Jump to content

Talk:Conservapedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleConservapedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
March 4, 2007Deletion reviewRelisted
April 9, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
April 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 15, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 15, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 15, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Spelling

[edit]

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

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spelling
Sorry, but the "leftist bias" is allowed by the rules. Don't like it, conservapedia could use some writers. I'm sure they'd appreciate you there. 2600:100F:A102:9811:1C4E:8BDD:7FB9:B5B0 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a bias of any kind, including a leftist bias, is against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (see: WP:Neutrality) unless strictly necessary to display objective truth. It is stated in the policy that information must be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" Mr. Rod2 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. NPOV does not mean what you think it means. You should actually read it instead of just linking it, especially the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI parts. Also, WP:YESBIAS. Note that "leftist bias" is in quotes in the contribution above. That is because the right-wing science haters like to call "not rejecting science the way Conservapedia does" "leftist bias".
WP:YWAB is also a good pagfe for you to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will make sure that I understand what I’m saying properly before I say it. And I will probably the read stuff you said (when I can eventually be bothered to). Mr. Rod2 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News Website?

[edit]

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

i love the lack of accountability on this article

[edit]

"b-b-but we don't have left leaning bias! we just happen to deface every single republican politicians/presidents page with misleading statesments" full of shit VerseWiki (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... no! Wikipedia reflects the mainstream press and mainstream academic sources. Conservapedia peddles too much rank pseudoscience to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. And I'm a neoliberal (Reagan, Thatcher, Bush 41). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]