good deal of vandalism at Conservapedia for quite some time. I have about a dozen IP addresses that I move between to vandalize, and I sometimes use Proxies as well. Anyways, I would love to recruit some of you to help me vandalize the site. I find that pestering Andy about his gay brother is usually a pretty good way to get under their skin over there.

Anyways, me and a couple of friends are usually able to put a decent sized dent in the site with just a few minutes of work. I'm giddy thinking of what kind of damage we can do if we get a hundred vandals relentlessly attacking the site. I'd say hit everything from user pages to the regular articles... I'm a fan of deleting the Main Talk page and replacing it with, well whatever.

If anyone out there is interested about taking a shot at conservapedia, sign up on my talk page and we'll schedule a time to hit them hard. --MikeO (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have us confused with somebody else. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because vandalizing a wiki makes you "soooo cooool", doesn't it? --Mikalos209 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do this. However, according to RationalWiki's wandalism page, any glint of truth in Conservapedia is considered as wandalism. All you have to do is tell the truth. --Rlin (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Number of articles?

Is there any information on the number of articles on Conservapedia anywhere? (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

cp:Special:Statistics 20:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

[edit] The Theramin

would be a useful instrument for CP-ians to use, as it is not touched in the process, thus 'arousing' lustful thoughts (music being the food of love etc). Unfortunately it is 'inappropriatedly shaped' for such purposes (besides being invented by a Russian Communist). (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that when Ken masturbates, it's a lot like playing the theremin. Same noises too. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And thanks to that, I will never be able to watch Bill Bailey again... --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article for more details. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Wow, thanks Anon, I never would have thought of that. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating the #### obvious is the best way of dealing with CP

[edit] Irrational Conservapedia

The main page is totally unsuitable for impressionable young persons - references abortion, feminism, homosexuality, gun control, bias.

And ... deliberate ignorance.

Apparently Murphy's Law was a conservative insight.

Things that will never appear on Con-serve-a-pedia no xxxx

  • Remember one thing for all eternity
  • First comes the bread and then the morality (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • There are some who are in darkness
  • And the others are in light
  • And you see the ones in brightness
  • Those in darkness drop from sight

(And the bit about giving the poor a chance in life) (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

More rent-a-quote:

  • Be as radical as reality. Lenin. (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] What Conservapedia needs

... is a good dose of creativity (as distinct from Creationism), regular doses of the 'more interesting, 'Er What?' and lurid' chapters of the Bible, BibleCelebrityGossip (tm), irony traps, and exposure to the inherent contradictions in their arguments, until until they get into a mirror maze and vanish/undergo spontaneous combustion. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] Seriously?

Hahahahaha wow. Hey, this site is just a joke right? Wait, it isn't? Haha that's funny. You go on about it being a hate site, but let's face it, you're being pretty hateful yourself. I'm just saying. I don't mean to pass judgement, and maybe Conservapedia is pretty bad too, but you guys don't exactly promote fair judgement, unrestricted thinking, and unbiased opinions yourself huh? Before you accuse others of hypricosy, make sure you don't do it yourself okay? If you want to portray information about the Charles Darwins theory of evolution (which is all I can seem to find on this site), then present the facts, not judicious hate against others. It's not cool. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

OK, thanks for the tip. AceX-102 05:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We never claim to be unbiased... in fact, we specifically go out of our way to state that we are snarky assholes... and bitches. There are much better sources of unbiased facts without judicious hate... we could never compete with them. We fill a niche... a place for people to vent and rant about CP creationists, and other peddlers of woo. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I second Ace in thanking you for your elucidation of our problems. Thank you! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] how do you edit conservapedia

I am trying to vandalize Conservapedia but my new account doesn't have permission to edit. what the fuck am i supposed to do? Demon of the christ (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Err, Grow up? 22:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Oh shut up you cunt do you think I should just leave conservapedia alone? Demon of the christ (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If that is an example of your wit and repartee then I think that you should possibly leave the internet alone. 22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Lol! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Make your own Conservapedia, like New Conservapedia. ColbertFan (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Management

The refs in the opening sentence don't make any sense to me. Aschalfy links to cp:Gun control, the Panel links to a dead blog, and "no request answered" links to cp:Shaken baby syndrome. Likewise, "not to delete content on threat of banning" links to cp:Homeschooling and more bizarrely, "unless granted special rights, which are rarely granted. " links to cp:United nations. Has somebody been playing silly buggers or is this just sloppy editing? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like a "named" cite (LA Times) is borken, perhaps being called before being defined (or not defined at all) and so the order of footnote calls does not match the order of footnotes below. Look at the one numbered "4" as of now - clicking on it goes nowhere. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell the Catholic and Greek orthodox churches that wearing black is anti-Christian, please? They may be offending Tea Party-Goerers. Wisepranker (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone told The Pope?

I think someone had better inform the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches that wearing black is anti-Christian. What a mistaka-ta-make-a!

Wisepranker (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] A suitable joke

There are a number of variants of this joke:

A person dies and goes to heaven, and is shown around by the Archangel Gabriel (or other notable inhabitant of heaven). At one point they come to a wall, and Gabriel indicates they should be quiet.

'What was that about?' the person asks when they have moved away.

'Those are the (XXXX) and they think only they go to heaven.' (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Australians wouldn't give a XXXX for anything else. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In this context XXXX is 'group of choice' rather than beer or the clothing size likely to be required by consuming too much thereof. (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia's detailed knowledge of Australian Politics

An interesting little tidbit I learned in my browsing through the interminable morass of inaccuracy that is Conservapedia; in addition to claiming the Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd as a conservative and creationist, even though technically he would be deemed a liberal in American politics, the "trustworthy encyclopedia" still claims, as of December 5th 2010, that he is the Prime Minister of Australia, even though he very publically resigned on the 24th of June 2010. That's right, they don't even know the head of government of one of America's major allies. I thought this should make it into the article, but I didn't have confidence in my ability to incorporate it. I suppose it would go under Accuracy of Conservapedia. As of the time of writing, Julia Gillard is the real Prime Minister (and for the record, Wikipedia was reporting on the switch as it was happening). Here is the offending article: [1]

In their defence, their article on Tony Abbott ([2]) is bang on. Though that's not saying much. (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Their two biggest Aussie editors, PJR and Jallan, haven't been with them for a while, chased of by "senior-admin" TK. Another problem is unless you live in WA you have to stay up past 10:30pm at night to edit, or do you editing in the morning at work, due to the closed editing during US nighttime. Have you spotted the bit where they called Downer a liberal yet? - π 05:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought about trying to set them right on it, but now that I've heard about all the difficulties associated with editing, I won't bother. Anyway, I suppose it'll be fun to see how long they can go without realising. I didn't catch the Downer bit (they establish in the first bit of the Liberal Party's article the difference between "liberal" and "Liberal," though. Just so the readers know who to hate.) (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It is on Professor values. Liberal politicians get university postings, Downer got a university postings, ergo Downer is a liberal. - π 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see that! That's a good one (I like the reference attached: "Downer is so pro-abortion that, as Foreign Minister of Australia, he "asked for a review of the government's ban on funding for abortion services in other countries."") Just imagine what would happen if they found out he was a transvestite! (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Be fair, he only did that once. - π 05:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Accessing CP

Is it down (error 404) or is it merely the server blocking it (Error 403)? (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All non-US IPs are blocked, or at least a good chunk are. See "Forms of censorship" Rationalize (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with code for footnotes

There is a quote at the top of the page, "He has started this thing on the Internet. I don't know what to call it. -- Phyllis Schlafly's ringing endorsement of her son's project." When you click the ref link it highlights the article on homosexuality. The reference is in the code but it doesn't show in the references section. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DPL resets the parser state, so the references before it are left out. I had to remove {{Internet}}. -- Nx / talk 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] O not A?

I always thought it should really be Conservopedia, not Conservapedia.--CPalmer (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As any conservotive would agree. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It's all reduce to a schwa anyways... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Eiro is right. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Is the "Conservapedia has a problem" image at the top of the article absolutely necessary? Any major bitchslapping if I remove it? SJ Debaser 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like it to remain but you could move it to like, maybe before the refs section?
Or you could resize the png to like 600px? 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
In favor of removal myself, but it might look okay resized somewhere. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on these two comments which I take to represent the entire website, I've moved it to the "interesting gaps in CP" section. SJ Debaser 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia on soccer

A direct quote:

"As further evidence that soccer is a sport for socialists, University of Cambridge scientists have confirmed a top coach's claim that he needs only 100 words to coach his team."

Can somebody explain the illogic behind this? (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"" (specialty not in breast cancer), you are arguing against logic. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and you rely on hearsay, judges laugh at hearsay, so I'm confident you're wrong. Furthermore, you are in denial that conservative talk radio deters murder. It's simple logic: I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done. You're not going to censor anything here.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I can explain a bit. a) Soccer isn't popular in the US. b) Soccer is popular in Europe. Therefore in Schlafly logic, this means that Soccer is socialist. Since a top coach has claimed that he only needs 100 words to coach his team, and a scientist confirms this, and it makes soccer bad, obviously it must prove all the bad things that Schlafly has already said about it. Really, it all boils down to: Andy doesn't like soccer. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In addition, soccer is socialist because team members are expected to share the ball because of the increased scarcity of products in a socialist system. In a capitalist sport, the economy would produce enough balls for everyone to have a ball. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, spectators will often hug and kiss each other when a goal is scored (or cry if their team loses). Same goes for the players of the scoring team. Players will often give each other pats on the posterior. Additionaly players often act rather feminine (like a homosexual) when they do a swallow (pun not intended), i.e. when they dive on purpose to get a penalty shot. Thus one could argue that soccer is furthering the homosexual agenda. P-Foster (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
They also use a Red flag. Coincidence? I think not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's much simpler than that. If it only takes 100 words to explain soccer, it's obviously a stupid game. DogP (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball - huge chaps dress up in protective costume (unlike rounders-playing girls), and run from pillar to post (four other guys). The catcher (in the rye) usually misses, innings and outings. Much money is made, and there is Minor League, to suck in youngsters who don't know better. The "World Series" does not cover the world.

And it was 100 #soccer related words# not 100 words total. (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure conservapedia think the World Series obviously does cover the world as it covers the United States. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's view of soccer is 'just not cricket' (which has tests, and 20-20 (vision) but no conclusions.) (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous

Read this "argument" on the Adolf Hitler talk page on Conservapedia.

--Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia and Bin Laden

As Obama produced his long birth certificate, CP seems to be 'talking up' Bin Laden's death (or not - and how long before the first OBL-claimants appear?). (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the general idea Osama was 'killed' to distract from the obviously fake birth cert? Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia priorities

On the front page popular listings Greatest Conservative Songs and abortion come above Jesus - only just above Liberal, while Home Schooling/Dinosaur and Sara Palin/deliberate ignorance seem #so# appropriate.

A flight of parrots and parakeets are currently settling on CP.

And if anyone wants a 'gibbering editor' project - try and improve the CP article Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Objectiveness of this article

I find this article to lack any kind of objective view as a wiki should. Instead it just bashes the wiki. If you do not like Conservapedia, that is fine and well, but this article should take a neutral objective view of it.-- (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See RW:SPOV. We leave it to Wikipedia to try to be "neutral." Uke Blue 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not even an SPOV issue. Objectivity, neutrality, balance and just being painfully nice about things shouldn't be confused. Conservapedia is ran by idiots, pushes factually incorrect information, politicises everything. Calling it shit isn't subjective. ADK...I'll legislate your escape pod! 17:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia on UK newspapers

'The Daily Express is a liberal British tabloid newspaper' - being 'hang em, flog em and send Johnny Foreigner back home'; and The Morning Star aligned itself with 'the conservative Communist Party of Britain.' (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia and Plan 9

Just a silly observation, but the parallels between Conservapedia and the movie Plan 9 from Outer Space are astonishing:

  • Both are written and directed by delusional, untalented yet determined twats.
  • Poor (production) design
  • Horrible writing
  • So many goofs you can't count them
  • Stupid, stupid, stupid!
  • Little to zero concern for time continuity or any other kind of logic
  • No redeeming qualities
  • The cast and crew:
    • Andy Schlafly = Ed Wood
    • Ken DeMyer = Bunny Breckinridge
    • Brian Macdonald = Tor Johnson aka Lobo
    • Terry Hurlbut = Bela Lugosi
    • John Patti = Paul Marco
    • Ed Poor = Criswell

Everything fits! --Martin Joaquinez (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely TK = Bela Lugosi, what with him dying mid "production" and all. Terry would = Tom Mason, Ed Wood's wife's chiropractor who played "Ghoul Man with Cape Over Face." Random surfer (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Conservapedia From a Pillarization Point of View

Conservapedia, for all its flaws and all its cultural/ideological/religious peculiarities (which seem legion from briefly scanning the website), is a perfectly legitimate form of expression for Christian fundamentalists. Bias is not always a bad thing. If rationalwiki readers think they are less susceptible to groupthink and fundamentalism than Conservapedia editors, I suggest they read the first line of this article: "Conservapedia is a deceitful, heavily biased and willfully ignorant wiki-based encyclopedia blog project."

That is classic group reinforcement or, as we political junkies like to say, "cocooning." I think there is a lot to be said for cocooning. Society should not be dominated by one group or another; rational secularists should not aim to destroy religious conservatives (nor should religious conservatives seek to destroy secularists). We should be aiming for peaceful coexistence, akin to social polarization in Belgium, for example. Having separate websites, blogs, newspapers, even sports leagues, for each "pillar" in society (secularists, religious moderates, religious fundamentalists, etc)--where everyone coexists geographically, and each member of society can pick one (multiple?) of these pillars--is one way to deal with hyperpolarization.

Basically, don't aim to destroy your enemies culturally--that is why ethnic conflicts are so bloody (Yugoslavia, anyone?). Keep in mind that rationalism has a poor track record of solving problems (often refusing to acknowledge information and computation constraints, not to mention the ridiculous fixation humans in general have with causation--as if everything can be reduced to simple cause-and-effect relationships). Not that rationalists are alone, of course (for one, the causation fallacy is something everyone suffers from); that's why we centristy types prefer a health balance between groups. — Unsigned, by: Joeedh / talk / contribs

Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from response, dipshit. MtDPinko Scum 04:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Did I say that? My point is simple: don't aim to destroy your enemies and their culture. That doesn't mean they aren't stupid, or that you have to like them. Just don't allow yourself to be consumed by hate. I'm not saying this article needs to change, I simply want to point out the dangers of group triumphalism in our era of hyperpolarization. Joeedh (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(1) A great deal of what Conservapedia says is factually incorrect, not just "biased." (2) If a group specifically pretends to be neutral, as Conservapedia does, they must be called out on any bias they do have. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
They claim to be neutral? Clearly I didn't checkout the site thoroughly enough. Looking at their about page, they do need to be more open that they represent a specific viewpoint, and not pretend to be objective. That is a fair point. It's a common problem; even Fox News and the New York Times are still officially "objective" and "neutral" organizations. Joeedh (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
They promote sexism, homophobia, hatred of Muslims, and abuse the memory of the Shoah in order to score cheap political points, which is in the ballpark of antisemitism in my books. Tell me again why we should tolerate them and their message? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 05:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, and you people also give off vague anti-semitic vibes, promote social nihilism, social breakdown, ethnic corporatism (with its racist vibe), oppressive identity interest groups, and totally ignore the problem of social breakdown and how your ideology contributes to it (as does Christian fundamentalism, of course; everyone avoids responsibility for social breakdown in America). But, you're not going to change, and Conservapedia isn't going to change; it's much better to approach these matters in a diplomatic way, as opposed to a "crush the enemy" fashion. There's a reason we centrist types try and balance you people off each other. Joeedh (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think you're over-egging the pudding just a touch? This is a pissing contest between two websites. Your drawing comparisons to ethnic cleansing and the cultural collapse of Belgium (seriously fuck those smug beer swilling arseholes) borders on the hyperbolic. MtDPinko Scum 05:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that the concern troll's last post was a bevy of pure bullshit, I think that is something of an understatement. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, that reaction well represents rationalwiki's name, doesn't it? I'm a proud, squishy centrist type; if you want to use the term "concern troll" so be it. Joeedh (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with nearly anything that you are saying Joeed, except the "vague anti-semitic vibes" we are giving off. You will need to justify that statement before proceeding much further.

On the other hand, I agree to an extent with your basic position, CP represents a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint with its biases and we have our own. I think, however, you are missing on seeing the level of dishonesty, and lack of intellectual rigour and academic rigour that we see there. Many of us find it amusing, rather than "aim[ing] to destroy your enemies" as you suggest. Many, (unfortunately not all, it is true) do not take our relationship with CP as one of enemies, we just like to poke fun at some of the crazy things that they say - hell, I am even a member in good standing over there, and have no intention of bringing down the website or anything like that.

Also I don't believe that they purport themselves as being neutral, this is especially true in the "news" sections, which they have openly admitted contains thought-provoking stories, rather than items they necessarily stand behind. DamoHi 05:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia does not claim to be ideologically neutral, but the page contrasting Conservapedia with Wikipedia states that Conservapedia is "neutral to the facts;" the Manual of Style contains some tips for making an article "factually neutral." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The "vague anti-semitic vibe" bit was meant to be ironic; everyone says that about their political opponents. Joeedh (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
@Joeedh, fair enough I suppose.
@ListenerX. I have no real doubt that if one trawled through the various pages of style and policy on CP you would find references to ideological neutrality and the like. There are also references to referring to the encyclopedia being written from a conservative, American Christian centric point of view. The reality however is that with a name like Conservapedia and after a brief perusal of the news, the articles, the talk pages, the essays and the debate pages, one could not think that they portray themselves as being neutral. I just don't buy that. DamoHi 21:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Why not...

"Conservapedia's goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has a conservative bias"

Why not just create a version of Wikipedia with no bias?

XD --Tesseract 20:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak. --Elvis is King (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where this goes, but how is this site rational? I've only seen two pages, Waffen SS and Conservapedia, and both are heavily biased, almost as much as conservapedia itself. The SS page claims that they were the 'biggest nazi thug-gang political army'. this claims that conservapedians have a 'hatred of anything and everything'. so how is this rational facts as opposed to propaganda?

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! --Revolverman (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki Courtesy clue-by-four Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia, God, and humo(u)r

Just came across [3] (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Much worse than silver

This article has sufficient content to make bronze, but I really don't think it rates silver - it's lumpy, ranty and impenetrable to an outsider. I wanted to link it to try to explain Conservapedia to someone but it's really not up to the job. I move to downgrade it. Anyone concur or object? - David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur, and get it off the main page too. TyJFBANBSRADA
It needs some work, & should be seen as a priority article. CP-space can be forgotten about, but we should have a decent mainspace article on CP, as we are still seen as the go-to site for anyone interested in the wacky world of Conservapedia. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we really need this article, and we really need it not to suck. I'll bronze it then get out the axe and gaffer tape for major Texas chainsaw surgery - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Question

If CP died out, would RW also die out?--Seonookim (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point, no. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 08:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If the men in white coats took Ken's computer away, would WIGO CP die out? SophieWilder 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] You know they wouldn't really be worth it if...

The real reason people like those that dwell in the bowls of this shit storm of a website have come to my attention is because they have become the true heart of the republican party. I never really considered myself that much of a Leftist/libural, Ive always been a moderate middle of the road lets make a compromise kinda guy but when the other side are on the 40 somthingish useless vote to repeal Obamacare, tards like assfly are filling suit to end it, and there are people in congress who talk about the creation of the world 6000 years ago, we have a problem, both nationally and internationally, and these insane people, who usually wouldn't be worth spitting at have become a large part of a major party...contradicting it to the core, screaming for government to get out of health care and into gay mens bed rooms and single moms wombs....i don't know what the point of what I'm saying is in the end, i guess its just that these people who should be seen as the fridge the same as the american nazi party or the american communists, have become a loud voice in out political spectrum and we're all much worse off for it...SmittyGreen (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa rankings

Conservapedia.....55,452 vs a shemale admirer site.,428 CP is beaten by shemales by 2,074 places. Just a bit of perspective. (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? SophieWilder 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Pearls of wisdom

From the 'Political cards' page: uneducated card Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president. (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] List of Administrators

That list is getting long, and it's only up to "C". Suggest winnowing it back to include only active people and people like TK, Rob, Bugler, etc. who were noteworthy somehow. Or getting rid of it altogether. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I will narrow it to: Bureaucrats, active sysops, and noteworthy/laughable sysops. FuzzyCatPotato talktalktalk

[edit] Cant get on conservapedia?

For the past few weeks i haven't been able to check out conservapedia, i haven't vandalized the place, trolled or even tried to sign in or make a new account, idk if they blocked me, or if they're just down, or maybe just blocked a large swath of people that somehow included my IP address? Anyone else unable to get on?LennonKrik (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a few threads on our TALK:WIGOCP page about this. It looks like Andy is, intentionally or accidentally, server-side blocking people who actually visit the site on a regular basis. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked around for any threads pertaining to this, but i couldn't fin anything, it musta just slipped past me, sorry ask a question thats already been answeredLennonKrik (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread; thread; thread. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Converging viewpoints

Um, hi. I was wondering if the article should include those rare examples where both we and Conservapedia actually have the same opinion on something - eg, Scientology, SOPA (though they claimed that Lamarr Smith was secretly an ebul liberal first, of course)? Quisitor (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Registration

I think it worth noting that it no longer seems possible to register an account on Conservapedia, at least not in the UK. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia Down?

Is it just me or Conservapedia is not working since last few days? I usually go there when I am bored at work to get a good laugh but it seems that sometime since last week I have been getting the 'Operation Time Out' network error every time I try to go there. Is that monstrosity finally dead?— Unsigned, by: Nikhil1256 / talk / contribs

"Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." --Frank Zappa. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Conservapedia is down again.Reubencpiplupyay (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Someone has to show this to Conservapedia

I'm certain Andy would post it on the main page. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced navel-gazing

Can be found with Conservapedia OCD [4] - complete with handy pointer. (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody 'un-ultrasmall' the text (and tell me what I did so I can avoid it in future). (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't you. In an earlier section, a closing subscript mark somehow fell off the page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is easy enough to accidentally change or remove a character and dislocate the entire page.

Are the images 'proof that the argument has automatically been lost'? (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul said

"Philippians 3:1 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Did this happen to anyone else?

It doesn't even give me the option to create an account./ Only log in. Funny since I got a new router since my last ban.--サトセレ (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Narr, they turn it on/off at will - have since forever (almost) … Scream!! (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Article on us

I know that conservapedia used to have an article on us (And it was hilarious), but now searching in the box comes up empty. I think andrew might have deleted the article. Greatnecro (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a hypocrisy statement

I have a question: the image that states "Interestingly, one of the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" is that virtually the exact same action was performed on Wikipedia" : What exactly did wikipedia do? Delete a (Biased) page made on it by conservatives called "List of Biases on Wikipedia"? Thx for replying. Imadmagician (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Fun article request

I would like a fun (and snarky) article about Conservapedia. Anybody willing to devote their time? This page might need more goat if the fun page isn't created — Unsigned, by: Rlin / talk / contribs 15:52, 7 November 2015‎

See here. Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I've got blocked without making a single edit

My userpage at Conservapedia got blocked by Andrew Schlafly within 10 minutes of me creating the account. However, if you look at my "User Contributions" page, you will see I did not do anything at all before getting blocked. Is this a common issue at Conservapedia?-- (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools