Talk:Metapedia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metapedia. 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/20080205070731/http://www.sr.se/ostergotland/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=1213676 to http://www.sr.se/ostergotland/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=1213676
 * Added tag to http://www.fgj.se/Filuppladdning.asp?did=202&OmrID=4&SubID=110&SubSubID=0

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) 01:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metapedia. 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/20130515045948/http://www.mik.nrw.de/uploads/media/Verfassungsschutzbericht_2008.pdf to http://www.mik.nrw.de/uploads/media/Verfassungsschutzbericht_2008.pdf

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) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia in "see also"
I'm not sure why it's there. It isn't mentioned in the article. Is it just a way for someone to cast shade on conservapedia? I don't particularly agree with conservapedia, but they're not at all related to neo-Nazis. In fact their article on metapedia attacks metapedia.--Phil of rel (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe they compare the two because they're alternate encyclopedias to Wikipedia. A good addition would be Wikipedia's link to RationalWiki, a far-left encyclopedia, who are also considered an alternate encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't mentioned in the article If it were mentioned in the article, it wouldn't belong in see also (WP:SEEALSO). I get why it's there, though. I don't think anyone is trying to say Conservapedia is also white nationalist/neo-Nazi (or I hope not), nor that it's simply another alternative to wikipedia (there are lots of those). The connection is that it's another notable project to write a wiki-based encyclopedia from an explicitly right-wing perspective -- a different right-wing perspective, obviously, but one which is also widely criticized in mainstream media for inaccuracies/bias. Instead of overt white nationalism, it's Christian fundamentalism; instead of conspiracies and disinformation about race/history, it's conspiracies and disinformation about evolution, homosexuality, etc. Not so sure RationalWiki is sufficiently relevant, as it's another step removed. It would be relevant at Conservapedia, since it's a reaction to it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think Conservapedia should be mentioned as “see also”. They’re only tangentially related through being far-right misinformation pseudoencyclopedias and have no real connections otherwise. Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki absolutely shouldn’t be included since that would imply its somehow just as extremist as Metapedia. It’s related to Conservapedia because it was originally founded as a spoof on that site, not because it’s the “liberal equivalent”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem with lead
And other active users, can you see the recent edit war on this page?

The stable version of the lead, before disruption by this user was clear that this is an "encyclopedia" dedicated to Neo-Nazism. Now it is trying to distract readers from that fact.

Apart from this, I am objecting to the word "encyclopedia" because this word means "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically."

But Metapedia is largely dedicated in providing misinformation.

See what this source say:

"The most interesting thing about the Swedish website Metapedia – a fascist equivalent of Wikipedia – is not that it has a positive view of Adolf Hitler."

It should not be treated as anything more than a 'website'. 106.214.118.201 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well for one by saying it’s an [x] version of Wikipedia the source implicitly states it’s an encyclopedia. Secondly it’s simple structure is in the format/genre of encyclopedia. This is getting into “we need a cite to say the sky is blue” sort of territory. Dronebogus (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your desire to not include it in the category of “encyclopedia” seems like it’s meant to be a wp:POV dig on the site for being “unworthy” of being called an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By your given definition Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia because it is not a set of books. Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I fear that the OP has fallen into the No true Scotsman fallacy. Just as the Scotsman is still Scottish, even if he is completely obnoxious and a source of embarrassment to other Scottish people, an encyclopaedia is still an encyclopaedia even if it is a bad encyclopaedia made by bad people and it makes editors of other, far better, encyclopaedias cringe. It seems that the OP feels that there is an inherent dignity that comes just from being labelled an encyclopaedia and feels that Metapedia should be denied that. I might agree if that was true but it isn't. There is no dignity in being a neo-Nazi encyclopaedia. We are certainly not bigging Metapedia up by calling it what it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality and "no bias"
Wikipedia rules state that articles should be neutral in tone and without bias.

Does this article follow those rules? All I see is hate-mongering of the worst kind. 198.251.56.164 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" in Wikipedia context does not mean "some say this, some say that, and we have no idea who is right". That would be stupid. Instead, it means we tell the reader what reliable sources say without distorting it or sweeping anything under the rug. See WP:NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This page is hilariously and blatantly biased. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:A4B3:ECDE:8201:1D84 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See the response above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)