Talk:Conservapedia

Spelling
We certainly should be using American spelling Partofthemachine – no leftist bias on Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spelling
 * Sorry, but the "leftist bias" is allowed by the rules. Don't like it, conservapedia could use some writers. I'm sure they'd appreciate you there. 2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Content of Conservapedia
Re the recent revert of the new sub-section. Can someone suggest how to better incorporate what is clearly significant factual information: Conservapedia clearly isn't an encyclopaedia. I realize that at at least one secondary source is needed. I had hoped that direct quotes from Conservapedia would be sufficient, and even better than biased sources. Rwood128 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the paragraph you added is WP:OR and appears to be leaving encyclopedic territory and entering essay territory. I'm also not sure I'd agree that it can't be called an encyclopedia - I think it is (and appears to be described as such by sources), just a very skewed one. — Czello 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed–perhaps an encyclopaedia that often acts like a blog. I hope that this information, which is very significant to the topic, can be added. Even Conservapedia's article on the Bible lacks substance, despite the obsession with atheism. Rwood128 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We state, in the infobox at least, that it's a wiki by volunteer contributors. That sort of covers it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be interesting to know the number of active editors.Rwood128 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be pretty bias and slanderous. 35.151.181.162 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's probably because of Professor values. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything on a Flat Earth?
Does Conservapedia include anything on a Flat Earth? Yes, I could look myself, but my stomach isn't that strong. Given its basis on a literal interpretation of the Bible, I would think that belief in a Flat Earth might be included. (Samuel Rowbotham cites one hundred "proofs" from the Bible that the Earth is flat; other flat-earthers have cited four hundred.) BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Donald R. Prothero writes in his book "Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future": One would expect Conservapedia to push the idea that the earth is flat, but apparently those ideas are too retro even for Conservapedia. (Instead, it asserts that the "Flat Earth myth" about the past was cooked up by evolutionists to slander creationists, even though the idea is found in the Bible in many places!)
 * So, yes, they do, and we have a reliable source for it. Do you want to include that in the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, have any of y'all ever read the bible? 35.151.181.162 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing about Conservapedia in the bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Nor have they read Conservapedia.  Science always allows for the possibility for correction when new information emerges, but cultists do not ever entertain competing theories. 2601:5C6:4180:3D20:20D6:CF73:3D27:59C6 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Science always allows Everybody knows that. Except possibly the Conservapedia guys. Please read WP:NOTFORUM: this page is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fake News Website?
I know it's counter-programming for Wikipedia's 'liberal' backdrop, but Conservapedia has peddled fluff-pieces by mis-contextualising current affairs and pretending that the articles they promote are helping their own cause. Internet Informant (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)