Wikipedia

Talk:Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,884,846 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.
 
(86 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Notice|Conservapedia is not down, many users receive errors when visiting because their IP range is blocked by admins of the site.[https://web.archive.org/web/20110511133845/http://cp.noym.net/727da2ed][http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia#403_errors]}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Article history|action1=AFD
Line 54:
|currentstatus=GA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Websites|class=GA|importance=low|computing-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Wikipedia|class=GA|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=GA|importance=midlow}}
{{WikiProject ChristianityPolitics|classimportance=GAmid|American=yes |American-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=GAChristianity|importance=Lowmid}}
{{WikiProject CreationismUnited States|classimportance=GALow}}
{{WikiProject Creationism |importance=Low|Young Earth creationism=yes |Young Earth creationism-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Reference works Books|classreferencework=GAyes |importance=Low}}
{{WP1.0|class=GA|importance=Low|v0.7=pass|category=engtech}}
}}
{{Press
Line 73:
|author6=Rowan Scarborough|title6=Wikipedia Whacks the Right|url6=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39139|date6=2010-09-27|org6=Human Events
|collapsed=yes}}
{{Conservatism SAstt}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}
 
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|index=/Archive index}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 89 ⟶ 88:
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Conservatism in the United States#Social conservatism and tradition|American conservative]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Social conservatism and tradition) has been [[Special:Diff/937735391|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Social conservatism and tradition","appear":{"revid":80623387,"parentid":80623333,"timestamp":"2006-10-10T14:59:32Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Social conservatism and tradition","Fiscal conservatism","Economic liberalism","Conservatism in the United States electoral politics","Conservative geography, \"Red States\"","Other topics","Conservatism and change","Contemporary conservative platform","Conservatism and the Courts","Semantics, language, and media","Language","Radio","Television","Conservative political movements","Criticism","References","Intellectual History","Political activity","Critical views","Biographical","Recent Politics","Neoconservatism","Critical views 2","Primary sources","See also","Outside USA","External links"]},"disappear":{"revid":937735391,"parentid":937707044,"timestamp":"2020-01-26T23:29:53Z","replaced_anchors":{"Social conservatism and tradition":"Social conservatism and traditionalism"},"removed_section_titles":["Social conservatism and tradition","Reagan","Admission to academe"],"added_section_titles":["Social conservatism and traditionalism","Reagan Era","Admission to academia"]},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Social conservatism and traditionalism"} -->
}}
 
== Spelling ==
== 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. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:AC99:3B00:E1C2:7861:28AD:B875|2001:8003:AC99:3B00:E1C2:7861:28AD:B875]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 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. [[User:PCHS-NJROTC|<span style="color: red; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">PCHS-NJROTC</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:PCHS-NJROTC|<span style="color: black; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">(Messages)Have a blessed day.</span>]]</sup> 03:28, 23 December 2019 (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."
 
We certainly should be using American spelling [[User:Partofthemachine|Partofthemachine]] – no leftist bias on Wikipedia. [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 20:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
 
:https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spelling
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.
: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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0|2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0]] ([[User talk:2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0|talk]]) 12:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 
▲== CannotContent correct town name onof Conservapedia ==
I realize that this request may be rambling, but I wanted to voice my concerns about the page.[[Special:Contributions/174.195.138.25|174.195.138.25]] ([[User talk:174.195.138.25|talk]]) 00:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 
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. [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 13:54, 9 August 2022 (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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thelantern.com/2008/03/truth-behind-professors-beliefs/|title=Truth behind professors' beliefs|date=March 25, 2008|first=Anthony|last=Dipietro|newspaper=The Lantern}}</ref> Thanks, —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 13:20, 19 December 2020 (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. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
 
::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. [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
== RfC on the categorization of Conservapedia as a conspiracist medium ==
:::We state, in the infobox at least, that it's a wiki by volunteer contributors. That sort of covers it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Indeed. It would be interesting to know the number of active editors.[[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
:This article seems to be pretty bias and slanderous. [[Special:Contributions/35.151.181.162|35.151.181.162]] ([[User talk:35.151.181.162|talk]]) 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
::That's probably because of [https://www.conservapedia.com/Professor_values Professor values]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 
== Anything on a Flat Earth? ==
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=C892277}}
Should the subject of this article be categorized with [[:Category:Conspiracist media]]? '''[[User:FreeMediaKid!|<span style="color:darkred">Free</span>]][[User talk:FreeMediaKid!|<span style="font-family:Times;color:DarkGreen">Media</span>]][[Special:Contributions/FreeMediaKid!|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">Kid!</span>]]''' 09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 
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.) [[User:BMJ-pdx|BMJ-pdx]] ([[User talk:BMJ-pdx|talk]]) 15:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. They regularly promote conspiracy theories on most of their pages. A topical example would be [https://conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election,_2020 United States presidential election, 2020], where the opening sentence is {{tq|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 [https://conservapedia.com/Coronavirus Coronavirus] article, which has in the lead, {{tq|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. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 09:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
:[[Donald R. Prothero]] writes in his book "Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future": {{tq|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!)}}
:: 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... [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Need:So, sourcesyes, tothey adddo, that'''and Abovewe commenthave bya [[UserWP:Czello]]RS|reliable looks like [[WP:ORsource]]. Furthermore, as a matter of editorial taste,for it. wouldDo lookyou badwant to characterize an arguable competitorinclude that wayin withoutthe overwhelming support from sources.article? --[[User:AdoringHob nannyGadling|AdoringHob nannyGadling]] ([[User talk:AdoringHob nannyGadling|talk]]) 1116:0903, 1224 DecemberSeptember 20202022 (UTC)
::Uh, have any of y'all ever read the bible? [[Special:Contributions/35.151.181.162|35.151.181.162]] ([[User talk:35.151.181.162|talk]]) 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
* Agree with {{u|Adoring nanny}}. Despite Conservapedia presenting incorrect, contrary to science and politically motivated content it requires reliable sources to state it is conspiratorial. [[User:Robynthehode|Robynthehode]] ([[User talk:Robynthehode|talk]]) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
:::Nothing about Conservapedia in the bible. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (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 {{u|Adoring nanny}} and {{u|Robynthehode}}. {{u|FreeMediaKid!}}, would you happen to have any such sources handy? ―&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 09:52, 13 December 2020 (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. [[Special:Contributions/2601:5C6:4180:3D20:20D6:CF73:3D27:59C6|2601:5C6:4180:3D20:20D6:CF73:3D27:59C6]] ([[User talk:2601:5C6:4180:3D20:20D6:CF73:3D27:59C6|talk]]) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Sources needed''' per above editors saying sources are needed. [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 12:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Science always allows}} Everybody knows that. Except possibly the Conservapedia guys. Please read [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: this page is for improving the article. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 
== Fake News Website? ==
* <s>NO: independent sourcing is needed to support the conspiracy claim. [[User:The Ace in Spades|The Ace in Spades]] ([[User talk:The Ace in Spades|talk]]) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)</s> <small>— [[User:The Ace in Spades|The Ace in Spades]] ([[User talk:The Ace in Spades|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Ace in Spades|contribs]]) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton|sock puppet]] of [[User:Waskerton|Waskerton]] ([[User talk:Waskerton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Waskerton|contribs]]). </small>
*'''Yes''' Per the sources listed by Psygremlin. They promote several conspiracy theories. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 10:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Agree with Dimadick, sources have been provided. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 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. [[User:PraiseVivec|PraiseVivec]] ([[User talk:PraiseVivec|talk]]) 13:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 
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. [[User:Internet Informant|Internet Informant]] ([[User talk:Internet Informant|talk]]) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
===Possible sources, to overcome the OR requirement===
* [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19303-emc2-not-on-conservapedia/ New Scientist] - "they view [General Relativity] as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy."
* [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/08/e-mc2-is-a-liberal-conspiracy-against-jesus/340343/ The Atlantic] - "E=mc2 Is a Liberal Conspiracy Against Jesus"
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oiq9zFHHdw Not Exactly Normal] - "Conservapedia: The Encyclopedia for Conspiracy Theorists"
* [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conservapedia/ 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."
*[https://www.houstonpress.com/news/conservapedia-the-search-for-the-truth-ends-here-6726353 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 [https://conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama page] today.
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. [[User:Psygremlin|Psygremlin]] ([[User talk:Psygremlin|talk]]) 08:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservapedia"