From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Actually, without commenting on conservapedia, but in general, I love the idea of biased sources. I wish we had more overtly partisan newspapers, for example. In one of the federalist papers, factionalism was deemed bad. I think it is good. Better for people to wear their bias on their sleaves, in my opinion. So, in general, the idea of an encyclopedia that has a conservative bias has some appeal. Or perhaps a wiki-pedia alternative could have multiple articles with different bias, allowing the user to jump back and fourth among the different presentations. Of course, many problems to be worked out in this area (e.g., users feigning a bias they do not really have, subverting other POVs). HGHeartOfGold talk 00:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree with you: hiding bias is wrong and devious... that was one of my main problems with CP. For so long they pretended not to have a bias, it really killed the community.-AmesG 00:26, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I think when you read/watch news with a constant bias you really start seeing a neutral point of view as bias. I think this can go both ways but it is especially true of people who start thinking that search engines have biases. There is a certain level of paranois that develops. olliegrind 06:48, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I think one of the best examples of that is what has happened to the "political spectrum" as defined here in the US. The US "center" as described is to the right of where it is most everywhere else. When France elects a "conservative", Ashfly gets all up in his chuckles, without realizing that that conservative is to the left of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. I described myself in an email to Aulis as "very liberal" or "far left", then I realized (he is in Finland) that by Scandinavian standards, I am probably a centrist or slightly left moderate. Since Reagan and the advent of the right-wing noise machine, US politics has been conceptually pushed further and further to the right, with the Dem party getting sucked into the vacuum in the center/center right. It would be interesting to accurately quote mine Ashfly on what "liberal" and especially "conservative" mean. After all, he claims a broad majority, or at least plurality, for cons over libs, yet he disavows every right winger who gets in trouble as "not conservative". humanbe in 11:31, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
It would be nice to have an article about the wp:Overton Window and how CP fits into trying to shift it. --jtltalk 13:44, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Speaking of bias, in the morning I typicaly watch an hour of news or so on FOX and CNN. I have found that if you switch channels very fast between the two stations, you can actually get the real, unbiased truth. There was one time where both stations were running pieces on the exact same event, but the two versions of what happened were so different they were almost unrecognizable.Prof0705 09:55, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Why not just watch the BBC and save some effort? (My current theory is that the closer youa re to events, the more distorted they seem. Distance helps with accuracy.) --Gulik 20:06, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
One exception to this, in my experience, is the Israeli press. The government in Israel seems to be much more objectively covered in Israel than in the United States. HGHeartOfGold talk 21:39, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Unfortunately, I do not have BBC. It costs a lot of money to get the package that includes it from my cable provider. So instead I will continue to wear out my Previous Channel button on the clicker.Prof0705 18:14, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
You don't know how fortunate you are to be spared all that liberal bias (See CP:British Broadcasting Corporation ). Personally I am extremely glad we have the BBC in the UK. It gets attacked by both major parties so it must be doing something right. Also the BBC website gets a lot of hits from the US - just check out the user comments to any major international story. Mad Min 15:11, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree, the BBC is very thorough and not noticeably biased, you never hear a BBC newsreader giving their own opinion, which is in my eyes FOX's greatest flaw. MiddleMan

From what I've seen, I'd agree that the BBC is doing something right. The "everyone hates us, so we must be balanced" theory is a pet peeve of mine, though -- sometimes if everyone hates you, it's just because you're an asshole, and if everyone is attacking your reporting, it may just mean you're not very good at it. --jtltalk 15:58, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
The hate from both sides thing is a domestic issue and really boils down to the fact that politicians would like to control the BBC for their own propaganda. I think internationally the BBC is well regarded because of it's impartiality. They may not get it always right but on the whole I think they are fair. Also as a publicly funded body they don't have to pander to commercial pressures in the same way that NewsCorp does. ɱɑδ ɱ¡ɳblow in my ear/I did this! 16:10, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Philosophical Stance[edit]

I have added a section with what I see as the primary biases of CP. Please feel free to add or amend. There is probably stuff about free trade, wealth and poverty, etc that could be added. It would be nice to have some biblical quotes to go with the various points. Mad Min 15:11, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

While Conservapedia may be pro-homeschooling, can someone please explain to me why this is considered "anti-liberal"? I ask for clarification, being the liberal parent of a liberal homeschooled child, you see...Malraux 11:30, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
They pick and choose their "conservative" stances, with regard to homeschooling it means "back in the days of the Founding Fathers" (who were all good Christian men promoting Christian values, nevermind that they were fomenting rebellion against their God-given sovereign). CЯacke® 11:09, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
OK, so can this be called "pro-religious homeschooling" instead, or something similar? Malraux 11:30, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I wrote the original list and agree that home-schooling is not anti-liberal per se. Although CPs take on it seems to be something special. I would be quite happy about just unindenting the homeschooling line so that it doesn't look as if it is grouped under anti-liberal. ɱ@δ ɱ!ɳHello?/I did this! 11:42, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
How's that...a bit of both? CЯacke® 11:45, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Works for me, thanks. Malraux 11:59, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Memorial Day Irony on Conservapedia[edit]

We have all seen how CP passes itself off as a Pro-US, patriotic wiki. Take a look at the main page. You see blurbs about one in four Muslims supporting suicide bombings, outrage over an Arabic language school, stories of people being forced to watch Al Gore's movie, and stuff about evil Lib'ruls and their evil vaccines. What is missing on the page? Why any mention at all of Memorial Day! Does it not seem at all ironic that a wiki that has an American flag as its logo devotes more room to rabble-rousing than to remembering a supposedly important holiday?Prof0705 11:22, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Oooooooops? XD
Well, the CP article (cp:Memorial Day, currently this article only has one edit) explains why:

Traditional observance of Memorial Day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day.

In similarly dumb frontpage news: The currently featured article (cp:French Revolution) cites ZERO references. In fact, the only off-site link in the entire thing apparently is a link to the text of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. And if I read the history correctly, four people who are currently sysops contributed to it. Quality Control for the win, people. --Sid 11:44, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for fixing the template link, Human. I did the same, but it resulted in a Null Edit since you got there first (I wanted to think of a good edit summary to properly reflect on the sad fact that I forgot the name of a template that I created both here and on CP.) --Sid 11:56, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Scary thing about CP and its followers....[edit]

Something that kinda scares me about CP is the fact that my fiance's mother would fit right in over there. She is a homeschooler, she is a hard-core right-winger, and a Biblical literalist. She is currently using CP to help educate her two youngest children. What scares me is that when I have kids and they go to visit grandma for a week they may come home spewing shit like this.Prof0705 09:53, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

The fact that people are actually teaching children this tripe simultaneously terrifies and enrages me. There's a reason why I consider it a form of child abuse. --Kels 09:54, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I often wonder how this kids will survive in the real world. If they're anything like Andy they'll spew all sorts of horseshit and falsehoods, no way they would survive in a normal workplace. Maybe they'll telecommute to avoid human contact. Jrssr5 10:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Puts me in mind of the clearly spurious references the homeschool advocates keep bringing up about how well socialized homeschoolers are when they make it to college. Most of the actual educators I've heard speak on the subject say just the opposite. --Kels 10:15, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I can honestly say, as a former professor and teacher, the few homeschooled kids I've come across are nothing special. The worst I can say about any of them is they have trouble in group conversations in the classroom. As a group, they tend not to like debate. I will say they generally have a good understanding of the bible, biblical allusions, that sort of thing, but that only gets them so far. The worst experience I had with a homeschooled student was when I tried to teach Camus' Plague and was told, by a student, I was "preaching blasphemy" to the class. That is the one and only time I've thrown a student out of my classroom for anything. I told him to go home and come back when he'd calmed down a bit. In the end, he read Giants in the Earth, but his tone kind of freaked me out. Flippin;-) 11:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I can definitively say that homeschoolers are not well socialized. However, there is the occasional high-IQ homeschooled student who may have benefitted by not being abused in public school or other large-population setting, as so many of us are. But using CP to teach… ----Linus(plot evil tech) 12:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Keep in mind also that in the statistical world of "homeschooling", there are other types than these fundies. People do it for many reasons, including providing special quality care and instruction to the learning disabled and the gifted. And there are the hippies... All of whom could skew the graph up, compared to these nutniks. humanbe in 12:25, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I had one a homeschooled fundie kid in one of my anthropology classes. No idea about fundamental, basic evolutionary concepts, severly ethnocentric, and completely unwilling to change. I had to pull him aside and suggest he drop the course.Prof0705 13:15, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Um, yeah. Fundie homeschooled kids are bad, mkay, so all homeschooled kids are? So no-one here has learned the lesson from CP about gross generalization? There are many different reasons to homeschool, as one person pointed out, and stereotyping homeschooled kids as "dropouts" or "fundies" doesn't do anyone any good. And as far as socialization goes, I'll leave it at this: if you think homeschooled kids aren't well socialized, then your experience differs with mine.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
I think amoungst the non-homeschooled (or homeschooling) masses, there isn't much thought given to the subject beyond the cursory glance. It is almost as if people think homeschooled = sequestered from "normal" life and activities. True, the homeschooled child may never learn how to relentlessly pick on those whom look or sound "different", but, hey, maybe that's a Good Thing? CЯacke® 11:20, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

CP's statistics say it has over 7000 registered users... where are they? I mean, are banned users still being counted, or what? MiddleMan

There's a discussion about that over at Conservapedia Talk:Best of Conservapedia. Roughly 5,000 or more banned, lots inactive too. --Kels 18:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, the banned users count. See here for the end of cp:Special:Listusers: 7251 users in total. I'm #5933 right now, and I've been banned for eons. Heck, the list starts with "!!!!!Hitler was a sensitive man", so that should be a good hint. :P --Sid 18:31, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
See the forthcoming Conservapedia:User Statistics. --jtltalk 04:12, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I think someone pointed this out already, but I just think it's funny CP's own statistics mention 9200 articles, while Andy says they've already passed the 10000 mark, that means he is quoting here it comes... liberally! MiddleMan

What do you expect from a bunch of homeschool dropouts, eh? --Kels 18:41, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, even though I constantly forget where that had been discussed. I do recall Andy claiming that the stupid MediaWiki software only approximates and that he's using an accurate count. Possibly, he's using Special:Popularpages or (I think I recall somebody saying so...) AncientPages or something like that. So he counts all ultra-stubs and useless listings and what-else-not. All the shit the software doesn't regard as a real article. Deceit? What deceit? ;) --Sid 18:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
He said he was using AncientPages; someone pointed out that that meant he was counting redirects. I don't remember ever seeing a response. If someone reminds me tonight, I can dig out the cite when I'm home. --jtltalk 19:20, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, that was me, basically. Was it on our main page talk? Anyway, I looked at acinecenint pages, and there was a file I knew there was another version of, so I clicked, and it was a redirect. humanbe in
Here's the cite: "Are you counting templates? redirects? special pages? categories? images?", "None of the above are included. Included are substantive entries and valuable study aids. You can do the count yourself by going through the list at Special:Ancientpages. Feel free to report the exact number here" This looks like the final version of that convo, but I'm not positive on that. --jtltalk 04:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


Anyone have a copy of the "Trusworthy" logo to use here? --jtltalk 19:35, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Conservlogo late april.png

humanbe in 19:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Now, does anyone have that severely pwned one that this replaced in a hurry? humanbe in 19:45, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Good question. Was BORF anyone here? --Kels 19:51, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
There's a chance it's up at uncyclopedia, but I can't tell for sure because that weird alpha channel function never worked on my creaky old mozilla bruiser. If we do pull it in, can someone do the separations and put the several images in a row in one section, perhaps? humanbe in 20:11, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
The Alpha-Channel PNG was on WP (I think), and I saved it, too... gimme a sec. But it's 3am, so any editing will have to be done by somebody else... Sleep is for the weak. --Sid 20:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
CP Hidden Alpha.png --> *insert light grey background* --> Conservlogo Unhidden Alpha.png
(D'oh, I wanted to make the filenames similar... oh well. Maybe somebody can move it...) --Sid 20:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Sleep? Sleep is for wimps! Happy, well rested wimps, but WIMPS! --Kels 20:39, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

It's a pity that logo was hacked, I really liked it, for CP, anyway. I thought it was good work. Now, does someone have that alpha channel separation thing that shows the wandalism clearly for hacktards like me? humanbe in 21:40, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Logo's not showing up for me. --Gulik 04:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Same here. Did somebody delete them? --Sid 06:44, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
My forum avatar is also suddenly gone. Did anybody restore the image folders to an older version? That would explain why there are pointers to suddenly nonexistent images... --Sid 06:50, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I cannot see the images either, and that makes me feel suicidal. Pipebomb of TruthProf0705 07:23, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I've re-uploaded the images. Not 100% sure about the "Trusworthy" one, but I think it's the version Human had uploaded, too. --Sid 08:23, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Locked-down editing?[edit]

I think CP just restricted editing to approved users only. Their edit rate has plunged, and Aschlafly gave Jacques "edit" privs. --jtltalk 18:32, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Or maybe not. A brand new user just edited cp:Physics. Wonder what that edit priv for Jacques is, then? --jtltalk 18:38, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
Editing is working just fine!
It would appear that the Edit category is for out-of-hours editing - see[1]
Editing is turned off overnight, except for Sysops and those with special rights. Can you login, and just can't edit? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk

Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 16:45, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone experience the pucker-factor when you hear "special rights?" Flippin;-) 16:55, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
First thing I thought of was those homos wantin' all their special rights for their sodomy, and all that.--PalMD-yada yada 17:02, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
Conservapedia: A conservative (whatever that means) encyclopedia that only registered users who haven't pissed off the management or are 'cyberterrorists' can edit--during the day--that you can trust. Smiles. Sterile 20:11, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
Like I said.... it's going to implode ue to their own paranoia. --Gulik 12:23, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Hahaha....all those good new editors everyday must make you stomp your foot, Gulik! ;-) --TK/MyTalk 18:09, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

This is interesting. Apparently you can no longer access cp:Special:Allpages any more, and the initial list of Special pages looks shorter than it used to. Is this connected to changes in user rights, or what? --Kels 13:28, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Check Conservapedia:Timeline on June 16, some more info there, but no answers about the "Why?" part. Some speculation, though. I'm currently working on exporting that bit into its own article, too (to avoid cluttering up the Timeline like it's currently done). --Sid 13:31, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Cool - we should probably also have an article on "user rights", and how most wikis work and how CP moves steadily away from that model? humanbe in 13:34, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Fun stuff[edit]

I just saw this edit summary on CP:

(Block log); 17:47 . . DanH (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:Antandrus" with an expiry time of infinite: vandalism, even though it may be true)

My original thought was how stupid. But closer examination reveals a sense of humour! God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 17:24, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

DanH has a few entertaining block notes, actually. My favorite:
05:56, 8 June 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs) blocked "Hoewagon (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (we see you trollin'... we hatin'...)
Sad fact: I only know of that song because I listened to Weird Al's "White and Nerdy". --Sid 18:47, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
Would've been sadder if you knew of that song because you listen to those kinds of songs :P Tanktunker A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. 15:32, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

"white people"[edit]

There is a LOT of anti-white hatred at CP. PWNED!--7/1/07

How so? -- Stevo (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
The site never focuses on anti-whiteness in the liberal media, and bans anyone who they believe to be "racist" because they gave a shit for white people. Their article on "racism" has a history of removed additions that stood up for white people. PWNED!--7/1/07

You should read the history of the Barack Obama article for a more accurate view of CP aka the home of the white supremicists. anti-white indeed. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 20:36, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

User Jeb B. was a troll/vandal (ooh, and icewedge sock??!??!), unlikely to return (so he won't see any answers). humanbe in 20:50, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Current quick to ban policy[edit]

It appears that the sysops are quick to ban these days. This ultimately may be a good thing for the rest of the world. Consider the contributions of people who actually are conservative who then have their contributions reverted and their name banned with the accusation 'troll'. Consider how that would make an honest to goodness Christian conservative who is not YEC feel about their own party and far right. Or consider how that helps widen the gap between the fiscal conservative and the social conservative. I suggest that there are few things as good for the left side of the aisle as overly aggressive conservatives who reject everything but their own dogma. One couldn't ask for better help from the left as Andy is giving the left. --Shagie 19:37, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

I've had the same sort of thoughts about Rush Lumbaugh and Ann Coulter but their continued popularity and apparent respect that they enjoy from conservatives make me doubt that the slimey pair really are causing conservatives who are not rabid fascists to rethink their positions. Because Ann and Rush (and Pat Robertson and Bush for that matter) are still listened to and respected, I'm beginning to think that there are decent folk and there are assholes and the majority of assholes are conservatives. Who on the left behaves as they do and is still respected? Nobody. There is a reason for that. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 20:35, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

The difference is Ann and Rush are conservative entertainers. Similar to Bill Maher as a liberal entertainer. One is amused at the issues brought up and nod and say "thats right." It is another thing to be outcast from a growing conservative community because you are not YEC or a social conservative. That would be akin to volunteering for an election campaign but kicked out once you mentioned that you are not a perfect match for that candidate's platform. Do you think you'd still vote for that person? Or would you be slightly more apathetic at going out to vote that year? Would you look at the rest of the platform and think again and hard about if you really should be voting for this person? The opposition also energizes that party - there are more registered democrats than there are registered republicans - its just a matter of getting out the vote. The more the fundamentalist social conservative message is put out there, the more people realize they don't agree with their own party or decide that they really do need to vote this year. As such, I still maintain that Conservapedia is one of the best things to come along for the right - to attract attention to what is there, the extreme views of the people (and not just entertainers), and foster disagreement within the conservative side of politics. Just look at the debate if the LDS is a member of the greater Christian Church - this is clearly alienating individuals. Likewise, a bit ago there was some push back on the Catholic doctrine (location of text on the page, choice of images). It just takes time for people to realize that those who actually are trying to direct the social conservatives are much more extreme in their beliefs than the American public (can anyone find stats to suggest that CP is 6x more extreme than the American public?) --Shagie 21:05, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Actually, it is sad. They are probably quick to ban because some of the vandals that came from this site. It's not like RW hasn't given CP good reason to be paranoid. To the end of making it more likely that CP will fail in its mission, I guess the apparent goal of some RW contribitors is being furthered. I'd like to see the RW wedge document. HeartGold tx 23:45, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Nah, Conservapedia are their own worst enemies, despite some fierce competition. For one, I can't even be bothered to post anything there--there's no way I can out-crazy professionals, and anything genuinely informative will be deleted and locked. --Gulik 23:51, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Coulter may be an entertainer, but when she starts in on how hilarious it would be if all the Liberal Traitors (if you'll pardon the redundancy) were rounded up and shot, they're not laughing AT her. One semi-conspiracy theory I've heard is that part of the reason shit-stirrers like her and Michael Savage are allowed to make the sane conservatives (all 14 of them) look bad is because they're a useful way for the Karl Roves of the ultra-right-wing to appear 'moderate' by comparison when they propose "just" sentencing all Liberals to life at hard labor. --Gulik 23:51, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
See the crap I made up at lightning rod humanbe in 03:13, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Article # FYI[edit]

As of the time this was posted the wiki software on CP registered 14529 articles, 21814 pages in the main space, 500 pages with less then 76 characters in the source, 3469 pages under 300 characters, 4659 redirects, and at least 371 indexes (probably a lot more). This was while Andrew Schafly claimed 14,900 articles. - Icewedge 21:13, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

ummm, that still leaves more than 5,000 doesn't it? I'm getting something like 5530. 14529 - 500 - 3469(assuming doesn't include under 76) - 4659 - 371 = 5530. Unless I'm forgetting something, or did something wrong. There's still a heck of a lot of crappy useless pages, though. ThunderkatzHo! 21:25, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that '1' changes things. A lot. ThunderkatzHo! 21:42, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, he meant 14900. Threw me a bit, too... humanbe in 21:44, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
My mistake sorry guys. - Icewedge 21:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Here is the front page claiming it, permalinked, in case he realizes he's an idiot. ThunderkatzHo! 21:49, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
there are over 5000 pages under the length of this one
LOL, they don't have any USA Newcastles! So much for the Rustworthy Encyclical! humanbe in 22:09, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Or Newcastle Ale. Jrssr5 08:07, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Not only that[edit]

The user list says they is 11,300 registered users, the IP block log says there is 14925 blocks. CЯacke® 21:31, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Figuring half those blocks might be IPs, leaves like 4000. Can't be true. Confused... humanbe in 21:44, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
That's ALL blocks , one day, three hours. everything.CЯacke® 21:55, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
Still means that on average, every user has been blocked at least once. ThunderkatzHo! 22:01, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I think part of the discrepancy works like this: you try and log in on a proxy that's already been blocked, the IP block kicks in and another block is added to the count (with a reference back to the original). Could be wrong, like. --Robledo 13:16, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm actually not sure if the IP autoblock kicks in... Haven't tried it, though. Edit: Wait, actually, I have! Back when TK blocked me for "adding stubs" (long and silly story), he forgot to unban my IP when he unbanned me, but I wasn't autobanned and could edit away once I got a new IP. --Sid 14:27, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Joe B(loggs?)[edit]

So; Joe B logs on as a new user and within 6 minutes amends (with criticism) the Conservapedia article : a little pushy no? (Joe B = Joe Bloggs? A UK equivalent of John Doe) Keepright on ... 11:47, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

The words he excised were a bit editorial; his edit is "concise".CЯacke® 12:03, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Number of articles?[edit]

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

The Theramin[edit]

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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.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... --PsyGremlinSpeak! 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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Irrational Conservapedia[edit]

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:


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)

how do you edit conservapedia[edit]

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)


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? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 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)

Has anyone told The Pope?[edit]

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)

A suitable joke[edit]

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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.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)

Conservapedia's detailed knowledge of Australian Politics[edit]

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: [2]

In their defence, their article on Tony Abbott ([3]) 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)

Accessing CP[edit]

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)

Problem with code for footnotes[edit]

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)

O not A?[edit]

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)


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)

Conservapedia on soccer[edit]

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)

"" (if that is your real name), your denial of the obvious only destroys your credibility. I skimmed through your recent edits and you persist in repeating the liberal claim that Obama is not an affirmative action president, so I'm confident you're a member of the far left. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: accept that Conservapedia deters Wikipedia bias. As I've said before, it's liberals who passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech. I just went to Wikipedia and typed in the silliest term I could think of: "duh". And what do you know: Wikipedia has an equally silly entry for it! I'm going to enter that Wikipedia's insight into our Wikipedia entry now. Godspeed.--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)

Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous[edit]

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

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

Conservapedia and Bin Laden[edit]

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)

Conservapedia priorities[edit]

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)

Objectiveness of this article[edit]

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." Blue (pester) 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)

Conservapedia on UK newspapers[edit]

'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)

Conservapedia and Plan 9[edit]

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)

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

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)

Why not...[edit]

"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)

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

Just came across [4] (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Much worse than silver[edit]

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. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.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)


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 afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 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)

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

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)

Alexa rankings[edit]

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)

Pearls of wisdom[edit]

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)

List of Administrators[edit]

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

Cant get on conservapedia?[edit]

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)

Converging viewpoints[edit]

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)


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)

Conservapedia Down?[edit]

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)

Someone has to show this to Conservapedia[edit]

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

Advanced navel-gazing[edit]

Can be found with Conservapedia OCD [5] - 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)

St. Paul said[edit]

"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)

Did this happen to anyone else?[edit]

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)

Article on us[edit]

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)

Question about a hypocrisy statement[edit]

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)

Vandalism Spree[edit]

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)
Just mock them by running their articles through the dialectizer on Redneck setting. --DevMac10 ([User talk:DevMac10|talk]]) 06:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Fun article request[edit]

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)

Silver or higher?[edit]

This article is not only comprehensive, well-written, well sourced and has good images - it is also of "HIGH" importance to the wiki. And yet it's bronze rated. Isn't this article ready for Silver, or possibly even Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be worthy of silver, though I think a bit of cleaning up could certainly help.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Definitely needs a thorough once-over, but then it should be silverable - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of silly that our article on the thing that caused RW to be founded is just bronze level.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

So what is CP's opinion of DT - it seems to be somewhat 'curate's egg' at present. (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I imagine they'll be licking the thrice married, vice-peddler's boots soon, if they aren't already, just like almost every other "conservative Christian" leader and organization. Petey Plane (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Oh, happened to me too! TeslaK20 (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

No article on the bearded one but several mentions including under cat ' It should also be noted that Jeremy Corbyn (the British Bernie Sanders) has a cat named "El Gato", due to a mispronunciation of the name "Fidel Castro".' (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


The 2016 U.S. presidential election page talks about the future nominees.

And the 'natural born citizens' does not mention Barry Goldwater (born in what was not yet a US state). Would there have been more of a birther case if Obama had been born before June 27, 1959 (the Hawaii referendum on becoming a US state)? (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Catch it before it is gone[edit]

Came across [6]

Conservapedia proven wrong

This article has been proposed for deletion. Please discuss this here.

This page list instances when Conservapedia has been shown to be wrong.

Currently none. (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

16TB hard drives are expensive and you would need one to store all the instances that Conservapedia has been wrong.--Mercian (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
'Wait six months' and you will get a flash drive that size. (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

On the selfsame day there is a comment on the talk page 'Maybe it's just me, but having this page as it is seems both unnecessary and pompous. Is this really beneficial?' and on 22 August 2016 the page was deleted with the comment 'content continually created by liberals against this website.'

Should [7] be included on the page? (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Stopped Clock?[edit]

I remember to have taken a look at some articles of Conservapedia. While they're pretty much terrible in both content and pictures (ie: rather short description of a large European country including to call them "socialists" and the like plus very badly chosen pictures -place in one of its towns instead of one of its capital-) the one on Dungeons & Dragons is at least quite well balanced and not full of Fundies' BS mentioned on the game's article here (maybe because of [8]. But who cares?. At least it was that way the last time I visited it)--Panzerfaust (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, considering the panic that roleplaying games caused in certain conservative circles back in the 80's and 90's. To some, roleplaying games were distinctly part of a plot to make kids chant black magic spells. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, even here there was stuff of that kind. But not because of Satanism but of some ignorant/dishonest/both reporters instead who related a 90's crime with RPGs even if the criminal's "game" was just the result of his psichopathy and was anything but a RPG. That stigma, even if quite diminished, still lasts to this day. --Panzerfaust (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You write "even here" — you mean, here at RationalWiki? Or some country other than the US? ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I meant other country, not US. As an aside, never mind the Ministery who's in charge about things such as education as well as professionals had later published articles defending the benefitial aspects of playing role-playing games (you mention them on the D&D article) --Panzerfaust (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The topics game[edit]

Take the list of topics on the CP main page and read downwards (or across). See if there are any amusing combinations: on today's list there are Friedrich Nietzsche - Liberal bias; Underrated Sports Stars - Barack Hussein Obama; Presidential Election 2016 - Causes of Homosexuality; ObamaCare - Evidence for Christianity; Donald Trump - Liberal creep; Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor? - Christianity.

This can also be played when skimming through the TV program schedules looking for something to watch. (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Really PISSED at Conservapedia[edit]

Just look at their article on autism and Asperger's.

They only call autism pervasive, suggest that mercury and obesity cause it, try to link it to Aethisim and just for the icing on the messed-up cake, use it to promote homeschooling.

I don't know about you, but being on the spectrum, I find this incredibly rotten and tasteless even for Conservapedia. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 02:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Conservapaedia, I guess? This is American Conservatism, where we aren't thin-skinned and we hate political correctness and we aren't afraid to offend people and the Mexicans are takin' our jobs and eatin' our hamburgers and takin' our jobs... and takin' our jobs. You see, I hate my boss and I hate my job but I love my country so everybody, just clap your hands, if you love our country and you love out land! Thaaats right, and if you aren't clappin' your hands, you're a terrorist, and you eat sand.
Global warming's a hoax if you hadn't already guessed. Atheism and obesity and affirmative action cause autism and birth defects. We have the science to prove it. Yeeeeepp, and that last president was an African. Not even American and we 'elected' him, but we all know it was rigged by the lib-ruls.
<./sarcasm> Fareeha A (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edits?[edit]

Why did you delete my edits User:Christopher? I said to correct the mistakes that I made ,not delete my Edits. I am trying to contribute to RationalWiki. — Unsigned, by: Coolguy212 / talk / contribs

  1. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
  2. @Christopher
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Coolguy212 I didn't revert your edits, you did, you must've accidentally clicked rollback. Because I was the last person to edit the page before you did, it says "Reverted edits by Coolguy212 (talk) to last revision by Christopher" which is probably what made you think it was me. Christopher (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A day in the life of...[edit]


  • 9 am (local time) Switch on the tubes to allow editing
  • 9.01 Remove some evil liberal facts
  • 9.02 Badmouth evil evolutionary facts.
  • 9.03 Promote brainwarp on the main page.
  • 9 pm (early to bed...) [9]

Can someone more engaged with CP (not being the centenary) develop the funspace article. Anna Livia (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Passing thought[edit]

To what extent can Conservapedia be described in terms of the concepts of Nineteen Eighty-Four? |Anna Livia (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why Rationalwiki is censored in Conservapedia[edit]

I think found the reason why. I emailed this question To the assistant administrator 1990sguy and here's what He said:"I can't give you any exact reason, but besides it being CP policy that was created long before I started editing, there is no reason to give such a ridiculous website any recognition. I see much more sarcasm and name-calling than logic when I go on Rationalwiki. Thanks for asking." This has answered my question(User:Coolguy10038)

to be fair, this wiki was created to mock conservapedia in the first place, so them attempting to block us is....not something extraordinary БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 03:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


"The block was made by Karajou. The reason given is Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts.

Start of block: 07:57, 29 July 2018 Expiry of block: infinite Intended blockee: BoleslawPetroski" All I did was talk a little about Putin. So much for """""""Free""""""" speech. — Unsigned, by: BoleslawPetroski / talk / contribs

Any link? I couldn't find the account named BoleslawPetroski on CP. I'm just curious. --RWRW (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any matching block logs for July 29 2018. Not from Karajou, no matching block reasons. Check here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Did some digging and found this. Whilst the edit wasn't vandalism I'm gussing your block didn't come as a surprise. --RWRW (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)