Talk:Conservapedia/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 27 September 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Suggest a motto

We know how deceitful Conservapedia motto is ("The trusworthy encyclopedia"). Better mottos would be:

• Conservapedia - Destroying a new generation
• Conservapedia - Dangerously Wrong
• Conservapedia - Crap everywhere
• Conservapedia - Useless at best, irresponsible at worst
• Conservapedia - Warheit macht frei
  

Jayjay4ever

OK, I'll swing at this pitch...

• Conservapedia - Parody for the 95%
• Conservapedia - at least we spelled the domain name right!
• Conservapedia - We 'R' Us
• Conservapedia - Watch us Lern!
• Conservapedia - Bad liberal, no donut! (OK, that goes backa few months...)

5 seems to be when to stop. human^{be in} 21:49, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Don't read a book, write a book, (just keep it concise), Godspeed.
• Conservapedia - And you thought the Titanic listed to starboard!
• Conservapedia - Welcome, infinitely blocked user!
• Conservapedia - Reality is Wrong
• Conservapedia - We're against it!

CЯacke® 11:58, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Conservapædia: God, Guns & the GOP! Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:06, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Wait, Susan, "God, Guns & Gays" is already the GOP motto... human^{be in} 22:16, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Facts are for the weak!
• Conservapedia - Relax in the safety of your own delusions with us!
• Conservapedia - We ban more people every day than most wikis do in a month!
• Conservapedia - Shut up and listen.
• Conservapedia - Creating an alternate reality out of pure bullshit since 2006!
• Conservapedia - Don't confuse us with the facts!

Well, OK I usually try to stay stay from the CP stuff, but this is a challenge to my inventiveness so:

• Conservapedia - Combating truth with ignorance.
• Conservapedia - Showing the positive side of hypocrisy.
• Conservapedia - Where reality never goes.
• Conservapedia - We have twice the usual standards – we have double standards!
• Conservapedia - Taking irrationality to church.

--Bob^{bing up and down} 05:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I think "Conservapedia - Don't confuse us with the facts!" really works the best. I can't really top that but I'll give it a try:

• Conservapedia - Wikipedia is bad, em-kay?
• Conservapedia - Fighting the liberalness of liberals and their liberal deceit
• Conservapedia - We know your views with 95% certainty
• Conservapedia - A collection of random definitions we stole from .gov sites
• Conservapedia - An exercise in fascism
• Conservapedia - Onward Christian soldiers

ollïegrïnd 07:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - We are always right!
• Conservapedia - The truth will set you free (but you won't find it here)
• Conservapedia - When you're in a fight, don't forget to protect your nuts
• Conservapedia - Where we look out for teenage girls
• Conservapedia - It's all beyond our ken!

Genghis Khant 10:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Where dreams take wing. (Wow, I just quoted Bush. Eek.)
• Conservapedia - The pusworthy encyclopedia.
• Conservapedia - The most unbiased source to ever be completely biased.
• Conservapedia - Devout hypochrists.
• Conservapedia - Logic is, lyk, so yesterday.
• Conservapedia - He who laughs last laughs with the LORD. (Which is a quite impressive way of getting those evil liberal Christians to visit their site)
• Conservapedia - We've got the American Jesus.
• Conservapedia - 95% of all Liberals have lied, and 95% of fish have done the hokey-pokey.
• Conservapedia - Death to gays, atheists, nonconformists, liberals, stick men, people with brains, 95% of the population, and Frenchmen.

- All Hail Tuna 07:25, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Because the truth hurts. --Gulik 13:31, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - The Joke Encyclopedia
• Conservapedia - You're All Wrong
• Conservapedia - My Blog, by Me
• Conservapedia - I'm Taking My Ball Back
• Conservapedia - Intelligentsia-Free

DogP 13:37, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Where Our Top Articles Are Written by a Man With a Fourth-Grade Reading Level!
• Conservapedia - A Parody of Ourselves
• Conservapedia - If You Like This Site, You're 95% Likely to Hate Brown People
• Conservapedia - Delegitimizing the Intelligent Discourse That Built America, Since 2006!
• Conservapedia - If I Call it a Religion, You Can't Insult It!

-αmεσ (!) 13:41, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

• Conservapedia - Shut up or Leave

Feebas factor 23:09, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I can't pass this up

• Conservapedia - Cause reality has a Liberal Bias
• Conservapedia - Gestapo for the new Millenium
• Conservapedia - We Report, YOU WILL NOT CONTRADICT (get it, it's like fox news..... nevermind)
• Conservapedia - Ronald Reagan created this site
• Conservapedia - Because Schafly needs a hobby

SirChuckB 20:35, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

• Conservapedia - Because Truth is Overrated
• Conservapedia - We Hate You
• Conservapedia - Intelijense? wuts dat?

--Anonymous ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.110.150.131 / talk / contribs}

Hmmm...how about:

Conservapedia - Lowering America's collective IQ! Conservapedia - Pravda for the Religious Right

^{— Unsigned, by: 81.154.248.140 / talk / contribs}

Conservapedia - For God's sake, why? Streona 06:27, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia

Cadavers opine. *

Read vain scope.

Ape's darn voice *

is a craven dope. *

Sane recap void. *

One vapid scare. *

Novice arse pad.

A coven. Despair.

Sesquihypercerebrel 06:28, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Nice work! I fixed one small typo and starred my favorites. human 14:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)

A blend of others:

• Conservapedia: Where intelligence has a liberal bias.

Conservapedia: Tomorrow's Stupidity, Today!

Conservapedia: Resistance is Futile. You Will Be Banned.

Conservapedia: Abandon all thought, all ye who enter

Conservapedia: Yes, this is what we believe

Conservapedia: Apply for your powertrip today!

Conservapedia: Open your mind, let down your AT fields (kudos if you get this NGE reference

Conservapedia: We are the lamb, TK is the wolf

Conservapedia: Because the world ain't conservative enough

Conservapedia: We make FOX news look good

Conservapedia: As seen on tv...wait where are you going? Why are you laughing?

Conservapedia: Better laughs than Comedy Central

Conservapedia: Is this what you want your children to learn?

Conservapedia: Come sit on Uncle Ed's lap girls

Conservapedia: The He-man woman liberal haters club

Conservapedia: The Amish think we're backwards--Nate River 01:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia: We have Proof, you just can't see it! --Passerby25 13:56, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Here is one after I start editing RW:

• Conservapedia: The liberals gave us the same 2-letter abbreviation as the acronym for child porn!

• Conservapedia: We have the truth, you just are not entitled to know how we know it's true!

• Conservapedia: When you have the truth, you don't need the facts.

• Conservapedia: Where facts are overrated.

• Conservapedia: Our truth is truer than the other people's truth

Thieh 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One more:

• Conservapedia: Half of our traffic comes from vandal sites the evil liberals! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Conservapedia: Censoring liberal censorship since 4004 B.C.! ListenerX^TalkerX 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• CP - also an acronym for Communist Party. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conservapedia: The wiki that when it comes to quality, stops at nothing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.147.161.126 / talk / contribs}

Broken references

At least one of the references on this page is broken. I deleted it, and it was reinstated (by PsyGremlin, if that's important). I know you want to underline how some comments on CP have been 'memory-holed', but how does it help the casual reader to have a reference on this page that just goes to an error message?--ConservapediaRoolz 19:28, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

I know, it's a tough question - on the one hand, yes, a dead ref is a pain and not very professional. On the other hand, it shows we once had a good cite, and the error would be a "we killed the history of this" from CP, right? A better solution would be to add a note in the ref that it was vaped. Nowadays we are much more aggressive with screencaps to preserve the evidence. ħuman 20:35, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Impact of Conservapedia

Whilst I like the idea of the section and I think PC was on the write track it needs improvement. Any ideas what we do with it? - π 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Open edit section window. Delete all text. Write something sensible. OK, keep a bit of what's there, but write something intelligent around it. Also add "third way" that CP has no impact on the real world at all. ħuman 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I had some ideas rereading it, but I'll let you improve it first to minimize ECs unless you don't really have any immediate approach. ħuman 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any immediate ideas, that's why I didn't get straight into it. Go right ahead and improve, you get an extra 10 for the hacking contest if you can push the number of character we remove from the article today over 5000. - π 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is better. As I said I think PC had the right idea, she just tends to apply it badly. - π 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that section was a good idea, glad you like it so far. Some of the others, well, they're not there any more, or have been re-written in a different form of English. Meaning they have commas now. ħuman 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"you get an extra 10 for the hacking contest if you can push the number of character we remove from the article today over 5000" it's gone from 41xxx to 33xxx, we winsorz! ħuman 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Horray! Maybe we should start a reverse contest to one of Schlalfy's, point earned for off topic articles you can get the mob to delete, over inflated articles that stripped down to the bare minimum and bonus points for deCURing or dePCing an article.

The big problem both this and the Andrew Schlafly article suffer from is that they tend to get live blogged, things from WIGO tend to get added straight on them without consideration for the overall tone of the article. - π 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed at ALS. Some real crap gets stuck in there, and some good stuff is lost in poor writing, etc. I cut my teeth on de-PCing at that laundry article, omigod, it was badly written - and repeated everything twice! But it was too good a topic to kill off. Once in a while for a good cringe I go hit "random" ten times at LP... ħuman 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe we should add voting buttons to the gallery of mockery at ALS and weed out the chaff? ħuman 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. - π 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! ħuman 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw Man Fallacies

I like the idea of an article critical of Conservapedia, since articles routinely commit grave fallacies and unsound/invalid arguments, however, I couldn't even read past the second paragraph, which began "The site was founded by Andrew Schlafly,[5] spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[6] in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive liberal bias at Wikipedia.[5]"

Spawn? I would have hoped that a 'rationalwiki' would be above name calling. Maybe someone else agrees that committing the Strawman isn't very rational? ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.218.235.202 / talk / contribs}

Spawn = offspring. That's not a strawman, it's a statement of fact. Aw, does our choice of words offend the poor BON? ħuman 03:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The BON should stop being so politically-correct. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Black-and-white thinking is also a logical fallacy. Luckily, the real world is messy enough that pure logic gets stained with all kinds of personal stuff along the way. Andy sets himself up nicely as a straw man with his own words, and "spawn" seems to be one of the nicer things they call him around these parts. I don't have a problem with that, since the man seems to be a moral cretin on a rickety soapbox. The only reason to give him any attention at all is to expose his "educational resource" for the fraud it is. Sprocket J Cogswell 04:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Spawn has too strong connotations for this context though, and I worry that people won't take this website seriously if they see phrases like that. Why not just say "The site was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of professional anti-feminist.." ? Shouldn't the point of this site be to be better than them -- like by avoiding name-calling? 24.9.120.43 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The BON makes a good point. Some of the more Uncylopedia style stuff does get a bit irritating and certainly shouldn't be in articles that could actually be informative. Not being as dry as Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean we need to say silly things. ^moral 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Namecalling isn't a strawman. Anyway, what's the matter with "spawn"? What are its "strong connotations"? ħuman 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am a huge fan of rationalwiki and a hard-core skeptic in general, but is this article parody? It reads like a blog entry. It's pretty bad.

Fuck 'em. Factual and funny is how this place should be, and Caligula Andy is as much the spawn of his mother as I am of mine. Mind you, mine is less active in the pro-rape community. Mate, ditch the "some of my best friends are black, but" disclaimer. I'll be back after these messages.. ^{Ask me about your mother} 22:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Time for a fork?

We rewrote the Andy Schlafly article to make it a straightforward criticism sans jokes, perhaps we should do the same with this. Although not as extreme as Fun:Andrew Schlafly (satire) I think it would be useful to have a serious critique which could be used as a genuine source. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have hundreds of fairly serious articles covering CP and their "issues" on the site. We don't need a fork, we've already fed the multitudes! ħuman 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Best of CP

Is this article one of the best CP articles? - π 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should be. ħuman 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just gotta say...

I love how we have Phyllis Snr's quote from Eagle Forum at the top of the page. I cracked up when I heard her say that. SJ ^Debaser 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Example of censorship

Is this: [1] "POV editing/Removal of valid content / adding material without citation"? (grep for "Winger") Fallowed by not just IP block, but block of whole netblock. Can a regime of censorship, and dictatorial admins be "trustworthy": According to DoD a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. [2] 174.21.222.107 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So. I went to Conservapedia. And I looked at their "liberal bias" page to see the list of people and organizations that they think have an excessive liberal bias. And then I see that they're currently engaging in a project to rewrite the Bible to eliminate what they see as liberal bias. But they won't let me edit the liberal bias page to add Jesus of Nazareth, The Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Yahweh, and The Catholic Church to the list of the liberally biased. Obviously these edits are being blocked because Conservapedia is too liberally biased. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I could not keep this in so here I go: I created an account to rebut the wingnuttery in their debates. Because conservapedians are always right they warned me. I had only a couple of contributions, and I was warned that I would be blocked next edit. I go to the admin who blocked me, and went to complain about the threat and: Your IP Address has been blocked. For 5 years. Contact the admin to discuss. Anyway, the debates I wanted to contribute to were locked! http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F --Corrode (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

False References

Has anyone check on Conservapedia's citations? In their Bible project it gives this reference in regard to Mark 16:9: "The Gospel According to Mark, strictly speaking, ends here. Mark deliberately left it in an unfinished state. Later copyists added a "closing verse," while others added the remaining verses in this table." It gives a citation at bibleresearcher.com which does not make this claim. While it agree with Conservapedia that the last 11 verses were probably from another source, nowhere does it say "Mark deliberately left it in an unfinished state." It states that "most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost." Conservapedia also leads you to believe that what it says is so, but apparently some scholars believe they were written by Mark. The Doctor 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Found this:

http://crap.jinwicked.com/2007/03/01/as-the-wiki-turns/ :P Kwsn (Ni!) 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. And very early - 3/1/07 is the very first round of blog exposure, as I recall. ħuman 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a ton of good ones in that comic, and a lot of them are very related to topics here. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalise it!

Why doesnt everyone vandalise conservapedia at the exact same time? (for example 2000GMT on december 15th?). Get hundreds of people to do it they wont be able to block everyone at once. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.159.44.51 / talk / contribs}

Because it's stupid and pointless. They do a better job of exposing their own insanity than we could. And they'll just turn off editing and account creation. 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RW does not endorse vandalism. -- =w= 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only "vandalism" that would actually do any good is the kind that would shut the site down forever. Since everything anybody does, constructive or destructive, on the site just stiffen's Andy's resolve to keep it going, signing up and editing pages in any way would just do more harm than good. We'd be making more terrorists against common sense, as it were. --4perf 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing would shut the site down forever except Andy taking it off-line. To even suggest such an idea is silly, never mind going into the moral implications of damaging a website just because you disagree with it. - π 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the site should be forcibly taken down. I spoke poorly. The only point I was trying to make is that vandalism is a waste of time, and if one's goal is to take the site down (by making it more trouble than it's worth to run or whatever) then it's counter-productive. --4perf 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mei is correct. And wandalism is so easily reverted it's pointless. Especially at the gulag, where, as Nutty pointed out, the flip of a few switches results in "access denied". ħuman 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried creating an account there and it always rejects it, telling me that the user name must contain only alphanumeric characters (and the user name was alaphabetic only). Stanley Moon (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Spaces in names ain't allowed either. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalising CP is as useful as switching on Limbaugh and yelling at the TV. they have quite enough paranoia and craziness without our help. Parody was funny back in the day when they had a regular influx of genuine and sane editors, but right now Andy's Fort Conservapedia (no girls) is circling the plug hole and providing some fine entertainment. ^{Ask me about your mother} 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

I noticed this, which is a derivative work of the Wikipedia logo, a copyrighted work. In addition, no fair use rationale is provided. Unfortunately, I cannot raise the issue on the site itself, as I am included some random /22 block, which by my calculations affects 1,024 IPs. What kind of vandal has access to that many IPs? 76.229.159.3 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Contact MGodwin now?

I don't know enough about copyright law, but perhaps some of the lawyers here can answer this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably one of the (very) rare cases when "Fair use" is applied correctly (although it's not claimed). ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Toast's correct. ħuman 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut from article

This seems to make more sense here than in the article ħuman 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"I was blocked after voicing concerns about their Conservative Bible Project. The reason? 'your word-to-substance ratio betrays your true nature. We're good at spotting wolves in sheeps clothing here.' Which is ironic because I'm often maligned for my conservative positions."Accidentalpariah (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That quote section does encourage newbies to come and add their own comments. Maybe we should restrict it to journalists and commentators? - π 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the header or an intro could make it clearer, yes. AP really did nothing wrong, which is why I copied it here. We should improov! ħuman 04:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Creative Vandalism

Is there a list of such examples?

If so add the original entries for Milton Keynes (named after an associate of Sir Stafford Crisp), Falafel (not to be confused with loofahs) and the just deleted section of Daleks ("The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race.") Jackiespeel (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Brecht and Conservapedia

What would Berthold Brecht have made of Conservapedia? 'Category of websites he would be glad not to be mentioned on'? (And would the apes etc, if the concept of evolution could be explained to them, be glad not to be related to Conservapedia contributors?). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The logo

Should be truss/rust worthy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

Or thrustworthy.

If the CP-ers knew about the Yazidi would they be against them? ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

Conservapedians discover rest of world!

(Red Top shock horror headline)

Non-US art.

On the main page!

Whatever next? ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs} 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. Joaquin Martinez Rosales steals images from museums, galleries, educational institutions, stock photo services, and poster vendors without regard to nationality. 16:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

is conservapedia really a threat?

because i see many people in real life who think like andy ...............Waronstupidity (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here views CP as a "threat." They're a convenient target of mockery, nothing more. Plus, at this rate, it's just a matter of time before Andy completely runs the site into the ground. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Our mantra is "he 'teaches' children his crap" and therefore is evil. ħuman 03:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A threat? Hell no. His site is smaller than some of the Star Wars and video game fandom wikis on Wikia. He just likes to think he's making an impact on people even though all he's doing is providing cheap flame bait.--206.255.16.234 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah. It takes a true moron to actually take Conservapedia seriously. The only way it's a threat is that it's a collection of morons. Webbtje (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I stopped thinking that conservapedia can be a threat to anything after i saw statistics at alexa. 18-24 (more like 13-18, but yeah statistics start at 18), some college, men, browsing location - school. In a couple of years those peoples either get married and loose interest, loose parents support and cant pay for the internet, actually get to college/army/work and wont have enough time to pull facts out of their asses. On a side note - i am probably the only Russian to ever read or actually hear about CP... woohoo im speciul! --95.25.98.164 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They once had a Ukrainian sysop. ħuman 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

CP in itself isn't a threat. It's the cycle of indoctrination that spawned it in the first place that's worrying. Evil harmonic Hoover! 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually about Teabaggers but it fits:"But they are nothing new, nothing new at all. They are mostly a bunch of cranky, white men with money who are trying desperately to hang on to their privileges. Same as it ever was.
They are what we have called "Republicans" for at least the last 30 years." [3] ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Conservapedia compared to Star Wars wikis. Currently, according to Alexa, Conservapedia ranks 63 104 with 0.0018% of global internet users, whilst Wookiepedia (the premier Star Wars wiki) ranks 198 with 0.39% of global internet users. You are in far more danger from Ewoks than the nutty get of Phyllis Schlafly.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An embryonic parody of CP

• The`Mericapedia A Conservapedia parody. Courtesy of user:Zebobbybird, maybe someday it will amount to something. ħuman 08:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ricardo king's edit rolled back

Conservapedia define Christianity as the world's largest religion in the first line [4] article and with a 2.2 billions followers as this definition is very important in the context that Christianity is the biggest group in the world this is the important thing in Christianity is the politic power on others groups and minorities that have other point of views. Andrew Schlafly is forcing other groups to hate him he is not making any tolerance and his mind is stucked on very bad ideas about open minded groups. Is this the way the Christ want his group to behave with people in that way. Is rejecting other groups like homosexuals and many other is the way to "cure" the society. Conservative people have many bad background ideas about any thing stranger that could harm the society and let the people go to "hell". These persons have many phobias and many other anxiety mental disorders (like Obsessive Compulsive disorder) this is the root cause of this rejection, If Andrew Schlafly beleive in God And his Son He would pray and say to God to Help the people but he won't. He prefer to reject them and to punish them, and he does not have the right. Only God have the right to do, but he don't do it, he loves every person.

'cause it's very badly written. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MISUSE OF FUNDAMENTALISM

It is recommended that the term "fundamentalism" be not used as a slur word. If one is going to characterize a group as fundamentalist, kindly play attention to the historical meaning and make sure that the allegedly Christian group you call fundamentalist is fundamentalist; i.e. that it adheres to the fundamentals of Christianity. (TManchester (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

From Wikipedia: "Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ." This describes most of the views held by contributors of Conservapedia to a tee. - π 05:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the parodists and sociopaths, of course. ħuman 06:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting rereading that Rapture discussion, that DanH and PJR, the two that walked out, were the preterist (Dan said so, PJR appeared to lean that way). The rest of the sycophants were positively frothing at the mouth that the world would end any minute now. - π 06:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a fugitive from Conservapedia myself, I ask you to prove that they believe in inerrancy and Sola Scriptura. Isn't Schalfly a Roman Catholic? Romanists do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Please prove it is fundamentalist or delete the claim. (TManchester (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't object to your quoting Wikipedia at this point, since it favors my claim; but in reality you surely know that Wikipedia is no authority to prove anything. Pardon me for ranting on a pet peeve of mine.(TManchester (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

But you will object to it later if it suits you? - π 05:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course! LOL I think this is permitted under a declaration of stipulation or lack of it!(TManchester (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

(EC)Schlafly is not the entire of Conservapedia. DeanS is a Mormon. On the whole though most attend Evangelical churches from what I know. As for Biblical inerrancy, Schalfly believes he is making it more inerrant, as he has just explained. - π 05:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not fundamentalist, and the burden of proof is on anyone who says so. Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists. I call for the deletion of fundamentalist and fundamentalism from this article. (TManchester (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Schlafly may have been raised Roman Catholic, he might even attend a Roman Catholic church, but what make you think his views fall outside Fundamentalism? Also as I pointed out his heaviest contributor, Conservative, TerryH, Karajou are all most definetly members of evangelical organisation (have a read of the Zeuglodon Blues files if you don't believe me). - π 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I love confused illiterate concern trolls. ħuman 06:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My what a confused ungrammatical sentence: "I love confused illiterate concern trolls." If you can't win an argument call someone a troll.

Simply put, if you are going to call them fundamentalists, prove it. There may well be "evanglicals" editing there, but that doesn't prove that Conservapedia is evangelical (term broader than fundamentalist, BTW). Sola Scriptura is not a Roman Catholic doctrine. The point is not what I think, but the author's burden to prove what he says. He must prove that inerrancy and sola scriptura are basic to Conservapedia. Quote their officially published beliefs or remove the reference. QED nuff said.(TManchester (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

How many time do I have to tell you, it is not a Roman Catholic encyclopedia. - π 06:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Gawd you are a moron. Conservapedia argues for what is known in the US these days as a "fundamentalist" interpretation of Christianity. Andy was raised RCC, but surely now is not. See also: hundreds of articles in the "CP" namespace. PS, my sentence was not grammatically confused at all. It was clear and direct. Of course, you don't know who I was talking about, amusing that you thought it was about you, TM. ħuman 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Their entire article on Salavation is based on Sola Scriptura. - π 06:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See here and here for two prime examples of Andy railing against established scientific theories because he thinks they contradict the bible. There's lots more about evolution/YEC, which used to be prominently placed on CP's main page. You might actually have a point in that Andy doesn't believe so much in biblical inerrancy as rather his own inerrancy, but since this text is open to anyone's interpretation and he frequently hides behind it whenever someone brings facts to a discussion, the end result is indistinguishable from fundamentalism. Röstigraben (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If the dictator of Conservapedia is a Roman Catholic, then he is not a fundamentalist. Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine that the Bible is infallible; it is the doctrine that the Bible is the only final authority. But Catholics have papal infallibility and the doctrine that the RCC created the Bible and thus is superior to it in authority.

At any rate, if one is to call Conservapedia fundamentalist, one needs to prove that as an organization it subcribes to fundamentalism, which it does not. There may be fundamentalists who edit there, which proves nothing. As [Ir]RationalWiki may also! Be truthful. If one wishes to say that Conservapedia considers the Bible Authoriative, that is OK. Its Conservative Bible is no fundamentalist Bible. Fundamentalists do not endorse speculative emendations. Go read it, if you doubt.

At any rate, we wait for proof of the fundamentalism tag.(TManchester (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

"We"? 15:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"If the dictator of Conservapedia is a Roman Catholic, then he is not a fundamentalist." I would argue that anyone who arbitrarily re-writes the Bible to suit his own political agenda is not really following Catholic doctrine. I defy you to find one instance where Andy clearly an unequivocally concedes to Papal authority or to Catholic dogma over Protestant/Evangelical/etc. ideas and practices...DarkStar (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No Proof that Schafly Is a Fundamentalist

As a mater of fact Conservapedia and its dictator, Andrew Schafly, can certainly be distingtuished from fundamentalism, unless one insists on throwing the word around a slur word. I am a classical fundamentalist, and I object to the name "fundamentalism" being besmirched by tagging Conservapedia as fundamentalist. Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists.

I quote [Ir]rationalwiki:

"He [Andrew Schafly] married Catherine Agneta Kosarek at a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1984."

To convince yourself that Conservapedia is not fundamentalist, just go and take a look at their Conservative Bible translation [sic].(TManchester (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

The simple fact is that Andy doesn't care about the doctrine of the Catholic church, no matter what he is. The RCC accepts Evolution and Relativity, Andy does not. The RCC pays lip-service to a somewhat leftist social agenda, something which would be anathema to him. Andy has an idiosyncratic theology, but he himself certainly believes that all of his views have a biblical basis. Röstigraben (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your proof that

1) Andy doesn't care about RCC doctrine? 2) The RCC does not allow diversity on evolution and relativity? 3) Andy certainly believes that all of his views have a biblical basis? I mean anyone can just say something about someone. But where is the proof? (TManchester (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

All this stuff about "simple fact" and "certainly believes" is easy to throw around in a debate. But now, if this is so certain and simple, give us your proof.

The point is not that Andrew thinks his views have a biblical basis. To be a fundamentalist means one holds to the Bible as the unique inerrant, infallible Word of God, without adding in Roman Catholic dogma or papal bulls. Conservapedia is not fundamentalist. But I know, it is nice to have a slur word to hang on something.(TManchester (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Check the links I provided above. Andy's delusional, he seriously thinks that he is restoring the bible to its original message - which just so happens to coincide with his own views, just like with all the other fundamentalists. And please only use one indent per comment. Röstigraben (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I went to a link that proved nothing. What is your proof that 1) a belief that one is restoring the Bible to its original message defines one as a fundamentalist (rather than a belief that one already has a Bible in with its orginal message)? 2) a belief that one is restoring the Bible, does not rather classify one as a cultist, 3) Andrews is "just like all the other fundamentalists." Is it your view that anyone who speaks well of the Bible and seems generally conservative, should get a slur word hung on his neck, fundamentalist?(TManchester (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

He's a fundamentalist in that he believes the bible literally. It's unfortunate that the bible he believes isn't the same one as other fundy idiots but 'twas ever thus: different idiots have put their own interpretation on it for centuries. 15:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalists certainly acknowledge figures of speech: "I am the door" -- no hinges involved.(TManchester (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

You say you're a fundamentalist. Don't you realise that this reduces your comments to the ravings of a total LOON? 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Susan, is it? (TManchester (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Whoa now, let's not resort to fundamentalist liberal insults here. Let's wait for TM to provide some evidence for his claim that Schlafly and/or the wiki itself believe the Pope is more accurate than the Bible. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No insult. Statement of fact: fundamentalists are short in the mental department; anyone believing the myths of a bronze/iron age theocracy over reasoned logical science must be a LOON. 16:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

One woman's scientific observation is another man's insult. We shouldn't state anything until we've proven every other possible statement wrong. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan what is your proof that

1) fundamentalism is not an insult word? 2) persons who believe the fundamentals are unintelligent 3) fundamentalists are not holders of graduate degrees from universities? 4) the Bible has myths? 5) the Bible has bronze/iron age myths 6) The Bible has bronze/iron age myths of theocracy? 7) Biblicists are not rational? 8) Biblicists reject reasoned, logical science?(TManchester (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't have to prove anything. The article has to document that Conservapedia is fundamentalist, and that means that the article needs to rule out that Andrew Schafly is a Roman Catholic. It is common knowledge that his mother is. And I documented his Roman Catholic marriage. But the burden of proof is on he who asserts in the article.(TManchester (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I was christened CofE does that mean I can't be an atheist? 16:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I sounds like you need to be Christened really - LOL. If someone calls someone an atheist in an encyclopedia article, that writer must prove it with documentation. I mean anyone can up and label anyone anything; but believe in such a case requires sufficient evidence.(TManchester (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Do you see "pedia" anywhere in the title of this site? In any case, if Schlafly isn't a fundamentalist, please explain where his views differ from those of your basic fundamentalism, and don't just say "he was married in a Catholic ceremony 30 years ago so he can't possibly be a fundamentalist." His views have changed over the years. He says he wasn't a young earth creationist until relatively recently, for example. DickTurpis (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This just keeps coming across as a "No True Scotsman". His mom is fundamentalist. Quite clearly. He is fundamentalist. If he's Roman Catholic, maybe he is in the same way I'm Lutheran. I'm not, but I was raised in the church, and I believe the church still counts me as a member. I haven't seen anything from his statements that he's Catholic. Aside from getting wed in a Catholic church. Hell, I got married in a Catholic church. I've been to Catholic services. Often. I get what you're saying, most are not fundies. Most are rational, balanced human beings. There are still crazies fundies. I promise. They're weird, like an Atheist arguing for ID, but they exist. Quaru (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proof please. Prove that his mom & he are fundamentalists.(TManchester (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

This is not Wikipedia. Schlafly believes his version of the bible to be inerrant. Nuff said. 16:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your proof that Schafly believes his version is inerrant?(TManchester (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

(EC a long time ago) :As has been said here, he fits an example (WP) definition of fundamentalist Christianity, RW's own definition of Christian fundamentalism, and has shown exhibited disdain for the Pope and other aspects of the RCC. Moreover, this article is not about Andrew Schlafly personally; the wiki itself states that Popes have only said two infallible things ever, which seems unusual (though I'm not exactly familiar with the "official" details of Catholicism)...etc.

Please provide contrasting information that is not simple assertion, such that he does not fit a reasonable definition of fundamentalism. The statement is the general RW consensus and can be cite-spammed if actually necessary. His wife and mother just might be Catholic without him, you know. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blantant error above in claiming only 2 infallible papal statements based on that "wiki." Here is what it actually says: "Since the First Vatican Council, only two infallible teachings have been made: . . . ." :Get it, SINCE THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIIL.(TManchester (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

The article also states that this dogma was only introduced with First Vatican Council, which is corroborated by Wikipedia. Reading comprehension fail on your part, there, GET IT? Röstigraben (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two main usages of the term 'fundamentalist'. One has the narrow meaning of Protestant literalist. The second is more general and means religious extremist (e.g, Islamic fundamentalist). While Andy and Conservapedia might not technically qualify for the former they DEFINTELY qualify for the latter. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"married Catherine Agneta Kosarek at a Roman Catholic ceremony in 1984." So what? That's more than a quarter-century ago. It's not entirely unreasonable to imagine that a man's ideas about religion would change over the course of more than half his lifetime. DarkStar (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

POSSIBLE ERRORS IN THE ARTICLE

Biblical Literalism

The article charges Conservapedia with

"Biblical literalism, often putting Old Testament writings ahead of the actual teachings of Jesus.‎"

There is no footnote to back that claim. It should be removed until documented.

If you examine their Conservative [sic] Bible, you will probably be convinced otherwise. How else would someone render eremos, Greek word for desert or wilderness by the unlexicographical "wilderness of skeptics." So John the Baptist was preaching actually, not in the Wilderness of Judea, but had an account on Rational[sic]Wiki, though he got reverted all the time. (Forgive the sics, I just have a sense of humor and can't help but correct this title.( (TManchester (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Just because you don't want to be associated with him doesn't make him not a fundie, I'm afraid. Your rationales are coming across as the sort of unconnected technical points favoured by Birthers and tax protestors. I eagerly await your evidence he isn't a conservative either - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And

It's really

Hard to

Read... Seriously. And just give up the ghost. You're asking us to prove a negative. That he's not catholic. Because you've decided that X and Y can never, ever match. And I guess I'd agree that it should be one or the other, but we have proof of fundamentalism. You want us to now prove not a catholic. Quaru (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have the proof, give it on all the 5 fundamentals.

I am saying that you need to prove that he is a fundamentalist, and that you can't do that if he appears to be a Roman Catholic without ruling it out. If calling him a fundamentalist means you have given yourself a job of proving a negative, that is the problem of the person writing the article.(TManchester (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

• the inerrancy of the Bible

- I'm really not going to refute this one...   He does believe that, trivially.  Hence all the "science is BAD!!" bullshit.

• the virgin birth of Christ

- Given, even if we argue he's Catholic. Isn't that like, required?

• the doctrine of substitutionary atonement

- Also required?

• the bodily resurrection of Jesus

- Same?

• and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

- Same?

• Sola Scriptura

- To be honest, I'd never heard this term before brought up in this thread. But, isn't this really the same as above? I guess I can't see the real difference in this. Is the entire argument AGAINST him being a fundie based on Catholics adding stuff to their dogma? See, again we have an issue here... You're ENTIRE argument against this is based on him being raised Catholic, and him getting married in a Catholic church. This is no proof of anything. But really, I've gotten bored of this. I'm going to go cook, people should be arriving any minute. Quaru (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my entire argument is that if you are going to label something or someone "fundamentalist," you need to provide documentation to prove it. While the classical term has definite definition as either belief in 5 points or 14 (see Niagra Bible Conference), the term has become a slur word. Our liberal media decided to smear Christian Fundamentalists by extending the term to Islamic terrorists, though neither they nor Christians ever used it that way. The basic beliefs of Christianity include loving one's neighbor as self and loving enemies, always seeking their good.(TManchester (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Using "liberal" as a slur does not help, nor do even more meaningless and unsubstantiated claims. I say "meaningless" because it doesn't matter who used a word, nor why, in and of itself; further, nobody is calling Islam Christianity anyway. The term "fundamentalism" does not mean "Christian fundamentalism", which is why the prefix is added.

To summarize: nothing you just said has any relevance to this subject, except your additional definition of Christian fundamentalism, which is completely arbitrary and not at all common. Please accept that "fundamentalists" includes people like Schlafly and other Conservapedians, even on the off chance they don't all share the same fundamentals as others. People rarely do. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The following was, as far as I can tell, pasted over from TM's talk page. ħuman 07:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Yes, moved from TM's talk page)Instead of trying to divine CP's editorial stance by meanless speculation about Andy's religion, why not just have a look on their own articles on these five fundamentals? Here they are, in order:

• Biblical inerrancy. Clearly supports the concept, and is backed up by an additional article "debunking" contradictions in the bible.
• Sola scriptura. A stub that withholds judgement.
• The Virgin Birth. Clearly portrays this event as an historic fact.
• The Resurrection. See above.
• Substitutionary atonement. Last paragraph: "The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved.", clearly supportive.

So, apart from sola scriptura, all of these concepts are strongly endorsed by CP. And regarding the latter, Pi offered you a link to an article that implicitly supports it, plus, I've never seen Andy or any other major figure resort to papal infallibility or other RCC doctrines when arguing about a theological point - all they ever quote is the bible, which would be in accordance with this concept. CP is a fundamentalist website and nothing else. Röstigraben (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia Conservative

The Term Conservative

No proof has been posted that he is a fundamentalist. You raise a very good point on "conservative." This term covers so many different issues which have no necessary union: Lazy Fair (LOL) economics, anti-union, Biblicism, favoritism for the rich, doing things the way they used to be done, bourgeois liberalism, military hawkism, protectionism, isolationism (Taft Republicanism), empire building, libertarianism, Roman Catholicism, small governmentism, Attila the Hunism, plutocracy, anti-illegal-alien invasionism, anti-civil-rights, anti-government regulation, Ann Rand anti-altrusim, pro 2nd Amendment gun rights, draconian enforcement of laws, pro-police, anti-baby murder.

Am I a conservative? I would probably vote for a communist if he could stop the murder of babies. "Conservative" can be a misleading term.

If one is going to assert or deny that Conservapedia is conservative, one first needs to do the work to find out which of all those various agendas it has.(TManchester (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)) +

Your indenting is as bad as your logic. 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So until we say exactly which alleged "conservative" traits CP does or does not meet, it is unfair to call it conservative? Not sure that makes sense. It admits to being conservative (it's in the damn title), and I don't see anyone (except maybe you) denying that it meets most of the generally accepted conservative parameters. That's enough for me. DickTurpis (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The concern troll is concerned? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The concern troll is a logic chopping Gish Gallopper. 17:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that liberals think they advance the rationality of their viewpoint by resorting to insults and trying to hang perjorative terms on the necks of their opponents. In this case "troll."

I point out that this article has called Conservapedia fundamentalist without documented proof. If fundamentalist is meant in the sense of "perjorative slur word," then it is unworthy of a serious article.(TManchester (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

If you really seriously want to contest this label, then explain how his beliefs differ from those of traditional fundamentalists. Having been married in a Catholic Church is not a belief. If you can't do that, I really don't see how you have a case. DickTurpis (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wish you all the best. I hope I have given you something to put in your pipe and smoke. Have a blessed day.(TManchester (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks buddy. You have a blessed day too! ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settled that. He said "blessed be" therefore, he's a Pagan, and cannot be a fundamentalist, therefore all argument up to now is moot. Neat how I can decide arbitrarily that someone is a different religion to prove what they are not... Quaru (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What is it about people with severely disconnected logic and their inability to operate the software? - π 03:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How

Do

You

Mean?

I

Thought

The

Point

Of

this

Wiki

Was

To

Make

Art

With

Your

Words.

Quaru (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Schafly is a Roman Catholic, Not Fundamentalist

From all evidence I have seen Conservapedia is not fundmentalist, and calling it that is a slur on fundamentalism. For Andrew Schafly iis Roman Catholic and thus should not be called a fundmentalist. The fundmentalist claim is in this article with no documentary proof, and the burden of proof is on the article writer. (TManchester (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)) (probably)

Evidence 1

"How does a practising Catholic, which [Andrew] Schlafly purports to be, ...."

http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/conservative-bible-project-andrew-schlafly-stands-alone/ (TManchester (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

So the best you can offer to back up your claim that AS is Catholic is some other blog saying that AS is Catholic? Really? Lame. DarkStar (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So your evidence against is a blog maintained by one of our members? Phail Level - 8. - π 03:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesusmotherhfuckingchrist...what crawled up your ass about this? Really, other than "he might sort of be a catholic" how does Schlafly differ from mainstream fundamentalism? Give one goddamn example. I have no idea if he is allegedly a Catholic or not, but he toes the fundamentalism party line as well as anyone I've ever seen. Where are the theological differences? DickTurpis (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And get your motherfucking indenting right, n00b!!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"...although it has been debated elsewhere that thanks to this project he’s now apostate." Reading your sources is key. ħuman 03:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still perplexed by the focus on Schlafly, the article describes Conservapedia (the project) as fundamentalist, which it most certainly is. - π 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is the absolute dictator of his Conservapedia. (TManchester (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Conservapedia is not fundamentalist. The evidence indicates that it is conservative Roman Catholic.

Evidence 2

". . . a practising Catholic, which [Andrew] Schlafly purports to be, . . . ." http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/conservative-bible-project-andrew-schlafly-stands-alone/

Evidence 3

"As a side note Andrew 'The Banhammer' Schlafly is, so far as anyone can tell, formally affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church." ttp://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/03/theres-dress-code.html

Evidence 4

". . . Catholic pedophile apologists at Conservapedia are looking pretty disgusting (and Andy Schlafly teaches children, although if you’re a girl student he insists on giving you an easier test because you shouldn’t compete with boys)." http://blog.shankbone.org/2010/04/12/conservapedia-in-defense-of-child-molester

Evidence 5

". . . [Andrew] Schlafly identifies as a practicing Catholic and argues that his reading of the Bible is, in fact, orthodox." http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/1918/the_conservative_bible_project%3A_looking_for_conservative_diamonds_in_a_liberal_dung-hill

The blog you cite does not provide a source. ħuman 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence 6

"Andy Schlafly says he's Catholic." http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/10/the_conservative_rewrite_of_th.php

Evidence 7

Chief Conservapedia Lieutenant Terry Koeckritz is a Roman Catholic appears to be a Roman Catholic, as he calls the pope the vicar of Christ:

"No matter to Conservapedia, though. The idea that an atheist would “bully” the Pope outrages Conservapedia’s Terry Koeckritz, one of the site’s senior editors: The more a person strays from the mainstream and the less followers they have, always look for a rise in silly, kooky stunts on their part to try and seem relevant. Dawkins has long ago ceased to be an intellect and more a silly tool. I’m hoping the guy succeeds in trying to arrest the Vicar of Christ. He will only seem foolish and petty, and might get to spend some time in prison as well. –ṬK/Admin/Talk" http://blog.shankbone.org/2010/04/12/conservapedia-in-defense-of-child-molester-conspiracy/

TK is simply a successful sociopath mocking CP from within, you idiot. ħuman 06:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence 8

Conservapedia itself recognizes that Catholicism rejects "sola scriptura," a fundamental of fundamentalism:

"Two of the principal issues of contention between Catholics and Protestants are sola scriptura (the Protestant doctrine that the Bible alone is the final authority for Christians, which denies the infallibility of Sacred Tradition, the Pope, and ecumenical church councils) and sola fide (the doctrine, popularized by Martin Luther, that faith alone, as opposed to faith expressed in good works, is sufficient for salvation)." Conservapedia: "

Conclusion: All the unfounded claims that Conservapedia is fundamentalist, must be removed.

(This has been a Refutation and analysis of the anti-scientific and crank idea that Conservapedia is fundamentalist. Stop insulting us fundamentalists!(TManchester (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes TK and Andy are Catholic, that is not in dispute. The website's editorial stance is however fundamentalist along with cp:User:TerryH, cp:User:Karajou, cp:user:Conservative and several other senior admins. - π 04:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has been disputed here; thanks for your agreement. (TManchester (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Although a much smaller player, cp:User:Daniel1212 seems to share your anti-Catholic beliefs. - π 05:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, obsess much? Look, it's already pointed out to you that 'fundamentalist' has more than one meaning and that both Schlafly and Conservapedia both qualify under the more general one. If you don't like this fact, go troll Merriam-Webster. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean they qualify under the use of "fundamentalist" as a skunk word, that is unacceptable in a serious article.(TManchester (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Here's Spiegel and The Christian Post (an evangelical Christian newspapter) referring to Conservapedia as fundamentalist. Now STFU. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing that someone called someone or something fundamentalist proves nothing. The term is thrown around as a term of disparagement all the time. To establish the validity of the term, one needs to show from Conservapedia that the 5 historical fundamentals are held by Conservapedia (which largely means A. Schlafly.

I don't think you can do it; but have at it if you wish.(TManchester (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Based on TM's impeccable logic of using Psygremlin's blog to show Andy is Catholic, I submit to a candid world Ames' blog to show that it is a fundamentalist website. - π 05:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

People who call selves Evangelicals may not necessarily be fundamentalists. Since both TK and Schlafly are Romanists, and since having a vicar of Christ on earth who can issue infallible decrees that are of final authority even over what the Bible means, Romanism is a rejection of the fundamental called sola scriptura. The vicar of Christ statement on Conservapedia is evidence of how Conservapedia is not fundamentalist. Now lets see you prove that Conservapedia has sola scriptura as part of its philosophy before you call them fundamentalists. Their Bible project is an example of how they are not fundamentalists. (TManchester (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

I have already shown you cp:Salvation is based on sola scriptura. Show me an article that is based on Catholic dogma? - π 05:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Where did I suggest that evangelicals were necessarily fundamentalists? 2) Catholicism and fundamentalism (in the general sense) are not mutually exclusive. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are mutually exclusive to the extent that Romanists deny sola scriptura, one of the fundamentals. Where did I say that you said evang=fund?(TManchester (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

From the blog you cited up above:

“”I’m talking about the online encyclopedia for conservatives (read: right wing, Christian-fundamentalists) – Conservapedia.

“”Given the small number of active brown shirt contributors left and the increasing paranoia, CP now resembles more a right-wing blog than “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.” This not only is sad… but the intolerance and ignorance is also a damning indictment of Christian fundamentalism.

SIWOTI! --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Where did I say that you said evang=fund?" With this -> "People who call selves Evangelicals may not necessarily be fundamentalists." Why else mentione it?

"Citing that someone called someone or something fundamentalist proves nothing." Yet citing a blog calling him a Catholic is totally acceptable proof. Sheesh, that's one reliable thing about you fundies. You are completely credulous when an idea fits your bias, but become radical skeptics when they don't. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that Schlafly identifies as Catholic...

...only that a lot of people says he does. Show us something based on his own words that he follows Catholic doctrine. Your conclusion, otherwise, is b.s. DarkStar (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Evidence Is There

This 8 pieces of testimony are a strong indication, as is the dictator's permission given to his Lieutenant TK to call the pope the Vicar of Christ. Aside from that it is well established that he has a Romanist mother and got married by Rome. Further evidence comes from Conservapedia treating the Bible in a cavalier, non-fundamentalist manner with their Alice In Wonderland translation. But I don't have to prove anything.

Whoever writes the article has got to have proof that Schlafly is a fundamentalist and attach it in footnotes or drop his claim.Italic text(TManchester (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Again for the 100th time, this is not about fucking Schlafly, but the editorial stance of the fucking encyclopedia. - π 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is Conservapedia. He owns it and runs it as an iron-fisted dictator from all evidence. Which part of dictator do you not understand? The dict or the tator?(TManchester (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Where is your evidence he is a dictator? In my experience he is happy to let the sysop run the show and he only intervenes if you step on his pet projects' toes. - π 05:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you from Conservapedia? Are you a Roman Catholic? Do you deny that Schlafly owns and runs Conservapedia? Do you deny that he sets the philosophy of Conservapedia? Anyone who wishes to verify this can do so by going to Conservapedia and also by googling on this.(TManchester (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Edited there for a while, was banned. I was raised Roman Catholic. No. No, but with the caveat that he only sets its philosophy in a fairly lose way, must be pro-conservative, pro-Christian, pro-America, pro-life, pro-homeschooling. I have been reading CP for more than 2 and a half years now, I don't need to Google it. - π 05:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is your banning evidence of dictatorship? Are you currently in good standing with them? Are you an administrator or sysop now? Are you in fact TK? My how loose that philosophy looks. Read it everyone. Does anyone find that a loose philosophy? (TManchester (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

I was banned for mouthing off to another admin. How long have you been reading Conservapedia? (EC) TK, LOL! - π 05:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked if you were TK; I notice that you did not answer.(TManchester (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

No, I am not TK. Accusing people of being TK is a running joke around here. - π 07:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been annoyed with Wikipedia, I recently stumbled across Conservapedia and thought it would be a pleasant experience. Instead I ran across what seems to be a cult of personality and abuse of power. More seriously I ran into that hair-brained alleged translation of the Bible. And as a person with multiple graduate degrees in that area, including in Greek, I was appalled with the cavalier approach to translation. It looked like they didn't even read the Greek, but called it a translation. I found an apparent attitude that it meant a hill of beans what the Greek lexicons say. I didn't want anything labeled conservative attached to such a monstrosity. I tried to talk sense to them, quote the Greek and point out gross errors. Instead of being grateful to me for pulling them back from a precipice, I got an unintelligible defense based on an alleged advanced complexity of modern English over Greek. Any Greek scholar would laugh at it or cry over it. That outrageous "Conservative Bible" is an example of liberal paraphrase at its worst. Word for word literal translation was decried. That exercise is NOT FUNDAMENTALISM.

In fact it reminds me of liberal court justices legislating from the bench. It matters not what the original intent was, the Bible must be a rubber nose that can be twisted to whatever is politically correct for so-called conservatives.(TManchester (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Guess what? TerryH, Conservapedia's self-appointed head of Bible studies and director of the translation project, thinks he knows Greek too. He also thinks he is improving on previous translation. Again, they think they are preserving biblical inerrancy, they think their loose paraphrasing is making it more inerrant. They are indeed that insane. - π 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

TManchester, if calling someone a fundie retard is an insult, it's because the 5 points make one a fundie retard. If you don't like being associated in some vague way with CP, decry them on your own blog, and open your mind beyond 2000 year old superstitions about people rising from the dead. ħuman 06:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Human, what is your proof that

1. 1) the 5 points make one have a low IQ?
2. 2) I should not object to undocumented assertions in an article?
3. 3) I have 2000 year old superstitions?
4. 4 Christ did not rise from the dead?

Or are you just blowing off steam?(TManchester (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It is an insult word because the media has made it so by the way it uses the word, even extending it to Islamist murderers. I decry the irrational practice right here. But go ahead and leave it and show yourselves to be irrational. Best wishes to you anyway. And may your night bring you refreshment.(TManchester (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

1. because you have to be stupid to believe that shit

2. They aren't undocumented, they are common usage of the word.

3. by definition

4. Ridiculous assertion without evidence.

5. Oh, there was no 5.

You're the most fun we've had in weeks. Your anti-Roman church bias is almost as amusing as your medieval beliefs. ħuman 07:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, TManchester, we're not an encyclopedia; we're not neutral. If you think calling Andy a fundamentalist should be removed because we're using it as a derogatory term you should check out are Alan Keyes article in which we call him a"gibbering goddamn lunatic", or Jerry Falwell an "obnoxious christofascist demagogue".

Furthermore, you still haven't found a single belief Andy has stated he holds that is at odds with fundamentalism as it is widely understood. You make a claim about sola scriptura, but we have evidence that it is accepted by Conservapedia in their articles, and you have provided none showing Andy rejects it. I have no idea if Andy is still a Catholic, or claims to be one, but theologically he has clearly thrown his lot in with the fundies. If you think he makes you look bad, well, what can I say? They guy is a walking pile of ridiculousness, and no one (except 2 youtube vloggers) takes CP seriously anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jr.'s in a bunch of Catholic stuff on Facebook, so I would be surprised if Sr. doesn't identify as Catholic as well. (Please delete comment this if it's anything close to a privacy violation; the info is at least open to people in some networks). --SomeUser (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't Change Your Ariticle

The Necessity of Proof

I don't have to show that Schlafly fails to hold any fundamental. The aritcle writer has to give proof by documentation if he wishes intelligent, objective minded persons to believe his claims. The writer has to show that he has "thrown in with the fundies." -- that is, if he wishes to be believed.(TManchester (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Evidence From Conservapedia Itself

The article on the Roman Catholic "Church" as I have already shown, calls Peter the Vicar of Christ. That is consistent with a rejection of solo scriptura, a fundamental. The other evidence is their Bible "translation" travesty, which does not follow fundamentalist principles of translation, but is in fact a horrible, liberal paraphrase that includes fancy. I, a died-in-the-wool fundamentalist, graduate of a fundamental Bible College (as well as secular universities (in the USA and England) with love tried to call them back, but they rejected my advice. I posted the Greek where they ignored it, to no avail.(TManchester (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Evidence from Email Conversation with a High-Up Administrator, Evidently Romanist

A high up administrator told me in email that salvation was by WORKS. That is Romanist (technically the Romanist position is characterized by semi-pelagianism -- Pelagius being the works-salvation guy who debated (Saint) Augustin on the subject over 1000 years ago). Semil-pelagianism is the heresy (Fundamentalist POV) that it is faith plus works that saves. But this is a litmus test for salvation, commonly used by fundamentalists: Salvation is by grace through faith, apart from works.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them."

(TManchester (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

got proof? Or are we good with your say-so? DarkStar (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: Don't Remove "Fundamentalist"

Leave all those undocumented steam-blowing comments, because it demonstrates to any objective reader that this RationalWiki is irrational. It does not start with axioms and add objective evidence to establish conclusions. And those comments discredit the article as a whole. So go on and continue to embarrass yourselves.
But I have lots of things to do today. So, for now, I bid you all a good day. (TManchester (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

'Bye! Don't slam the door on your way out! 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, the comments will stay. But since you totally fucked this page up, no sane person will learn anything from this "debate" other than the fact that you're very, very bad at editing and formatting. Röstigraben (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, at least for me, it's the first "no true fundie" argument I've seen! That has to be worth something. Quaru (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the pope called the Vicar of Christ in the Catholic Church article, but it does mention it as a title in the Pope article. However, it's hard to tell if they're saying he is indisputably the Vicar of Christ, or if that he how he is seen by Catholics. I'll grant you Conservapedia is neither well-written nor consistent, so it can be difficult to sum the whole thing up in its entirety. Now, given what you're proposing, would you think it would be more accurate to say CP was a "Catholic" project? I'd say it clearly is not, based on the fact that you can find very little Catholic about it. One would also have to potentially differentiate between the alleged encyclopedia articles and the more blatantly opinion parts. I'll admit the articles don't take appear to take any side in which branch of Christianity is the right one, as they don't want to alienate the few editors they have (another reason they're so receptive to Mormons and Moonies). However, considering christian fundamentalism has a political aspect to it (or at least it has developed one in the US), it should be clear to even the casual reader that the project as a whole, and Andy specifically, has embraced this aspect.

As for the CBP being anti-fundamental, I really don't see how that is necessarily the case. Clearly, many fundies don't agree with what they're doing, but I know of no consensus on what translation is currently the best, or whether further translations would ever be desirable. The complaint seems to be largely that they don't know what the hell they're doing. This is a matter of politics and competence, not so much theology, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps this article can be altered to reflect the inconsistency of the project, noting how most of what is in it follows fundamentalist philosophy, but not at the expense of Catholic doctrine and some other elements not always found in fundamentalism. DickTurpis (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me of an interesting point. IIRC the CBP doesn't rampage through the Catholic Bible, they use the Protestant one. ħuman 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they use the KJV as their source (apparently, Catholics use a "New American Bible"). But perhaps they just settled on that one because it's a widely circulated version and its copyright has already expired, while the current RCC standard text was only compiled in the 1970s. Röstigraben (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there Catholic and Protestant Bibles? Haven't I seen KJV in Catholic churches? And surely The New American Bible isn't used outside of the US. I really don't think what version they're translating from is significant to this discussion at all (except perhaps that it isn't from original sources). DickTurpis (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's got to be dozens of modern English bible translations (actual translations, not the English/Conservative kind of crap Andy is producing), probably in no small part due to the problems that adherence to biblical literalism brings with it. According to WP, the NAB was compiled by a Vatican committee and is the standard for US Catholic churches. The KJV and its derivatives are definitely in the Protestant tradition, but the CBP page explicitly mentions copyright concerns as a major factor in settling on this source. Röstigraben (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the RCC Bible include more NT books? The apocrypha? Or am I wrong? ħuman 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Checking with Wikipedia and not having my usual Biblical scholar on hand, I think the KJV has more books in the Apocrypha than the Latin Vulgate, meaning your average Fundie would consider more of the Bible none Canon than your average Catholic. - π 02:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia Administrator Reports that A Schlafly told Him He was Catholic

This is in an email response to a query that I made of a higher-up administrator today. So for me, that's good enough evidence. However, it is true that since anyone can trust Christ at any time and become a saved, born-again Christian, Schlafly in the last hour may have denied the RCC. But for practical purposes and for identifying the philosophy of the owner of Conservapedia, I say "Caso Cerrado."

Can we see it? Or, again, is your say-so good enough? DarkStar (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I find his anti-Catholic bigotry rather grating. - π 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Conservatism vs. Fundamentalism

Incidentally I am not sure what role the KJV has in their Bible project. The equivalent RCC version is the Douay-Rheims, which I believe is of lttle difference to the KJV, using thou & ye (etc.) and public domain. The D-R as I recall has "do penance" instead of "repent" some times.

I do resent fundamentalist being applied to Conservapedia and to this project since it would be an embarrassment to fundamentalism. I think that a basic problem with the article here is that it throws around fundamentalism as a slur word instead of showing which of the 5 fundamentals Conservapedia holds, if any. Another problem is that it doesn't recognize that the American Conservative Catholic Movement (conservative in the American sense of social-political conservatism, somewhat pro-plutocracy methinks) is a very distinct movement from fundamentalism, though there is some overlap, as for example in opposition to baby-killing. I don't know if the RCC's have the same opposition to "men lying with men" that fundamentalists have -- I seriously doubt it. And fundamentalists are not distinctively pro-plutocrat as social-political American conservatives are. We sympathize with the working man and the little guy, recognizing that there is a major anti-rich person theme in the Bible.

Suggested revision after deleting fundamentalist/fundamentalism: Conservapedia is dominated by the American Conservative Catholic Movement, "conservative" not in the sense of Catholic theology, but in the sense of American social-political conservatism, as represented by the Schlafly family.(TManchester (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

"an embarrassment to fundamentalism"!!!! How can anthing embarrass people with such silly beliefs? 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan, despite your canards, I love you in the name of the Lord Jesus. And I pray for you now.(TManchester (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Talk to your imaginary friend all you want. I'll ask the Easter Bunny to see you right next year. 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm more down-to-earth. I'll ask the deer who eat my clover to keep an eye on your corporeal exploits and endeavors, may they ever be purple. ħuman 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See above, CP clearly backs four out of the five fundaments, with its support for the fifth one being debatable, but implicit and no evidence to the contrary existing. And don't act as if fundamentalism would be a respectable philosophical or even just theological movement, if only those silly Conservapedians hadn't discredited it. Belief in the absolute inerrancy of an ancient text that is fraught with internal contradictions and at odds with reality is enough to do that. Röstigraben (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this "conversation" still going on? TM, there is a difference between "Fundamentalist" and "fundamentalist" regarding Christianity in the US. The capital F version holds close to the preceptions laid out in The Fundamentals, early 20th cent. book. The small "f" version is a broader group, mostly born-again, evangelical Protestants who are into literalism and usually YEC. The word has become broader than it was 80 years ago. The small "f" is appended to people of other religions who claim to adhere strictly to their original texts, hence its use for Muslims, Jews (although I think they are just called Orthodox), and many other believers in fairy tales. ħuman 02:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally good point. We do not use the capital f Fundamentalist once during the article. So we are not referring strictly to the religious sect, but to the broader definition. - π 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's "news" blog section

'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)

along with 'As of 2008 ... Barack Obama' requires someone with more US-centric knowledge than I have. Anna Livia (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

403 Errors

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

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 [5] 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)

'Liberals'

Anybody considering themselves a US liberal as described here? Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 13 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

No doubt you employed the favorite logical fallacy of atheists/agnostics/liberals/leftists which is the fallacy of exclusion!

Second, like most secular left leaning people you have no panache or machismo. After winning an argument hands down via evidence/argumentation over a secular left leaning individual, the exclamation is: Olé! Olé! Olé! Without the 3 "Olés!" (which have exclamation marks), you are breaking tradition which is something no real conservative would do.Zorro78 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Macheeeesemo. Twodots (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's official: Gentleman Kendoll lacks machismo! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sore Losers

Still no 'news' on the front page about who's currently President. Or any updates to Joe Biden's page. (But what's already there is hilarious.) --Gulik (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

I just checked Conservapedia, and it's apparently been down for two weeks now. Have they given up? --Gulik (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As a CP editor, it's been having 50% uptime for 2+ months, and now it's 10% uptime, with the occasional DDOS either from the far-left or someone blocked. The servers, for lack of a better word, are utter shit. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a DDoS, unless you have a crystal ball you don't know who it's from. It could be /pol/ or KF, or even 8chan/8kun. Seriously, I know how these things work, you don't know who the fuck is doing it unless they tell you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Andy says it's from the far-left. I thought he traced it, but he might be guessing. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

'Slightly' modified version available.

Perhaps doing a 'Hotblack Desiato' (spending a year dead for tax reasons); or Roko's Basilisk doing a test run; or someone failed to pay the service provider/mistyped something. Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Or it needs a new rubber band in its 'computer system [6]. Anna Livia (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, drat. It's up again. Why am I not surprised they are deep in the TRUMP REALLY WON sink? --Gulik (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Same here; all the same though, the formatting of their main page's desktop version is still fucked up. And now it seems they are instead going on and on about our soon-to-be first family. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 07:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem going through the RW link (and going via Google the CP requires some prodding, with a logo-less MP - which mentions the Donald twice -being reached). Anna Livia (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Parody or worse?

This - will add: not to be read in the proximity of crumbly biscuits and/or hot drinks. Anna Livia (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with CP

Have tried two different browsers and going via RW - there is a 'Your connection isn't private [do not proceed]' message.

Would a link to [7] be appropriate? Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Their security licence has expired. Unfortunately, it will probably be fixed soon. I say, "Do nothing." Spud (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Given it is CP and the intermittent discussions here, reasonable to mention the site. Anna Livia (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it that they never seem in control of their own website? Is it incompetence or carelessness? IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Minimal overlap of technically-competent people and contributors (and the know-it-all-teenagers are otherwise involved). Anna Livia (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I got banned from Conservapedia. Wanna know why?

Because I said that certain statements should have citations. Maybe that explains their shitty article quality. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That could possibly be a reason but you signed up as "ArticleNeedsCitation" and it can read as a troll account or not adhering to their ludicrous username standards, but Conservapedia's community is still dumber than a sad crop of pansies. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

My essay mentioning the main problems with Conservapedia

I wrote an essay on CP where I mention the main problems of Conservapedia. I've interacted with some of the people there, and I think that they are inherently nice people, even though I don't agree with their views, but I think they need to fix these problems ASAP. This is why I am fine with using my real name here, but not on CP. (But to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of this website either. I spend most of my time on WP.) https://conservapedia.com/Essay:The_Problems_with_Conservapedia Félix An (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps showing one of the problems of Conservapedia, I wasn't able to view that essay until looking directly at the edit. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

still pretty sure everything over at conservapedia can be explained by them all being pricks AMassiveGay (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

and schafly getting trounced for pres of the harvard law review by future pres barack obama. why isnt that in this article? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't find regular editors at Conservapedia nice people. It doesn't take an essay to know this. They might be misguided bigots, but they're still raging bigots who promote causes denigrating and harming other people, and they have one admin they never bother telling off that's been registering and constantly harassing us on this wiki. Maybe have Conservapedia start there dealing with that guy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

On of the editors is a massive atheophobe and homophobe. He spends much of his life dedicated to why he hates atheist and gay people so much. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm amazed that essay has stayed up for 13 days without getting deleted. But if its writer thinks it will make any difference to the site, he's very much mistaken. "Inherently nice people" isn't a term that I'd use to describe regular Conservapedia editors either. Conservapedia is a hate site. Its admins are hatemongers. And any people who start editing Conservapedia before realizing what it's really like, if they have any decency at all, need to stop editing it as soon as they find out what it is really like. Because they're not going to change it from within and they're only supporting the hatemongers if they stay there. Spud (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the people there are just misguided. They think that they are promoting Christian values, but they might not realize that they are doing the opposite. To be honest, I'm not a fan of RationalWiki either, as it downplays people who believe in God, but at least the scientific information is mostly accurate. I wish the people of RationalWiki and its competitor could look past their differences and learn to accept and be nice to each other. Félix An (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a way too sympathetic viewpoint on the editors there. They're still complacent about Ken's harassment here. They probably encourage it, whereas if some RationalWiki editor tried doing the same stunt at Conservapedia, I would've tried to get them to knock that off if not outright block them. Their wiki is still full of bigotry including racism (against immigrants), islamophobia, transphobia, sexism, homophobia, atheophobia, and promote harm to marginalized people as well as promoting covid denialism, anti-vax, and climate change denial, which are extremely dangerous viewpoints. Our wiki can be sarcastic, mocking, scathing, but it doesn't go out of the way to try to promote hatred like this. Don't you dare try to insinuate it's just a matter of disagreement and differences and we just need to 🌼get along🌼.

Addenum. Read this homophobic bile. Tell me if you think we need "accept and be nice to each other" when they promote and relish in such vile content, when they can't accept and be nice to other humans just because they have an attraction to particular other humans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec)See the Balance fallacy, only one of those two wikis promotes outright bigotry. Also, I'd use the word "deluded" rather than "misguided". Plutocow (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And there is some misunderstanding of RW-ians: there are a range of belief systems/viewpoints, but 'when in Rome we behave as the Romans do, and on RW (as elsewhere) we do likewise' and/or explain as and when appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"learn to accept and be nice to each other" -- So, how long, may I ask, have you been on the Internet? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There are parts of the Internet where participants are willing to get on with each other (in public at least) and there are parts where 'bellum omnium contra omnes' applies.

The main benefit of Conservapedia - it keeps the inmates happy and distracts them from being nuisances elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)