Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 23

Former motto
It might be worth adding that Conservapedia once prominently displayed a quote from George Orwell: "All issues are political issues." In context: "In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia." (Politics and the English Language) I'm not sure when or why the motto was dropped. Perhaps they realized that they were distorting the meaning by taking the words out of context but were unwilling to characterize their own politics with Orwell's vituperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict with scientific views: Keynesian economics?
I would argue that "Keynesian economics" ought to be added to the Conservapedia article section "Conflict with scientific views" since the real Conservapedia contains a page on Keynesian economics that is extremely partisan and unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbonner1982 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keynesian economics has nothing to do with science. 72.80.203.156 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Economics is a social science. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just a play on words. you can call it a "social science" but it has nothing to do with "scientists". Lot's of people have professors that they call "doctors", but you would never go to your professor to get healed. Similarly, you may call economics a "social science", but you would never go to scientists to figure out whether or not its a good idea. The people you ask are economists. All economists in their right minds oppose communism and Keynsian economics.72.80.203.156 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are either trolling or seriously out of your depth. Either way, this "issue" is resolved. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflict with scientific views: Please remove things after "ideology" to another section
These things have nothing to do woth scientific views at all.(As a new user here I don't know how to edit it but "Partisan Politics" has nothing to do with science.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephaniah204 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At a guess, the material got separated from the "Editorial viewpoints and policies" section; one of the orphaned sections is actually titled "Other editorial policies." I've moved the text in question. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 14:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia's "Debate" (vs. Wikipedia's "Talk") Tab
One of the things I liked about Conservapedia (and which is not mentioned anywhere in this Wikipedia article) was the inclusion of a "Debate" tab. The discussions found there, particularly the essays on the views of science vs. religion, are well researched and worth reading by anyone with an interest in either.

Unlike Wikipedia, there is little or no editing effort exercised in the Debate sections to suppress views and opinions only distantly related to the debate topic. When a debate subject is edited, it is only to remove items that are personal attacks, bogus citations or plagarism. Danshawen (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)danshawen


 * They don't suppress views or opinions, eh? You're pretty funny, kiddo. -R. fiend (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They have a debate section where editors can discuss various topics. It does not have any relevance to improving their encyclopedia articles.  TFD (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Having more forum type discussion would encourage more people to contribute to Wikipedia which would be nice. However having explicit discussions would I believe be very counter productive overall. Wikipedia already has a big problem with WP:OR and people thinking that a vote on a talk page is better than looking up what sources say. We are supposed to be summarizing what is said in reliable sources. Having explicit discussions as part of Wikipedia would I believe encourage the editors involved to stick their own conclusions into the articles. Conservapedia is practically the exact opposite of Wikipedia in that respect and I'd certainly want to see it working in something quite a bit different first. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) Discussion about Wiki doing this does not belong on this article's talk page, but at the village pump. (2) Discussion about whether mentioning it on this article would improve this article is pointless without an RS to discuss. See WP:OR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems as good a place as any to seek input
Can any parties comment on the discussion here, which has some relevance to CP? It's a very low traffic page, so I'm not expecting anyone to happen upon it naturally, but it could use the views of more editors. -R. fiend (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki is no longer about satire
I think the section on RationalWiki needs updated. Judging from the conversations in the archive, it seems that at one time it was all about satire, but I don't see that now. It seems to be a backlash site with pretense of objectivity. AngusCA (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * By which you mean it's a skeptical site. The quoted article is about the extent of RW's coverage in WP:RS. RW is busy not particularly caring about that, and getting on with doing what it does. (I'm doing quite a lot of it myself.) Presumably the RSes will come when it's actually at all famous, which it clearly isn't as yet - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be a skeptical site, but the technical definition of "skeptical" would have to be different from the intuitive one. Judging by the link you provided, it isn't. AngusCA (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not be exactly and completely rational, but it has good intentions. I have found alot of valuable information on the site. It tends to be a bit anti-religious in general, but many of its users and editors are themselves religious. It is far more anti-misinformation and anti-irrationality and anti-anti-science than it is anything else. Sure it uses humour, but usually to make things more fun for the community. Scorde (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is more to be said about RationalWiki then that has to cited to WP:reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Poe's Law
This site is so rife with right-wing crap that I just had to bring this up.

"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Is there a way to include this in the article? Most of the stuff I see in that site could easily have been planted as parody by others. In fact I was tempted myself.
 * That has been quoted here before! The only way is if a WP:reliable source said it in an assessment of the site. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because that would be original research. It's not up to us to interpret whether or not a site is parody (not to mention that Conservapedia is almost certainly serious, unlike, say, Liberapedia, which is almost certainly parody). —  Richard  BB  07:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of Conservapedia were in fact written by parodists, but this content was then accepted by Schlafly. Citing this is, of course, the problem - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Within 60 seconds" -- a real problem.
This article quotes Schlafly saying "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".

I'm not a conservative, and I don't edit political articles -- I stick to entertainment type stuff, music and comics mostly -- and I've HAD this exact experience. Within 60 seconds! That shouldn't happen -- it just shouldn't happen! It gives ammo to Wikipedia's detractors. Wikipedia has gotten far too deletionist, and that takes most of the fun out of contributing. When I read "editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach", I could only sympathize. Even without taking political positions, one can find oneself in this quandary.

A little off-topic, perhaps, but does it matter? I mean, "Conservapedia"? Is that site even still up?

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia has taken to blocking wide swathes of IPs again, so is inaccessible from a lot of places, but is reported as still being up - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not surprising that Conservapedia has to resort to blocking IPs if Wikipedia contributors maintain (as in this article's section on Abortion) that 3 opinions = "scientific consensus"! Santamoly (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How many references do you think would confirm scientific consensus? Bevo74 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Yes, Iraq Definitely Had WMD, Vast Majority Of Polled Republicans Insist give some indication of an answer to you? Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on "scientific consensus" reminds us that an assertion of "scientific consensus" is often claimed as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. In other words, claiming "consensus" is a political exercise subject to the exaggeration and hyperbole of the civic marketplace, not a scientific one.  Consensus can be established only by voting. Any non-scientist who mindlessly claims the existence of a "scientific consensus" to prove a point should be regarded with a great deal of suspicion. Santamoly (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So if a majority of people believe something, that makes it true? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, but the WHO is a major authority on health matters, if you read the article you'll see how many supporting references it quotes. Just because a religious fundamentalist puts something on his blog, sorry website doesn't make it true.  When it comes to abortion I am certainly not  what Americans would call Liberal, I just have more faith in WHO, than in Andrew Schlafly.  Is there a better word than consensus such as majority?  Bevo74 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thread contain an RS-based suggestion for an article improvement and if so, would someone please re-state what it is? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Links
I removed a source from the section Conservative Bible Project: the content weren't dealing with the sentence (possibly out-dated or an invalid link). It is said that:

''The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid. ''

I checked the site and there are, however, only 25 notes on that page (the link itself directs to Matt. 1:1). At Matt. 7:1 (which the link describtion might suggest), there are only 34 notes. So far, the link isn't really related to the sentence.

The second source links to the wikipage of New International Version of Bible. There are no fragments available there (Joh. 7:53–8:11 suggested by the source). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A Son of Phyllis Schlafly
In the first sentence I'd like to see the egregious Andy Schlafly described as "a son of..." Phyllis, even though she has at times spoken of "my son the lawyer," giving the impression she only acknowledged one son. John, the nurse, is an Internet acquaintance from when we were both studying pathology online some years ago; he is smart, decent, conservative (in the Canadian sense, i.e. conservative, not reactionary, neo-Confederate, wingnut or fascist), and fwiw gay.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC) The late Tim Russert is quoted at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/schlafly.outing.reaction-KNIGHT.RIDDER as though John, the gay nurse, and Andy, the wingnut lawyer, are the same person. This is not my impression, but I cannot be absolutely sure. Certainly the gay one stuck me as a decent guy, while the lawyer doesn't. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Phyllis Schlafly lists Phyllis's six children: John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andrew and Anne (oldest to youngest). Roger, a mathematician, used to be active at Conservapedia (and occasionally edits Wikipedia) - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Politicized newspapers/tabloids are unacceptable as sources characterizing politics of a site
List of newspapers in Germany Afronig (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Practically all newspapers are politicized to some extent. The question is whether it is a reliable source or not. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel is a fine source for us, a weekly news periodical, not a tabloid rag. Our sources are allowed to have opinions. Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Environmentalism
Of all the environmentalism articles on Conservapedia, why has the Pacific Northwest tree octopus (which no longer appears there) been singled out? It looks like the least notable article. Biscuittin (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know how things work. Content sis stuck in because a good secondary source talks about it. We can't go searching a site for tidbits we like - that is WP:Original Research and also carries no weight as only secondary sources give weight. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've also been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it is being manipulated. Biscuittin (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You need a secondary source and you haven't produced one. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be because you don't want people to read the Conservapedia article, in case they believe it? Biscuittin (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect it's due to to the fact that Wikipedia have a guideline stating that articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e.: a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere, and that all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors (aka WP:WPNOTRS). WegianWarrior (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly as WegianWarrior says. I have always advocated good coverage of topics like this in Wikipedia even if they are full of pseudoscience and nonsense and am absolutely no friend of the idea that fringe stuff should be removed from the encyclopaedia because it might delude foolish people. The basic rule I am following here is that if secondary sources do not consider something as of note then we should not do so either. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But you still want to keep in this Wikipedia article a description of an internet hoax Pacific Northwest tree octopus which is no longer on Conservapedia and is referenced by a dead link. How does this make sense? Biscuittin (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't and any reference to this article should probably be removed. It also reads very out of place in the article making for poor prose. Wisdom89 ♦talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Biscuittin and Dmcq make good points. The octopus article link is dead and should at least have an archive and the claim needs a secondary source. I have edited the section to keep mention of the global warming hoax and keep mention of the octopus article, providing a secondary source and archives to the dead links, and slightly improved the prose. Unless others have further improvements to make to the section, I believe this has now been resolved. Prhartcom (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Prhartcom, that looks good to me. The secondary source refers to the 'climate change' page rather than the 'global warming' page but their climate change page extract says it is just a new phrase meaning global warming so I'm happy with referring to the global warming page instead. Dmcq (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It suits me. Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613195646/http://www.presstelegram.com/entertainment/ci_5856330 to http://www.presstelegram.com/entertainment/ci_5856330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090509194944/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/clivedavis/3594941/among-the-inmates.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/3594941/among-the-inmates.thtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009021842/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/lifestyle/2009/10/06/2009-10-06_conservapediacoms_conservative_bible_project_aims_to_deliberalize_the_bible.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/10/06/2009-10-06_conservapediacoms_conservative_bible_project_aims_to_deliberalize_the_bible.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism
Just to say that their YEC article says, in the lead,"Scientists who advocate an old earth regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as radiometric dating and biological observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many anomalies associated with the old earth/universe position." Their "Age of the Earth" article says "The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[1][2][3]" Their article on evolution - well, you get the point. Interesting, I had no idea it was that anti-scientific. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep I have the occasional look at the site, it is fascinatingly weird and reminds me of how strange human nature is. However we can't use Conservapedia itself as a source for anything unless a reliable secondary source talks about it and points to the stuff, and we're supposed to write up things according to the weight in such sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A page you might like is which in the ten guidelines gives a picture of the kind of world they want. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely that we can't use it as a source for YEC support. And you're basically right about the rest, but there are exceptions. Scary link. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While I find Conservapedia an interesting website to explore minority views, their sourcing seems to be worse than the average Wikipedia article. Their article on Young Earth Creationism includes 91 citations, but few of them actually mention which book, author, or website is being cited. For example, the article contains two citations το a page called "Question evolution!", which are used to support the existence of a "grass-roots movement" of Young Earth Creationists. The link actually links to a page in the wider website "creation.com", maintained by Creation Ministries International. There are also multiple links to a website maintained by Answers Magazine, a publication of the Answers in Genesis organization. Most of these links do not seem to link to any specific article. Conservapedia lists this among its featured articles despite its sourcing problems.

Another featured Conservapedia article is that on Wikipedia. Its lede includes the following sentence: "Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy." The citation fails to explain who is doing the criticism. It leads to a 2011 article by someone called David Swindle, who is writing for FrontPage Magazine. The publication seems to be owned by David Horowitz.

Frankly, I do not mind the anti-scientific bias that much, but the fact is that I have seen pages on Memory Alpha with better sourcing. Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not exactly surprising. With the opprobrium one would get from the fan base on Memory Alpha for getting anything wrong their articles are often far better sourced than Wikipedia ones! :) Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Come. Is this kind of discussion fit for the talk-page? Some of you may not agree with CP (I don't agree with most of their viewpoints myself), but do you have the right to use the talkpage for expressing those disagreements? I have retired from editing, but thought I might post this comment. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are posting, you haven't retired from editing. - Nunh-huh 08:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's no reply to my question.68.100.116.118 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isn't. It was an observation. - Nunh-huh 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Will someone then answer my question? Isn't this inappropriately using the talk page as a forum? 68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They have expressed an opinion about it but did not go on about it. They were not disruptive. The discussion had ended two weeks before you came along. You put in your question about a forum three times and attack other editors. So my answer to you is no I am happy enough if people get a bit of their exasperation off their chest provided they then stop. I see no need to start criticizing unless people go on and on. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that what the rules of Wikipedia are? I was not attacking other editors(I don't approve of the Conservapedia project myself), but I want to know if this discussion follows the rules. Does the rule state that there is an exception if the talk is not disruptive? Does it only apply to disruptive discussions? 68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "rules" of Wikipedia dictate that any opinions in the article space are referenced and attributed to reliable sources. The rules for talk pages are more relaxed, allowing the expression of opinions in order to facilitate the work on articles. If expressing unattributable personal opinion on the talk page keeps it out of the article, that's a valid function for the talk page. It can be frustrating for reasonable people to deal with unreasonable fringe theories, and it can be frustrating for people to know that the theories expressed within Conservapedia are counterfactual and yet, because of the relative obscurity of Conservapedia and the lack of reliable sources paying attention to it, be unable to find serious media evaluations acknowledging that. Some of this frustration may then be manifested here on the talk page.  What you see here does not seem to me to be excessive or to violate Wikipedia policy. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'rules' aren't hard and fast like the laws of a country. I'll quote the first sentence of WP:POLICY here as it really summarizes everything:
 * "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."
 * WP:NOTAFORUM is about keeping on track and not disrupting. This discussion has gone off track and is continuing to do so and if you wish to continue should be done on a village pump or the talk page of WP:NOT. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006095626/http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/INSTRUCTOR/VIEW.cfm?int_instructor_id=7&INT_COURSE_ID=23&bln_registered=1 to http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/INSTRUCTOR/VIEW.cfm?int_instructor_id=7&INT_COURSE_ID=23&bln_registered=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708101500/http://www.bryanochalla.com/articles/article.aspx?article_id=135 to http://www.bryanochalla.com/articles/article.aspx?article_id=135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conservapedia.com/Special%3AStatistics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521192718/http://www.itwire.com/content/view/10160/1154/ to http://www.itwire.com/content/view/10160/1154/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420065851/http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/21/sources_sources.php to http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/21/sources_sources.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530022101/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/04/conservapedia-bastion-of-the-realitydenying-right.html to http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/04/conservapedia-bastion-of-the-realitydenying-right.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011061502/http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/24/of_bacteria_and_throw_pillows_3.php to http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/24/of_bacteria_and_throw_pillows_3.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not responding
On 27 June 2017, the www.conservapedia.com website stopped responding to inquiries normally, instead responding as follows: . The Internet Archive was able to access it the previous day per this link. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I seem to be able to access it fine. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they just blocked Puffin. How antisocial of them.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   15:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not verifiably conservative, per what is linked in the article
Self-described is the accurate phrase to use.

Disbelieving in the theory of relativity or believing King James is the only true biblical version (even though the Bible was not written in English) is not conservative. It's arguably indicative of mental illness. RationalWiki does a great job in pointing out that many of the extreme editors may be "parodists". YouCanDoAnything (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources are needed for any definition of real conservatism, otherwise this is original research. The site represents a specific, Christian right subset of conservatism, but it's definitely supported by reliable sources as being conservative. I don't know of any sources disputing this. This is not presented by sources exclusively as on opinion, but as a simple statement of fact. We shouldn't cast doubt on their self-description without a better reason, otherwise this is weasel wording. I don't think the lede suggests that all conservatives hold these beliefs, which of course would be factually incorrect, but if that's the issue, we should include reliable sources explaining this point. Without that, this reads as slightly defensive, or worse, as a no true Scotsman attempt to narrow the definition of 'conservative' to be more flattering. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Grayfell. Editors opinions are worth squat compared to reliable sources on Wikipedia. You would need some reliable source explicitly saying they are not conservative to balance the strength of the sources here. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John"
This description somewhat begs the question. In all likelihood, the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was an old tradition which was not originally part of any larger book, and so was later slotted into John to preserve it. To say that it's categorically "in" John without any further explanation is to conceal the existence of many scholarly controversies. AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The source citation link has rotted so I don't know what it said unfortunately and I can't see it via google or archive.org. If there is a dispute over what this signifies I guess it would be okay to delete. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't pay any attention to the source (only looked at the Jesus and the woman taken in adultery article, which confirmed what I already knew), and am not asking for it to be deleted, just for more careful wording which doesn't ignore a contested issue. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130202045659/http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-5117-sickopedia.html to http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-5117-sickopedia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda
This article is playing down how extreme and inaccurate Conservapedia is. Conservapedia is a propaganda site which is masquerading as an encyclopedia. It isn't merely an encyclopedia from a conservative point of view. It is obsessed with demonising liberalism, homosexuality and atheism - saying that they go together and they blame them for all sorts of things, including crime, obesity, poverty and mental disorders. It paints every conservative as brilliant and every liberal as evil. It claims that evolution is pseudoscience, that every species of animal (including penguins and polar bears) boarded a boat together in the Middle East and that people had lifespans of hundreds of years merely because it says so in the Bible (which they treat as a historical book) and that the world is only a few thousand years old. They categorise George Tiller as a murderer and state that Stephen Paddock was a liberal atheist. Any real encyclopedia would not state such things as facts. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are supposed o just summarize what is said in reliable sources about a topic. If you know of some sources that say any of that about Conservapedia then feel free to point them out thanks. If editors wrote that sort of thing without such a basis it would be their own WP:Original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is one of the things that makes most of Wikipedia's articles reasonably factual and not trashy rubbish like Conservapedia. See WP:5P for a summary of the main principles underlying Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the current intro of this article vs Rationalwiki which on the opposite end of the aisle and more popular. I think you'll find the generosity you seem to think Conservapedia is getting as a bit overrated. Jarwulf (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't a contest, and false balance isn't the goal. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, its about systematically frontloading articles about rightwing organizations with overwhelmingly negative info and not doing the same with their left wing counterparts, while claiming that there is some universal consensus or objective fact that justifies this but never actually providing such evidence. Jarwulf (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your response to a months-old post on an obscure Wikipedia talk page is noted. What sources for positive information about Conservapedia do you have? Otherwise, this is just kvetching. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see they've said the same at WP:VPP. The answer basically if they think that is to provide objective criteria comparing the articles using reliable sources. Sometimes a feeling does indicate something about the real world but too often they just indicate the biases of the person complaining. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki is "more popular" because it has a decent number of active users and updates frequently. Conservapedia has a history of banning its most active users for little to no reason, and has a dwindling community of users. The front page of the website has received no updates since "18 August 2015" (quoting the website), and by far the most active current editor is "User:Aschlafly" (Andrew Schlafly himself). Cornservapedia's Alexa rank is currently 73,952nd, and it ranks 17,689th among United States-websites. It does not seem to attract many visitors, nor does it get as much press attention as it used to. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the reason why the main page hasn't been edited for so long is that the two templates on the main page (where the news feed, popular articles, etc., are at) are transcluded there, and it's the templates that are constantly edited. Also, there are at least five editors who are significantly more active than Andrew Schlafly. He does very little CP editing compared to the others. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this chart created by RW itself, 1,000 editors made nearly 100,000 edits in 2017, and seven editors were more active than Schlafly that year (comparison with RW). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Harmful lies
Does anyone agree that Conservapedia is full of lies? The site is not even a conservative or Christian site. Rather, it is some sort of cult. Even fundamentalists would be appalled by the site. 2600:1:F150:C875:A028:D0FF:A611:83FB (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's Christian creationist, but not all conservatives are Creationists. In any case, we'd need reliable sources discussing it, not our opinions. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let the fundamwntalosts speak for themselves I say:}Charles (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they'd definitly not approve of the socalled Conservative Bible Project for sure. And extremly few of them would say Obama is a Muslim not from Hawaii. 2600:1:F150:C875:A028:D0FF:A611:83FB (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Bias
47.147.16.228 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)An encyclopedia founded on the belief that people are basically good cannot be “unbiased.”

August 22, 2011 David Swindle

[copy from https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle removed]


 * I don't know why you copied part of a 2011 article at frontpagemag.com but I have removed it as a copyright violation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Frontpage Magazine describe themselves quite well in their "who we are" page . "1. Identify the enemy 2. Devise ways to defeat him". Hardly a reliable source but I guess it would be possible to use something from it, what kind of content is being proposed for inclusion in the article? It doesn't say much about Conservapedia that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

WND as opinion source
I removed a quote of Joseph Farah which was sourced to WorldNet Daily. This is not a reliable source, even for an opinion. could you please explain your reversion? –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well WorldNet Daily certainly can't be called a reliable source! However I wonder if Joseph Farah can be considered as a recognized expert on things conservative. Dmcq (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Farah is a notable person (if you disagree, start an AfD) who runs a conservative/Christian-right website, so his opinion on an explicitly conservative/Christian topic (the C.B.P.) is notable and a good idea to include in the article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is notable or has a Wikipedia article does not mean that his opinion is sufficiently prominent to be included in this article. We should only consider inclusion if it has been published in a reliable secondary source. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. But his notability as a commentator needs to be established. Just running a website doesn't confer that. Robynthehode (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Farah is clearly established as a commentator, as his page makes clear. His opinion doesn't have to be in a "reliable secondary source" in order to include his opinion as an opinion, if he is a notable figure on his own right (and he is also notable as a commentator on WND and elsewhere like The Jerusalem Post). Also, notable commentators usually do not get quoted in major, mainstream newspapers, but usually write on their own blogs and websites (that goes for people of all political/religious persuasions). Besides, if we followed the standard you're advocating, that would result in having to delete the opinions of everybody else in that paragraph except Rod Dreher. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was initially focused on the red-flag WND source, but on further inspection it does appear that the entire paragraph consists of the non-notable opinions of columnists. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The word 'notable' or anything like it does not occur anywhere in WP:Reliable sources. As far as I can see the most relevant part of the guideline is the first entry in WP:NEWSORG about recognized experts. If that is agreed then the opinion can be put in and attributed to the person. Dmcq (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have used "prominent" instead of "notable." It's a combination of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT: We give weight to a viewpoint based on its prominence in reliable sources, and the opinions of Farah and other columnists have not been published in reliable sources. I would also question Farah's status as an expert. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again agree with ☎ Robynthehode (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at WP:RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you've removed the entry again. I haven't a big problem with that but I do have with your reason being weight. In the context that editor probably has far greater weight than most more reliable sources would have. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT concerns viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources; the concept of an individual "having greater weight" is not supported by policy. Has the viewpoint "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible" been published by a reliable source? –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the editor is a reliable source is what the business at WP:RSN is about, if not then it fails on WP:RS grounds, if it okay then it i okay on WP:RS grounds. Either way that is irrelevant to WP:WEIGHT being used to remove it here. As to what WP:WEIGHT is really about it most certainly is a majority opinion rather than a fringe or minority opinion. 18:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is a majority opinion, then it will be supported by reliable sources that say so. Keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT concerns opinions among reliable sources, not the general public. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think that "The Bible project has met with extensive criticism" as stated in the article is a minority view or fringe? Anyway have you actually read what I said at all? The question of WP:RS is to be decided at WP:RSN, you asked for it to be done there. You should not be presuming the conclusion and dragging in WP:WEIGHT. If it isn't a reliable source the sentence fails on that anyway irrespective of WP:WEIGHT. If it iis a reliable source then you can't then say reliable sources don't support it in WP:WEIGHT and we know it isn't fringe or minority from other things so WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant again. Dmcq (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reliable secondary sources, I see no evidence that this is a widespread or mainstream view. Part of the problem is that the Conservative Bible Project seems to be largely ignored by mainstream sources, which means that prominent/notable commentary is practically nonexistent. –dlthewave ☎ 12:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you do this a step at a time please. If you are saying there is no weight because there are no reliable sources you first have to establish the various sources are not reliable sources, after you have established they are not reliable sources then you can assert there is no weight - but that would then be unnecessary anyway as the sources could be removed as not reliable sources. It is unreasonable to assume there is no weight because there are no reliable sources before establishing the sources given in the article are not reliable sources. There is a noticeboard WP:NPOVN if you want to check up on that. Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we consider WND a reliable primary source for Farah's opinion, those wishing to include the content would need to demonstrate significant coverage in independent secondary sources. A single primary source does not establish WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly you are changing the basis of your objection. Secondly there are other sources in the article. Thirdly there is no such rule about the number of sources needed, that is your own opinion and you'd need some confirmation from other editors before removing sources based on that. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources, specifically, support the Farah quote? –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which citations from 96 to 100 do you see as not being aligned with the Farah quote and in what way? Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are not the issue here. WND is certainly not a reliable source for factual information, but it is a reliable source for the opinions of its columnists (i.e. Joseph Farah's own words are a reliable source on what Jospeh Farah believes). The issue is whether his view on this subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. That's debatable, as he has been a pretty big figure in conservative circles, but he's never been a Limbaugh or Hannity. -R. fiend (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Farah's prominence in conservative circles is irrelevant here. We follow the prominence of this particular quote among reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Farah is the point here, not WND. We know WND is not in general a reliable source, but is Farah one for this type of subject was the question. In general we look at the newspaper or magazine because the author is an unknown but here the author is well known but the magazine tends to be rubbish. This is covered in section 1 of WP:NEWSORG. Or to put it another way in is he of sufficient prominence in this area that his opinions are highly regarded on this particular type of topic? Is this what you want a citation for the citation for, to establish his credentials? Really that would be more some reliable source establishing his prominence in Conservative and Bible type matters for this talk page as it would have no place in the article. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're claiming that Farah himself is a reliable source, you would need to provide reliable sources that support that assertion. I would suggest providing them here and also at the current WP:RSN discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 13:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A good question. So I went to Google Scholar and put in '"Joseph Farah" Bible' and it seems despite his numerous self-published books on the Bible he only gets a little attention for that and not from anything we'd call a reliable source, but he is cited and quoted a number of times about the Tea Party movement because of his book on that. I think that establishes his credentials on conservatism but I don't think there would be any reliable source saying he is an authority on the Bible or christianity. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Is Wrong
You're telling me you re-wrote the Bible to fit your political viewpoints? So you guys are basically just completely removing words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus Himself just so it fits your political opinions. If the Bible is inspired by God does that mean you're saying God is wrong? Messed up, man, messed up. Keaga (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. We are not affiliated with Conservapedia but have an article about them and describe what they do. It does not mean we support it. We have five million articles about all sorts of things. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * PrimeHunter Well I feel silly now. I should've known. Sorry. Keaga (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Our article on List of genocides by death toll does not mean that we are fans of genocides either. Just to be clear. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Though it could be argued that our (many) articles on Star Trek and Star Wars indicates that there are fans of those running loose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Bible is inspired by God? I suppose we probably do have a WP:Reliable source saying the Bible is inspired by God, and we should follow WP:Verifiability, not truth. Or should that be the other way round. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"If the Bible is inspired by God" More likely inspired by entheogens and the religious experiences associated with them. And good-old psychosis could account for a lot of the visions and false prophesies of the Bible.:
 * " A 2012 paper suggested that psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms may be possible explanations for revelatory driven experiences and activities such as those of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Saint Paul. " Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote on liberalism from Conservapedia
The quote from Conservapedia on Liberalism was updated to reflect the latest entry from two days ago. Besides reading badly so it will probably be changed again soon I don't believe we should be monitoring Conservapedia this way. It should reflect what was the case when the citation referring to it was written if anything and only a link put in to Conservapedia if people should look for the latest version. I don't think it really makes sense to just say it has changed since and pluck a version from Conservapedia. I don't know if there is some guideline about this - anyone know anything relevant? Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Relativity
Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,

This is incorrect. In the actual article on conservapedia, all they do is mention that multiple politicians use the theory of relativity as justification for moral relativism. 180.190.182.168 (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reliable source WP:RS to counter the source in the article? Editors on Wikipedia can't just draw their own conclusions and write them into articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to set up one's own userpage
Could this article point out that it is more difficult to set up a userpage on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia - I keep typing in passwords at Conservapedia, only to get told they do not match. Also, I do no think one is allowed to create new pages on Conservapedia unless logged in with a user page. Vorbee (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want this Wikipedia article to say anything about this difficulty you will need to find a WP:SECONDARY source describing the problem. Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons with Wikipedia concerning categorisation
Could this article point out that, unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not have a category "Living people"? I have brought up the question of whether there should be such a category on Conservapedia, only to be told there would be no point in having such a one in CP, it would be worthless and it would have to be updated every time some one dies. Vorbee (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a relevant comparison to me. One could probably find hundreds of thousands of tiny ways in which the two encyclopedias differ, but we only cover the ones that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. –dlthewave ☎ 19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Socialism
The new section on Socialism seems solely based on a conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper and two citations of Conservapedia itself. Anyone got a better source to cite or should it just be removed? Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've figured out what the first citation was supposed to be and it doesn't even mention Conservapedia, it is something that was cited in the Conservapedia article. So it doesn't support including the section and I'll remove it. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I did wonder if this edit might be controversial, and I probably should have started a discussion first. In defence of this edit, it just presents what is said on Conservapedia. I have never heard of Milton William Cooper and in my judgement he is totally irrelevant here. This article is about Conservapedia, so quoting from it is relevant to an encyclopaedia article. Surely it is fairer (more neutral) to use Conservapedia's own words here than those of a liberal commentator. Dmcq can you define what would be a better source for a case like this?


 * I'm looking into your second comment. Rwood128 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm interested to know what I'm doing wrong here. I have been editing for many years but know that I don't know everything. Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a reason to "just present what is said on Conservapedia". WP:WEIGHT is established by what aspects of the subject receive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Wikipedia editor deciding that one particular bit of content on Conservapedia is more worthy of note than others gets into original research. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Rhododendrites  for clarifying this. I'm afraid that I had a bee in my bonnet. Rwood128 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We could fill an article many times over with the stupidities on Conservapedia except we have to follow policies like that. I just had a look today and their most read article was on vaccines saying how dangerous they are and how the government and big pharma conspire to hurt peoples children. Sometimes I just want some Chinese type autocrat to come along and send them all to a reeducation center. I sympathize about the bee in your bonnet. But those policies are what keep Wikipedia trustworthy rather than just another angry voice on the web. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments Dmcq. I heartily agree with what you say about the need to keep high standards on Wikipedia. Foolishly I edited the Obama article on Conservapedia–trying to insist on citations–and got banned for life. Rwood128 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that we need to remember the common sense approach comes before Wikipedia Policy. This is a politically charged subject matter that is so polar that it just simply isn't pragmatic to utilize political commentators as a source for what is supposed to be fact- as then we have the whole business of separating opinion from fact, which is unweilding at best. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for NPOV Review
I nominate this article to be checked for complete compliance with WP:NPOV. This article appears to violate NPOV given that the subject matter and references appear to be highly politically charged. It seems that a lot of the reference citations contain material which is opinion material that has no place in a citation on Wikipedia, or at minimum, needs clear attribution and exact wording to avoid potential misconstruction. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinions very properly have a place in Wikipedia. If you will read the explanation in WP:NPOV. As it says 'Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects.' Perhaps you could expand a bit more on why exactly you think WP:NPOV have been violated? Also on Wikipedia material should be summarized by editors not copied in general. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources actually requires us to use opinionated sources.:

The problem I see that violates NPOV is the fact that because there is an apparent feud between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, it becomes that Wikipedians understandably have a conflict of interest in the matter, and therefore things become quite suspect of being anything but "Neutral", especially when "Opinion" is involved that is highly politicized. If we use attribution we avoid the problem to some extent, but we should then make an effort to cite sources that go against that position as well in order to make things truly neutral, when discussing things that have a political element. The problem here, is that I don't see conservapedia's viewpoint represented at all, except to an extent which implies the derogatory. Also, it is quite clear that the opinion column is not considered a reliable source.24.155.244.245 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have the reliable sources necessary then you're wasting time here. Instead see WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT.  Just waving hands about this or that on the talk page is pretty much WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM which we don't do here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk)I don't think your seeing the point. The problem here is that outside of what would be considered Original Research, the only thing that can be found on the subject is opinion matter on one side or the other on what seems to be extremely and highly controversial root issues that seems rooted in politics and religion. Its notable that most of Conservapedia's articles have a significant minorty viewpoint to support them, but this article currently seems to attempt to promote that there isn't any support whatsoever, which is intellectually dishonest. My point here is that this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources that rely on what is clearly pre-established narrative of the major political parties and/or various religions. I also am taking note here that Atheism can be considered a religion in so far as it promotes a specific viewpoint. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your complaint that "this article consists of nothing BUT consistently unreliable sources" still falls within WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. If you go through the cited references and believe one does not comply with WP:Reliable sources you can delete it, or ask about it on the talk page first,  or ask about it at the WP:RSN first.  But proceed slowly please, else you might accidentally appear to be doing vandalism of stuff you don't like.  If you do find cites that violate RS then we'll be in your debt for cleaning them up.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

But given the consensus here, I will withdraw the NPOV issue and edit the article for clear attribution here, which seems to be the consensus here. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is not "the consensus", and you are now edit-warring. Attribution is not necessary in all cases, and this is substantial overuse of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To further elaborate, I'm not clear what your concern it is. You've often mentioned "opinion pieces", but checking a couple of them that you're trying to attribute, I find these two: and . Neither of those are opinion pieces. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Cannot correct town name on Conservapedia
Their page Arkancide contains cases connected to the German town of Wiesbaden. It is incorrectly written there "Weisbaden". I do not wish to register as an editor. Source: Map. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:E1C2:7861:28AD:B875 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You would need to discuss it there. (Though honestly, Conservapedia gets very little traffic, and I probably wouldn't bother.) Conservapedia is entirely independent of Wikipedia; we don't have any control over them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a contributor at both wikis, and I don't see "weisbaden" written on any pages. It appears the Arkancide article was created this month, so perhaps it was an older version of the article? As stated by Seraphimblade, Conservapedia is unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Election
Conservapedia's views on the recent election, and associated events, are worthy of comment, surely. Rwood128 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any WP:RS coverage? What content do you suggest, based on it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only source that I found, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, is Conservapedia itself at , and articles on Trump, Biden, etc. Does Wikipedia prefer not to use a primary source in a case like this? Their view on the current US weather cold weather crisis is equally strange. Rwood128 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. WP is generally only interested if a decent WP:RS notice it and bothers to write something about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That sounds sensible (and sane)! Rwood128 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , according to RS, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Quotations from Conservapedia (and other concerns)
There are multiple instances of quotations from Conservapedia, and when I checked two, I found the quotations inaccurate. The problem, of course, is that Conservapedia, like Wikipedia, changes frequently. I have some concerns about such quotations and related issues.

First, statements on Conservapedia are ephemeral, and it seems to me that quoting something as "current" is inviting error before long.

Second, statements on Conservapedia reflect a range of posters and not necessarily the site itself. Consider, for example, how many racist or homophobic remarks have been posted on Wikipedia as acts of vandalism. It would be accurate to state that "Wikipedia frequently uses racist language," I think, but it would also be grossly misleading to make the claim without further asserting that almost every instance is reverted within seconds.

Third, finding errors on Conservapedia or claims that contradict, say, established scientific views is trivial. It's not that hard to do the same on Wikipedia.

Fourth, outdated claims on Wikipedia--such as the statement "The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing', since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, 'the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible'" are proved outdated. (I checked the Conservapedia version of the Bible, and the quotation is, more or less, in there ("Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.").

Fifth, Conservapedia has a wealth of information (including misinformation). How do we select what to rebut? For example, the claim that abortion leads to breast cancer is covered, but there is no mention of the claim that the suffix "-ic" cannot be added to a proper noun to form an adjective (https://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party) despite words like "German" and "Germanic" or "Slav" and "Slavic."

To be clear, I'll expose my bias. I enjoy Conservapedia. I find it amusing for the absurdity of many of its claims. That said, it seems to me that this page seems to jettison encyclopedic style in favor of piling on. In the process, it uses false (meaning no longer correct) statements to do so.

I suggest a revision that focuses on Conservapedia's stated aims and outside criticisms (such as those of Zimmer et al.) would be an improvement over the current approach, which seems to rely on original research in the sense that it appears people went to Conservapedia, looked up some of the absurd claims, and then found easy-to-find sources to rebut those claims.

I realize that this request may be rambling, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the page.174.195.138.25 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I comment here because it's relevant to the above: an example is the Liberalism subsection that is an original summary of a primary source (their article on it). It's not necessarily a wrong interpretation but should ideally be that of a secondary source that highlights the projected stereotype.  I know of various sources that treat of this but since they're not about Conservapedia and don't mention it, using such would also result in synthesis.  I find it rather difficult to find good sources that are really about Conservapedia, it appears to be mostly ignored by the mainstream.  Similarly, there are good sources about the friction against the world and fundamentalist cults that could help reframe Conflict with scientific views, but again, they don't mention Conservapedia (although at least there are some news and magazines there currently, versus about the authors' idea of "liberalism")...  A source that comes to mind is about "the gospel of the liberal media", but there's still no mention of Conservapedia there.  What do other editors think of this one for the liberalism subsection?  It does mention the misleading stereotype that is touted although it's only a student paper.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a complete list of all the circumstances under which we should include quotations from Conservapedia:
 * None omitted.
 * It's a fringe website founded on denial of reality. And by now, it's also a fascist website. If reliable sources discuss what they have said, then quote what the reliable sources say about them, but don't quote Conservapedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm it's unclear how the article was promoted to GA status, the milestones doesn't list the successful review. But this is the type of issue that either was overlooked or introduced afterwards, perhaps...  I found: Talk:Conservapedia/GA1 (state then on 27 June 2008), Featured article candidates/Conservapedia/archive1.  Is there another I've missed?  Maybe a candidate for WP:GAR...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm it's unclear how the article was promoted to GA status, the milestones doesn't list the successful review. But this is the type of issue that either was overlooked or introduced afterwards, perhaps...  I found: Talk:Conservapedia/GA1 (state then on 27 June 2008), Featured article candidates/Conservapedia/archive1.  Is there another I've missed?  Maybe a candidate for WP:GAR...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the categorization of Conservapedia as a conspiracist medium
Should the subject of this article be categorized with Category:Conspiracist media?  Free Media  Kid!  09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. They regularly promote conspiracy theories on most of their pages. A topical example would be United States presidential election, 2020, where the opening sentence is The 2020 United States presidential election was held on November 3, 2020, but Democrat political machines stuffed the ballot box with millions of mail-in ballots, many improperly cast. In fact, the entire article is promoting one huge conspiracy theory. Similarly you could pick their Coronavirus article, which has in the lead, Early treatment of this disease by hydroxychloroquine has been reportedly successful in dozens of studies[3] and numerous individual situations. India, for example, uses hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis[4] and has one of the smallest mortality rates per million residents of any country.[5] In the United States, liberal government officials have impeded its widespread use to minimize potential credit to Trump in an election year, resulting in a skyrocketing mortality rate higher than in many comparable, but much poorer, countries. The site as a whole overwhelmingly pushes conspiratorial narratives. — Czello 09:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They have 50,000 articles. I doubt "They regularly promote conspiracy theories on most of their pages". I didn't find a single conspiracy theory in 20 clicks of https://conservapedia.com/Special:Random. But all 20 gave the same page so it wasn't that random... PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Need sources to add that Above comment by User:Czello looks like WP:OR. Furthermore, as a matter of editorial taste, it would look bad to characterize an arguable competitor that way without overwhelming support from sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Despite Conservapedia presenting incorrect, contrary to science and politically motivated content it requires reliable sources to state it is conspiratorial. Robynthehode (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources needed that call the site conspiratorial. While I've been to Conservapedia before and seen plenty of crazy things, my personal experience would be WP:OR. I agree with and ., would you happen to have any such sources handy? ―  Tartan357  Talk 09:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources needed per above editors saying sources are needed. Idealigic (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * NO: independent sourcing is needed to support the conspiracy claim. The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Yes Per the sources listed by Psygremlin. They promote several conspiracy theories. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Agree with Dimadick, sources have been provided. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The sourcing provided so far is insufficient. Conservapedia is a big place with plenty of pages. A source saying that "Conservapedia contains an article that contains a conspiracy theory" (specific) isn't the same as a source saying that Conservapedia is conspiracist media (general). Otherwise, I'm sure Wikipedia would make the cut too, as there have been plenty of conspiracy theories here, and I'd be surprised if some of them haven't been reported on. Also, mediabiasfactcheck.com isn't reliable. R2 (bleep) 21:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as per sources provided. Plenty of pages include content that could be considered conspiracy theories and there are sources describing the website as a whole as such. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes: other than the proposed sources which could also help to expand a bit the article, the current text already mentions conspiracy theories in the lead. The category would therefore not contradict it and would be legitimate.  Another question may be if Conservapedia is mainly known for promoting conspiracy theories.  A number of conservative and religious sites do not go as far as Conservapedia in this sense.  The whole "encyclopedia" is filled with incredible claims, not only about Wikipedia or liberals, but also in relation to apocalypticism, the New World Order, 9/11, Deep State, education; about science (vaccines, climate, medicine, COVID-19, ...) and failure of creationists to publish successfully in scientific journals (others are always to blame), etc.  A lot is also pseudohistory with its share of embedded conspiracy theories.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with RSes per everyone else. Although I personally believe that it is one, it must be properly sourced. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * no There are no sources that actually call Conservapedia as a "conspiracist website", so this label would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH desmay (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really??? But yes for labelling as promoting pseudoscience. I think the political misinformation is less concerning than the major scientific inaccuracies on that site, such as the promotion of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as effective cures for COVID-19, and the downplaying of COVID vaccines, global warming, the age of the earth and evolution, and the association of said topics with atheists and/or liberals. Félix An (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources, to overcome the OR requirement
How's that for a start? The problem is that Conservapedia has become an echo chamber for 5 angry white guys, and is ignored by everybody, especially their new target market of the alt-right, Trump-land crowd, so getting any up-to-date impartial sourcing on the conspiracies they spew will be difficult. Psygremlin (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * New Scientist - "they view [General Relativity] as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy."
 * The Atlantic - "E=mc2 Is a Liberal Conspiracy Against Jesus"
 * Not Exactly Normal - "Conservapedia: The Encyclopedia for Conspiracy Theorists"
 * Media Bias /fact Check lists Conservapedia as "A questionable source [that] exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news."
 * Houston Press - Conservapedia: The Search for the Truth Ends Here. Makes reference to Obama being "reportedly" born in Hawaii, and entry which remains on their page today.
 * There is unfortunately nothing in those sources that unequivocally state that Conservapedia is conspiracist (Not Exactly Normal is not RS afaict). I think that the threshold for categorization should be relatively high and I don't think it is met in this case. Im The IP  (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to have to concede that while Conservapedia is known for harboring conspiracy theories, there are not as many sources saying that conspiracy theories are a defining characteristic of the website. I can see myself settling for Category:Websites with far-right material, but that website seems more oriented to the Christian community than to right-wing enthusiasts, and far-right may imply that the website contains fascist, neo-Nazi, or racist content, which clearly is not the case. In the end, it seems Conservapedia is one of those websites that were known for their time before they were overtaken by The Gateway Pundit, InfoWars, Breitbart News, and the like, and have since received very occasional coverage.  Free Media  Kid!  01:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lack of independent sources seems to be a general issue. Last week I collected sources to eventually improve the article with but most were from around 2007 (and among those, most were suboptimal IRT what WP considers reliable).  Various do mention conspiracies though.  Not helping is that the site was also targetted by satirical vandals, with some sources reporting about that altered content...  As for the Christian orientation, it is more a particular fundamentalist variant that also embraces Young Earth Creationism and considers mainstream media and public education as corrupt and evil.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that these sources are independent and talking about this website?  killer bee    08:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They all would be, unless by Conservapedia, Rationalwiki or affiliated people. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh. I can find sources identifying it as a promoter of specific conspiracy theories (e.g. birtherism, but over the past year the reality-based media has all but ignored conservapedia as far as I can tell. I found a fawning puff-piece on Andrew Schlafly in the [[Daily Telegraph|Brexiter Beobachter], but that's about it. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment/Question on the issue of sourcing

 * Do we really need to have reliable sources that state such and such just to place an article in a Category? My opinion is this should not be a requirement, and especially not for straightforward up/down questions such as this (they either do or they don't, and as has been shown they clearly do, so 'tis barely (just barely) original research. Of course we would need an RS to say in the article text that they are a doer of this thing, but I don't think we ought need one for just categorising the article. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Categpries should reflect the article's text, rather than an editor's opinion. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
I think it should be categorized as a pseudoscientific medium if possible (because it promoted alternate cures for COVID-19 and downplayed vaccines and evolution), as that is a far greater concern than the political viewpoints expressed on the site. Félix An (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I was WP:BOLD and did it already. Félix An (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fake news website
A surprising amount of edit warring going on. If you want this category to be here, find sources which explicitly call it a fake news website and add them to the article. Fake news websites are not just any site that publishes false statements. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Easy: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conservapedia/ – (debate me) (my accomplishments) 03:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MBFC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While the "psuedoscience" and "conspiracy theory" category tags are covered by existing sources in the article, I don't see any that make a strong case for "fake news." While I'd agree that Conservapedia is extremely right-biased, I don't think it falls in the same category as the sites listed on List of fake news websites (e.g., World News Daily Report and the various sites with names misleadingly similar to real news outlets). OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "fake" part is correct, but the "news" part is dubious. It's a fake encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Additions?
Are these items worth adding. Views on the war in Ukraine, and Putin, transgender issues, Covid 19 and lockdowns, that Michelle Obama is a man. Maybe added to the ideology section? There is an interesting essay on "open mindedness" on Conservapedia. Does more need saying on Conervapedia's views on women's place in society, the clothes that they should wear, etc? The current tone of the article is admirably retrained. Rwood128 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, unless there’s a reliable source. Conservapedia exists to fish controversy from Wikipedia so we shouldn’t play into their trolling no matter how “lulzy” it might be to us “lamestreamers”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was concerned that this might be counter-productive.Rwood128 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracist
Re the recent removal of the word " conspiracist" from the opening sentence. While Conservapedia does have many encyclopaedia-style articles, it also works in some areas more like a conspiracy theory blog. The article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a prime example, 99% of which has been created by one editor. Here the view is that Putin is involved in a "holy" war against naziism. Covid articles is another area where conspiracy theories are central, as is the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. One of the most absurd is that Michelle Obama is a man, or transgender, and that the Obamas are a homosexual couple. Maybe "conspiracist" can be restored with the addition of a more explicit source? The word "encyclopaedia" is used as a facade. Rwood128 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with conspiracist being in the lead sentence. While the website clearly promotes conspiracy theories, that's not what it's primarily known for. Indeed, having it that early on seems WP:UNDUE to me. I suggest moving it to later on in the lead, probably the second paragraph, with wording along the lines of Conservapedia promotes numerous conspiracy theories, such as the belief the 2020 US election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden and the Great Reset theory. Or any of the other conspiracies they promote. — Czello 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with you suggestion. Rwood128 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)