Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
214,150
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
replaced small raster image (unknown licence, from TV Tropes) with equivalent vector image (used with permission, from Wikimedia Commons)
m (revise quote template spacing) |
(replaced small raster image (unknown licence, from TV Tropes) with equivalent vector image (used with permission, from Wikimedia Commons)) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
[[File:
{{quote|''"The [[Tyop on the Cover|trusworthy]] [[Blatant Lies|encyclopedia]]."''|'''Conservapedia's former motto.'''}}
'''[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia]''' is a mirror project of [[Wikipedia|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
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 [[Poe's Law|believable]] vandalism; trolls harassing other trolls; and the site's creator himself, Andrew Schlafly.
Line 10:
Conservapedia began its existence as a help for Schlafly's homeschool 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, [[
{{tropelist}}
* [[Analogy Backfire]]: [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_An_atheist_trying_to_stop_Christianity 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.
* [[Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking]]: The essay on "professor values." Professors' crimes include murder, genocide, and grade inflation.
* [[Artistic License Physics]]:
** The ''theory of relativity'' is wrong because it contradicts the instantaneous nature of Jesus's miracles - He would not be restricted to working at the speed of light<ref>Coming back from the dead is, of course, entirely consistent with modern science.</ref>. Naturally, this is a liberal conspiracy.
** Relativity is also rejected because it sounds too much like Godless liberal ''moral'' relativism. Both moral relativism, and the special/general theories of relativity are filed in the same index.
** They've seriously considered replacing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=821452&oldid=821449 Newtonian mechanics with "biblical scientific foreknowledge"].
** E=
* [[Artistic License History]]
* [[Artistic License Religion]]:
** The Conservative Bible Project, which blatantly ignores the end 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.
* [[Berserk Button]]: Mention "the Lenski affair" or "FBI" on Conservapedia. [[Schmuck Bait|Go ahead, do it.]]
** Each of the sysops has their own:
*** For Andy, ''anything'' that he considers to be "liberal".
Line 34 ⟶ 32:
*** For Karajou, asking what his Navy rank was.
*** For Ed Poor, deleting any of his many stub articles on movies starring teen girls.
* [[Black and White Morality]]: Pretty much the whole site runs on this.
** 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).
* [[Blatant Lies]]:
** "Conservapedia is a meritocracy."
** "On Conservapedia, we don't censor for ideological reasons."
Line 60 ⟶ 58:
** Conservapedia seems to like the British Conservative Party. Probably just because it has the word "conservative" in the name.
** 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)
** 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 [[wikipedia:Green in Islam|''clearly'' not Islamist]] and communist in origin, and complaining at people who think the [[wikipedia:Christian Flag|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 homeschooled and some 60% of Germans are Christian.
* [[Deadpan Snarker]]: Karajou, in his block reasons.
* [[Dirty Communists]], or portrayals thereof.
* [[Disproportionate Retribution]]: The standard block period for any infraction, [[All Crimes Are Equal|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 [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Blocking_the_planet 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.
Line 73 ⟶ 71:
** Some pages have been continually locked to avoid "vandalism" for ''months''. <!-- Yes, this is listed twice. Note the meta language. -->
** 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 [[Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking|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. [[
* [[Even Evil Has Standards]]:
** Even Conservapedia thinks the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" people) takes things a little too far. Conservapedia [[No True Scotsman|rebranded 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.
*** In their secularized dictionary section, the first thing "abomination" is changed to, is "homosexual".
** As a result of seeing the world in [[Black and White Morality]], they consider any liberal criticizing [[Barack Obama]] to be an example of this.
** 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 [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Parthian_shot some of these,] it's hard not to feel sorry for these true believers who had their idealism destroyed.
Line 86 ⟶ 84:
* [[Freudian Excuse]]: Try growing up with [[wikipedia:Phyllis Schlafly|Phyllis Schlafly]] as your mother ''without'' being screwed-up.
* [[The Fundamentalist]]: Pretty much every serious contributor to the website. If, indeed, there ''are'' any [[Poe's Law|serious contributors...]]
* [[God Never Said That]]:
* [[Godwin's Law]]: one of the best examples ''ever''. "[[Barack Obama|Obama]] has spoken out against cruelty to animals...[[Hitler Ate Sugar|Hitler opposed cruelty to animals]]...I think this link needs to be investigated further". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&curid=9967&diff=685687&oldid=683793 Link]: At least it's "cited", if not a jump in logic. It's also [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive8#Animal_rights archived] as well.
** [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=768758&oldid=768726 Bonus] - invoking [[Godwin's Law]] to criticize those who invoke Godwin's Law.
** Guess whose picture graces [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution the article on evolution] (as of this posting)?
** Hitler, Stalin, Michelle Obama, and a caricature of Darwin's head photoshopped on a chimp. All they need in there is Mao and Kim Jong-il.
** In the past, the evolution article actually began with a large picture of Hitler, something which was nicknamed "The Godwin Singularity".
* [[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.
* [[High Turnover Rate]]
* [[Hippie Jesus]]: Inverted; one of the apparent goals of the Bible Retranslation Project is to eliminate all hints of hippiedom from Jesus as he appears in the New Testament.
* [[Hypocrite]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Aschlafly&page=Essay%3A+Conservative+hypocrisy Yeah]...
** Posting ''anything'' positive about [[The Other Wiki]] 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 username - which is only suggested on the signup page - is strongly enforced by users ASchlafly (first initial and last name) and TK (only initials).
* [[Hollywood Atheist]]:
*
** They even went so far as to use the RMS ''[[Titanic]]'' tragedy to [https://www.conservapedia.com/There_are_no_atheists_on_a_sinking_ship pick on atheism], and on [https://www.conservapedia.com/Irreligion,_video_game_usage_and_obesity their perceived correlation between irreligion and video games].
* [[Idiot Ball]]: In the infamous [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair 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 endzone and [[What an Idiot!|claim victory]].
* [[Insane Troll Logic]]: The damned site ''[[It Runs on Nonsensoleum|runs on Insane Troll Logic]]''! It eats it for breakfast!
Line 106:
** 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, [[Divide by Zero|which means]] the only things liberals tell the truth about is [[Logic Bomb|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 Muslim) 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."
{{quote|
"Only the true messiah denies his divinity!"
"What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM the messiah!"
Line 115:
* [[Internet Tough Guy]]: Andy once bragged that he'd debate any liberal. When one tried to take him up on it, he backpedaled immediately.
** Also, see "Wiki Vandal" on the YMMV page for the FBI Incident.
** More recently, User:Conservative declared he would debate any atheist, but only if they paid $17,000 to his choice of Christian charity (he later [[Moving the Goalposts|upped the amount to $20,000]]). When one [[
** Recently, Conservapedia started an essay demanding [[Penn & Teller|Penn Jilette]] debate them. After seeing this request to debate a celebrity, Rational Wiki posted that User:Conservative still owes them a debate.
* [[Lampshade Hanging]]: In an article about [http://conservapedia.com/Faithless "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, [[Does This Remind You of Anything?|it highly resembles Conservapedia]] and its users' redefinition of scientific facts to fit God into the scheme of things more smoothly.
{{quote|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.}}
* [[Logic Bomb]]: A pet project of the wiki is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Secularized_Language "secularized language" page] (a massive example of [[Personal Dictionary]]). One of the "secularized words" is "secular." A good citizen should substitute "pagan" every time.
** 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!
** As of 2011, the word "Christian" has been [[Mind Screw|deemed too secular.]]
* [[Misplaced Nationalism]]: The site is ''very'' [[Eagle Land|pro-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.
* [[Moral Guardians]]
Line 132:
** Inverted, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Article_matrix as demonstrated on RationalWiki]
** As mentioned above, [[Barack Obama]] is apparently [[Commie Nazis|a Muslim atheist communist Nazi]]. Or a secret openly Muslim atheist communist Nazi.
* [[No True Scotsman]]: 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".
* [[Old Soldier]]: Karajou sees himself as this.
* [[Orwellian Editor]]: They remove references to banned users from talk pages. They also delete and recreate pages to remove [[Snark Bait]] from the page histories. [[
* [[Personal Dictionary]]:
** 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 [[Hypocrite|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<ref>'''''a''''' dictionary, at least</ref> as "the denial of the existence of God" and asserts that God does not exist. Anything else is [[You Fail Logic Forever|"an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theism side."]]
** 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 [[Shaped Like Itself|obviously no other religion would have.]]
** Related to this, Schlafly also wrote an essay questioning whether [http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Mysteries_of_World_History Christianity invented humor]. Although Conservapedia does cause a lot of laughs, we don't think it was usually intended.
* [[Pet the Dog]]: 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. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Heavy_metal_music#State_of_the_Article The talk page], however...
Line 147:
* [[Poe's Law]]:
** Many articles appear as if they could have been written by staff members of ''[[The Colbert Report]]'', often because many of the top people at any given moment are likely [[Double Reverse Quadruple Agent|deep-cover parodists]].
** [[
* [[Post-Mortem Conversion]]: Recast [[Martin Luther King Jr]] and [[George Orwell]] as conservatives.
** 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.
* [[Quote Mining]]
* [[Retcon]]
* [[Rouge Angles of Satin]]: Examples abound. The quote at the top of this page became instant [[Memetic Mutation]] after it was shown along the site's logo for a whole day before someone noticed the typo.
* [[Serial Tweaker]]:
** 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 [[
* [[Spin-Off]]: [[Fun with Acronyms|A Storehouse of Knowledge]], started by Philip J Rayment and consisting of several users that TK drove away.
* [[The Starscream]]: The user TK. [[
* [[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 [[Troll|trolls]] there. A known [
* [[Stop Being Stereotypical]]: A good number of conservatives resent how the site makes them all look bad.
* [[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".
* [[Unperson]]: More like "Un Site": Mentioning [[
** Probably has to do with why [[
** 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmerICan&curid=87601&diff=831326&oldid=831325 replaced] JessicaT's signature on a usertalk page with his own.
Line 172:
** Soccer represents socialism! The USA sucking at it shows how great a non-socialist nation we are!
** [[The Social Network|The Facebook movie]] lost Best Picture! [[Sarah Palin]] is a major user of Facebook! Will she not win the Republican nomination in 2012?!
** [[Star Trek]], [[The Office]], [[The Apprentice (trope)|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).
** And [[The King's Speech]] is obviously a RIGHTEOUS, CONSERVATIVE movie! (Despite the fact that it takes place in England, and Schlafly ''[[Misplaced Nationalism|really]]'' hates England).
** Correction: Schlafly hates everything about England EXCEPT the Royals (and seems to think that only he loves the Royals).
* [[With Us or Against Us]]:
** The site's basic definition of a liberal is "a person without values." Pardon my ignorance, but how can someone devoid of values be labelled anything? More to the point, isn't someone who lacks values a potential ''friend'' as well as a potential enemy? Are they not a ''tabula rasa'' onto which you can imprint your "correct" beliefs?
** 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."<ref>All topics with their own article. "Moral values" redirects to morality. "American values" redirects to Christianity.</ref> There is definitely an us-versus-them message at play, but it's a more colorful one than usual.
* [[You Have Failed Me...]]:
** 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 RINO.
Line 184:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Other Sites]]
▲[[Category:Conservapedia]]
[[Category:Wiki]]
[[Category:Pages with
[[Category:Christian Media]]
[[Category:Banned On TV Tropes]]
| |||