Talk:Conservapedia

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. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
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]

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>

What Conservapedia needs[edit]

... 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: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs

Where's Conservapedia's true quote that says "sentences should not be facts."?[edit]

Where is the citations of Convervapedia's quote that says "sentences should not be facts? I can't find it in this article because there is no citation for it. Please, cite or give proof that this is Conservapedia's true quote "sentences should not be facts". Cite the proof here:

— Unsigned, by: Coolguy212 / talk / contribs

1990'sguy[edit]

He banned me for putting science in their starlight problem article! I'm gonna go to the saloon bar and whine. — Unsigned, by: Doublethink / talk / contribs

Conservapedia's "news" blog section[edit]

'As of 2013' appears: can this be updated? Anna Livia (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t you do it? Acei9 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
CP is not really in my circuit - I investigate more obscure topics. Anna Livia (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
so you can’t change the number 3 to an 8? I know it’s a fucking chore but you can manage I’m sure. Acei9 06:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

403 Errors[edit]

Just to advise that this section is not correct, I am able to view the site from an IP address which the article states will return a 403 response code. i.e the site returns a 200 code and the appropriate webpage as normal. — Unsigned, by: 82.0.209.58 / talk / contribs

CP crashes from time to time for reasons unknown. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Correction, you said 403 errors, not 404 errors. My mistake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's Andy's brain doing a hard reset sometimes, which just transfers to CP's servers. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 00:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Most wikis are 'the go to site' for one area or another (Wikipedia - point of first resort; Ganfyd - medical things; Uncyclopedia - silliness).

What is Conservapedia the go to authoritative site for? (As distinct from 'if a statement of fact, verify elsewhere; if a statement of opinion take any views to taste that are in opposition to the position.') Anna Livia (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Laughing at hypocritical right-wing buffoons? Palaeonictis Fossil beds 13:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Authoritative for wingnuttery.--ReaperDawn 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Pro-Republican permastubs. — Dysk (contribs) 10:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)