Conservapedia is a mirror project of that other Wiki, specifically the one aimed at correcting Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias. It is perhaps most (in)famous for its attempt to rewrite The Bible from a conservative perspective (yes, really). As several people have pointed out, a quick look at Conservapedia will show that it's much less about conservatism and Christianity, than power-crazed televangelist fundamentalism. And, for the last few years or so, about hating Barack Obama and Richard Dawkins.You can never be sure which portions were written by people who meant it to be taken seriously. The editors on Conservapedia are chiefly made up of three types of people: trolls adding in offensive but believable vandalism; trolls harassing other trolls; and the site's creator himself, Andrew Schlafly. (Some historically-knowledgeable Tropers may be familiar with his mother, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.)Conservapedia began its existence as a help for Schlafly's home-schooled students, and it still contains his lectures. The latest attempts at lectures only spanned a few classes rather than an entire course.It also inspired the formation of an entire wiki for skeptics, Rational Wiki, which keeps up with events on Conservapedia.As this site mainly deals with religion and politics, please choose your words carefully.
A God Am I: Despite his fanatical Christianity, Andrew Schlafly often displays this pathology, treating Conservapedia as a fiefdom with himself as lord of the manor.
Analogy Backfire: This picture, depicting a lone fireman in front of a blazing inferno as "An atheist trying to stop Christianity". So, we should root against the fireman? We should hope the fire burns everything down? Christianity's spread is destructive like fire? Atheists are the good guys? This was lampshaded in the talk page.
The Conservative Bible Project, which blatantly ignores the end of the Book of Revelation, in which God threatens anyone who changes the Bible with the plagues in the book. They claim that they're resetting the Bible back to what it was before everybody else fucked with it, thus they're they only ones actually following that passage.
Also, Revelation was written apart from the other books in the Bible long before the Bible as we know it was canonized. Most likely the curse was put in there to deter people from editing Revelation willy-nilly; thus it probably doesn't apply to the rest of the Bible.
Conservatism is the source of everything that is good in this world, and liberalism is the source of all psychological and social woes—including ones that you wouldn't usually associate with liberalism, such as (white) racism and capitalist greed. It is possible for one to pull off a Heel Face Turn, but only by converting to conservatism or by having had latent conservative qualities all along.
Andy hates Facebook and believes it is a dirty liberal site; not to mention he seems to think he's the only person who loves the Royal Family (see he likes the Royals, so logically the British don't because they're far too liberal).
"On Conservapedia, we don't censor for ideological reasons."
"The Trustworthy Wiki."
One of the site's favorite ways to describe itself is "correctly biased".
Catch Phrase: You're clueless. Open your mind. Liberal [insert negative quality]. Godspeed.
Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys: The article on France circles around this a lot, even in its most (surprisingly) positive portrayals of France its still gets painted this with such gems as:
France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein with whom they, like other countries had close economic ties, especially in the supply of nuclear technology.
Complaining About Entries You Don't Like: Their article on Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias cites as "proof" Wikipedia entries about things that aren't really all that liberal but that extreme conservatives tend to dislike. For example, they complain about there being too many entries on "silly punk bands" and so forth.
Critical Research Failure:invoked This is often invoked, because apparently all academics have a liberal bias and therefore research can't be trusted.
One of the best ones is the fact that one of the main criticism of Wikipedia which led to the creation of this site was that their preference for the Belfast Agreement over the Good Friday Agreement was evidence of Wikipedia's nefarious anti-Christian agenda. Never mind the fact that it's Northern Irish Republicans (denounced on Conservapedia as terrorists) who call it the Good Friday Agreement, while Unionists (especially intensely reactionary conservatives like British Member of Parliament Ian Paisley, who gets reasonably flattering treatment) are more inclined to use the term Belfast Agreement. In the UK media it is invariably referred to as the Good Friday Agreement/Accord.
Conservapedia seems to like the British Conservative Party. Probably just because it has the word "conservative" in the name. Nevermind that their idea of conservatism is different from America's.
They claimed Obama did this in 2009 during a speech in Austria, where he said "I don't know what the expression is in Austrian". Conservapedia flipped out and claimed "Austrian isn't a language!" However, while the official language in the country is German, their dialect is very different from the standard form of the language (example: for "chair", Austrians say Sessel instead of Stuhl), so Obama's statement is accurate, if a bit silly (a similar phrasing would be someone saying they wouldn't know a phrase in British or Australian).
They hold pretty favorable opinion of right-wing British Prime Minister David Cameron. However, Cameron is sympathetic towards homosexuality (He even went as far as making a video for the It Gets Better Project) and supports legalizing same-sex marriage. Additionally, he has repeatedly criticized the Church of England for the conservative Christian social views it promotes and has pressured them to become more socially liberal, noting that their views are out of touch with the views of the general British public and such, it is starting to become unfit to continue serving as England's official state religion. His Conservapedia article portrays him in a positive light without mentioning any of this.
When the Libyans proceeded to revert to their pre-Gaddafi flag, Schlafly proclaimed LIBERALS were employing a Double Standard as the new flag is clearly Islamist compared to the neutral green Gaddafi flag, which is clearly not Islamist and Communist in origin, and complaining at people who think the Christian flag shouldn't be our flag, as we are clearly a Christian nation!
During the World Cup, Andy claimed that the "heathen" German team had to "import" Christians because Germany does not allow homeschooling. The two players, who were from Poland and Brazil, were never home-schooled and some 60% of Germans (including The Pope) are Christian.
Kind of a minor one, but in their article on Iron Man , they link director Jon Favreau's name to Obama's former speech writer who happens to have the same name.
Deadpan Snarker: Karajou is a particularly nasty, arrogant version in his block reasons.
The standard block period for any infraction, no matter how minor, is five years. Also, Conservapedia will regularly block entire IP ranges because of the actions of one user—starting out with single towns or universities early on, it has progressed to the point that there are entire states and countries where it is now effectively impossible to edit the site.
As of October 2010 (and no doubt earlier than that) just creating an account has been deemed a permabannable offense.
Documentary Of Lies: Encyclopedia of lies. It's even admitted in the essay What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?, quote: "This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him." Whether their claims are actually true or not seems to be irrelevant to them.
Some pages have been continually locked to avoid vandalism for months.
Some pages have been continually locked to avoid "vandalism" for months.
Even if pages don't get locked, expect a quick revert and block if you dare question the admins or post anything remotely resembling facts (at least, the ones that don't concur with the stated goal and viewpoint of Conservapedia) on any page concerned with politics, sexuality or adaptations of Nickelodeon series.
If something embarrassing is edited into a page a sysop will delete the page and recreate it to clear the edit history and thus proof of the revision. Rational Wiki calls this burning the evidence.
Even Conservapedia thinks the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" people) takes things a little too far. But to cover this up, Conservapedia has re-branded them as liberals, so no discrepancy there!
Conservapedia in general has a pretty ambivalent attitude toward homosexuals. While it admits that it is wrong to beat them up or kill them, it goes to great lengths to "prove" that they are immoral and thus okay to mock. It's somewhat reminiscent of some white abolitionists of the early- and mid-nineteenth century condemning slavery as inhumane, but still being repulsed by certain aspects of African-American culture.
Their article on Metapedia is very critical. Of course, being Conservapedia, they blame Metapedia's racism on Darwinism.
Some of their members really did want to contribute, putting their political beliefs in action (agree with them or not, at least they are sincere and honest about them), but found themselves forced out by the poisonous politics of the place, complete with Chronic Backstabbing Disorder on the part of Schlafly. Reading some of these, it's hard not to feel sorry for these true believers who had their idealism destroyed.
Despite agreeing with Andy on religious matters like Creationism, Philip Rayment refused to go along with Schlafly's smearing of Obama.
Examples Are Not Arguable: One of the few things it has in common with this site, believe it or not, albeit for entirely different reasons. Conservapedia policy is that words such as "arguably" and "possibly" should not be used in articles (except for in rare cases, such as when historical records are vague on a subject) because conservatives are meant to deal in absolute truths, while arguing and presenting multiple viewpoints is supposedly a liberal obfuscation tactic.
Flock of Wolves: The majority of active contributors to the site are actually trolls, often even trolling each other. It's estimated that there are fewer than a dozen genuine contributors, and those eventually get banned for disagreeing with Schlafly.
Fox News Liberal: Conservapedia on liberals in general. The entry contends that liberals have no actual beliefs or values of their own, they're merely pretending to not be conservative because they want attention. The only solution is to wait for them to realize they're being retards and accept conservatism as the only way.
God Never Said That: or so they claim in the Conservative Bible Project. The first two passages they decided were "liberal" additions to the Bible are the whole stoning the prostitute section, especially "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (because God would never say that) and "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" (because some of them did know what they were doing).
He Who Fights Monsters: Arguably a minor case, since their claimed point that Wikipedia was largely dominated by the political leanings of its administrators—in spite of attempts to check said potential undue influence—was at least debatable. Of course, their brilliant "plan" to counter this was to set up a different wiki, fill it with the worst possible Far-Right clichés and invocations of Poe's Law, and throw out virtually all the quality controls. Likely averted in that the founders never really intended the site to be anything else.
Posting anything positive about TheOtherWiki will quickly earn you a) a lecture from Schlafly about how Wikipedia refuses to tolerate dissenting viewpoints and only Conservatives support freedom of speech, and b) a lifetime IP ban.
The unwritten rule that you have to use your real first name and last initial as your user name—which is only suggested on the sign-up page—is strongly enforced by users ASchlafly (first initial and last name) and TK (only initials).
Despite how hard they mock Atheism and religions other than Christianity, liberals and what have you, don't DARE to mock them, even a little. It results in being banned forever.
Idiot Ball: In the infamous Lenski affair Schlafly decided to pick a fight with a microbiology professor over the results of a twenty-year scientific study which provided quite convincing evidence of the proof of evolution. Apparently, Schlafly didn't understand the article announcing the results of the study (if he even read it at all), and proceeded to run the ball into his own end zone and claim victory.
"…when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African-Americans' right to have the choice of forced segregation."
There is a great amount of debate on the subject of Hitler's religion, with quotes that indicate he was a Christian, and quotes indicating he was opposed to Christianity. On the talk page for Hitler's article, someone said that sections of Mein Kampf give the very distinct impression that he was a Christian. Rather than responding with actual evidence, another user replied, "I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an atheist would do that." So if a person does something horrible, that means they must be an atheist?
And turned the other direction in that because war hero Pat Tillman was obviously a good, upstanding heroic soldier, there is no way that he could not be a Christian.
Liberals use deceit. Therefore, anything a liberal says is automatically a lie. Ergo, the fastest way to ascertain if a person is lying or not is to get their opinion on prayer in public schools. This is the primary counterargument you will find anywhere on Conservapedia. It is foolproof.
But if the liberal always lies, then his opinion on public prayer is also a lie, which means the only things liberals tell the truth about is their lies.
In regard to Barack Obama, someone wanted to delete the comment "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam" (the actual doctrine merely allows adherents to Shi'a Islam to conceal their religion if they were under threat, persecution, or compulsion, especially when it would result in them being killed for admitting to being Muslimnote Please note: this applies only to Shia Islam. Obama's Muslim ancestors and blood relatives were/are East African Sunnis; his Muslim relatives by marriage are Indonesian Sunnis—and not particularly observant ones at that.) because it wasn't actually proof of him being a Muslim. Someone responded with "Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing Muslim because a practicing Muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion."
According to Andy, countries which legalized gay marriage "felt the effects by doing poorly and winning fewer medals at the Olympics." One user replied that quite a few of them actually got more medals than in 2008. Andy's response was to arbitrarily remove the Netherlands and South Africa so that his conclusion still stood.
Internet Cold Reader: Andy can discern with an over 95% certainty your opinions on abortion, prayer in schools, gun control, etc. based on anything you post on any subject.
Recently, Conservapedia started an essay demanding Penn Jilette debate them. After seeing this request to debate a celebrity, Rational Wiki posted that User:Conservative still owes them a debate.
I Resemble That Remark: They claim Wikipedia's description of them supporting young-Earth creationism is a falsehood, yet a cursory scan of their site shows that they do in fact give much weight to pro-YEC arguments. Their front page even features "Arguments for a young earth and universe" rather prominently.
Lampshade Hanging: In an article about "faithlessness", one of the alleged signs to a person being without faith is the "Need for Proof of God." This seems logical—most Christians believe that Faith does not require proof for them to "know" that God exists. However, when you read the actual text, it highly resembles Conservapedia and its users' redefinition of scientific facts to fit God into the scheme of things more smoothly.
Many times one will try to reinforce their Faith by stating that there is undeniable proof of God. In reality, one is possibly unsure about one's Faith and is trying to make "logical" reasons to why their Faith is right. This is a dangerous part of faithlessness because the person is in denial about their disbelief in God. They will try to connect science to religion and find some trivial detail that somehow "proves" the existence of God. What they fail to realize is that one does not need proof for God: if one had Faith, they could believe in God despite all of the alleged "scientific" evidence to suggest otherwise.
It gets sillier. The same page states that "Xmas" is too secular, and should be replaced by "Christmas." But it also states that "Christmas" itself is too secular, and should be replaced by "Christ's Mass." In summary: People who say "Christmas" instead of "Xmas" are damned secularists!
The site is verypro-American and very, very, very anti-everyone else. If you're not American and you become an editor, be prepared for the accusations of "liberal bias and communism." Like, when you try to correct Schlafly on issues you can see from your window.
This takes truly odd forms sometimes, such as Schlafly's preoccupation with portraying the British as bad at math(s).
Also, the use of British spellings is forbidden (because it's liberal).
Specifically, they believe that not adding "u" represents our freedom of speech, which "absolutely does not exist in the monarchies of the UK, Canada, and Australia".
Mood Whiplash: In the entry on Mel Gibson. They start by praising his conservative Catholic qualities. But then they arrive at an aspect of the man that they can't possibly sugarcoat or ignore (his drunken, racist rant in Malibu in 2006), and go negative—and, naturally, they somehow frame this indiscretion as a liberal misstep.
This is how the site is able to claim that the entertainment industry discriminates against conservatives, which is tough to prove when Republican celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Adam Sandler enjoy so much power and influence. Conservapedia's explanation is that, well, these guys aren't real conservatives because they're not socially conservative (which is the most crucial kind of conservative, apparently).
Recently, they're beginning to turn on Fox News for being "liberals".
Ayn Rand is a liberal according to Conservapedia because she was an atheist.
Schlafly's definitions of "conservative"/"right-wing" and "liberal"/"left-wing," and a host of others. His constant slapping of the label "liberal deceit" on anything that bothers him, while blatantly employing dishonest debate tactics himself, probably also fits in here. As does the notion that the theory of relativity is related to moral relativism because they share some syllables. He also enjoys the phrase "Conservative Words".
Atheism, on the other hand, is defined in the dictionary*
Schlafly decided that no religion other than Christianity had the concept of "faith." During his defense he was forced to redefine the term into meaning only "a sense of Christain Faith," which obviously no other religion would have.
Related to this, Schlafly also wrote an essay questioning whether Christianity invented humor. Although Conservapedia does cause a lot of laughs, we don't think it was usually intended.
His definitions for "conservative" and "liberal" can be boiled down to "good, Christian person" and "bad person" respectively.
The article on Heavy Metal is surprisingly free from implications that anyone who plays the music must have sold their soul to Satan. The article mentions that violence and occult elements are involved in some lyrics for some bands, but that, to their credit, is actually quite true. The talk page, however…
That's not too surprising with regards to metal because it tends to be a "conservative" genre compared to other forms of rock. Not that the lyrics themselves are conservative, but many of the singers and musicians are, although they mostly keep quiet about their views (Alice Cooper is one such "agnostic" conservative). Even Slayer, who were accused of being Nazi sympathizers after the 1986 release of their song "Angel of Death," admitted that they were right-wing (but anti-racist).
The page on Wicca appears to be fairly neutral as well.
Politically Motivated Teacher: Schlafly is a teacher who greatly encourages his students to use this site for research. This is homeschool teaching—Schlafly claims to have taught over 100 teenagers as well as his own daughter. Many states, in pursuit of the conservative vote, will allow anyone with children to homeschool the result and there's nothing to stop them meeting up in each others' houses to share the load. This is his "teacher" credential.
Orwell is counted as a conservative because he eventually came to oppose Soviet-style communism—as if a liberal, or even a socialist like Orwell, could never do that! In fact, many (if not most!) extreme leftists repudiated Stalinism once they became aware of its true face.
User:Conservative has apparently never learned how to use the "Preview" button, if he's even noticed it. He'll make 50 edits adding/correcting minor things, even changing the size of a picture 1 pixel-width at a time until it's just right, then likely as not memory-hole the whole thing so that it never existed.
It's speculated on Rational Wiki that he believes that making the little tweaks to picture width and such would help boost the page for Google searches.
Stealth Parody: You could be forgiven for thinking it was this. Of course, a good portion of it is thanks to the sizable number of trolls there. A known parody article gets tagged as nonsense, even though it was written by an admin. You have to stick with stealth humor here.
Strawman Political: Whenever the word "liberal" happens in text, it's as part of some kind of strawman. Conservapedia itself serves as a strawman political for liberals to use against conservatives. This usually takes the form of responding to any accusation of liberal bias with a dismissive joke along the lines of "go2conservapedia".
Probably has to do with why Rational Wiki was made in the first place—the guy who founded it did so because he was pissed at how idiotic he thought Conservapedia was. Not only that, but Rational Wiki has a "serious" page for Schlafly (in addition to the "humorous" one), to properly inform parents who might consider hiring him to tutor their kids. Small wonder there's sour grapes.
Somewhat ironically, the "vandal site" does not actually encourage vandalism of Conservapedia, as they believe the site is funnier when it's totally sincere. That doesn't stop a few of the individual members from trolling there occasionally, however.
Taken to a humorous level when TK replaced JessicaT's signature on a usertalk page with his own.
One of the tactics of the Orwellian Editors is to take an article that they agree with but was contributed to by an unperson, delete it and recreate it, further unpersoning the original contributor(s), and making it appear that it was all their own work. (TK is a master of this one.)
Hilarious in Hindsight, in that Palin did not win the Republican nomination. Even more hilarious in that President Obama won that year, and he uses Facebook.
Star Trek, The Office US, The Apprentice, The Six Million Dollar Man: all CONSERVATIVE shows! (even though Star Trek broke barriers by having a black woman and an Asian man on the bridge, The Office is not overtly political, and Donald Trump has mentioned politics precisely once on The Apprentice … and actually spoke of Barack Obama in complimentary terms on that occasion).
The King's Speech is obviously a RIGHTEOUS, CONSERVATIVE movie! (Despite the fact that it takes place in England, and Schlafly really hates England).
Windmill Crusader: Beating back liberal bias in the media and government since 2006. When the conservatives were in power.
With Us or Against Us: They actually devote a lot of time to drawing the distinction of "conservative values," "Christian values," "traditional values," "family values" and "homeschool values" versus "liberal values," "atheistic values," "Hollywood values," "fashion industry values," "San Fransisco values" and "professor values."*
All topics with their own article. "Moral values" redirects to morality. "American values" redirects to Christianity.
There is definitely an us-versus-them message at play, but it's a more colorful one than usual.
Happens every time a conservative politician they fight tooth and nail to support says something silly such as "Gay marriage is fine by me", like Scott Brown.
Or when Jan Brewer, whom they heavily supported for her anti-immigration law, vetoed a birther-bill. She has instantly been declared a RINOnote Republican In Name Only, a popular insult among America's most conservative Republicans for left-leaning and moderate members of the same party. The equivalent epithet liberal Democrats use for right-leaning and centrist members of their own party, DINO, means "Democrat In Name Only".
Their essays on "Why Pat Tillman was not an atheist/agnostic" might qualify as this (or an attempt to avoid it, at the very least).