There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>
- 1 What Conservapedia needs
- 2 Where's Conservapedia's true quote that says "sentences should not be facts."?
- 3 1990'sguy
- 4 Conservapedia's "news" blog section
- 5 403 Errors
- 6 Question
- 7 'Liberals'
- 8 I thought posting an article that backs up your views and yelling olè olè was how arguments were won?
- 9 Is it broken?
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: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
Where's Conservapedia's true quote that says "sentences should not be facts."?
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:
Conservapedia's "news" blog section
- 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)
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: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
- CP crashes from time to time for reasons unknown. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
Ganfyd has 'Norwegian Blue parrotted.'
The Ingmar Bergman entry uses 'is (he died in 2007) and is strangely neutral about him (while  has a right mix of viewpoints, and should probably mention The Seventh Seal and both Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible movies). Anna Livia (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought posting an article that backs up your views and yelling olè olè was how arguments were won?
Was blocked from conservapedia for “trolling” user:conservative after posting an article discussing millennials rejecting religion and insinuated that the S.S. Religion was taking on water olè olè olè olè... if thats trolling...seems conservapedia is a den of trolls 2601:183:8480:4600:A159:B0DA:ADF2:9C10 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)josh
Is it broken?
There seem to be major access problems presently - a comment perhaps: and are the participants likely to create problems elsewhere until they can return to base? Anna Livia (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)