Has anyone seen this Conservapedia?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I'm no fan of Wikipedia's NPOV (my academic experience finds that such a concept cannot exist), but the bias on this new online "encyclopedia" is just terrible!

As someone with a degree in History, this is just sickening.

I think we all knew one day the Religious Right would one day make their own Wikipedia, but, oh boy, this one's a whopper (with cheese)!

(Note: I am not anti-religious or anti-Christian. I consider myself a Christian, before anyone starts ranting about me being an atheist or anything like that).

I wonder if anyone out there has started a Conservapedia Review yet (I know they will)?

I'd love to see one.

JoshuaZ is there!

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:JoshuaZ

He was nearly blocked for 3 months for POV Pushing, though.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?tit...ge=User:JoshuaZ

I guess all Conservapedia proves is that Republicans really do live in their own, separate reality-- one that requires its own Wikipedia, even. Stephen Colbert isn't funny anymore, he's just a sad reminder of how American politics works.

Ashibaka as a Republican i take exception to that statement. Not all Republicans are loony right-wing christians, some of us are moderates who just want a smaller government. I find the democratic choices unacceptable, and the libertarian candidates a wasted vote.

The closest i've seen to someone with similar leanings would be Ron Paul... a Republican.

Even I see Conservapedia as a waste of time and space.

My apologies, by "Republican" I meant "Bush Republican" and not honest, intelligent politicians like Ron Paul.

It's typical of the neo-conservatives to assume they represent all conservatives and/or Republicans. (I'm neither, personally, but it's still typical...)

What gets me is that they started hyping the site to the media before they even came up with a logo for the top left corner. Neo-cons are supposed to be better at marketing than that, aren't they? Back in the Reagan days they would never have let themselves look as half-assed as that!

I already covered this on my blog. I do know one or two Republicans but they're just as far away from this Religious Right POS as I am.

It's quite easy to produce something a lot worse than Wikipedia but to produce something better than Wikipedia you have to stop imitating its flaws.

I almost died laughing when I read about Conservapedia. Wikipedia is blatantly biased in favor of the right. What do these people want? Do they want corporations to be able to write their own articles on their Conservawiki? There is enough of that already on Wiki as was discussed ad nauseum in another thread.

There should be a wiki that reflects the progressive position.

Two observations:

• Top left corner ??? Surely not !!!
• Half-ass? I think I see their logo now.

Jonny

I would like to know WTF is going on here with my account on Conservapedia!

Blocked until 2014 for having an "inappropriate or vulgar name"? Seriously? For "Thekohser"?

Well t least they have "editorial standards." Insular to the point of being indecipherable, but all the same standards I suppose.

Or maybe you're too libruhl. And by that, I mean you have an ounce of sense: there are respectable people with every politcal ideology, but Conservapedia doesn't seem to be hitting that demographic at all.

Why would anyone want an account on Conservapedia anyway? It's more of a joke than Wikipedia is.

I think you just answered your own question there

I wanted to "intervene" with a copy of the Wikipedia Art article, so that the conservative community's response to it could be observed.

Greg

Parts of their WWII article are quite good, particularly the Far Easter Theater section. Much more informative than Wikipedia's article.

Free advice: don't try it.

Did you really expect to receive equable treatment from Phyllis Schlafly's lunatic son??

This thing is hilarious! http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

Lol Godwin: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

It may be hilarious, but parts of it are fairly accurate. In particular, I'd say their version of the Essjay story is one of the more accurate ones I've seen. The stuff about Brandt vs. Berlet is obviously slanted totally against the WP perspective, but the facts that are given are mostly accurate... You just have to bear in mind that it's Nobs who is writing most of that stuff.

As for the rest, well... I don't think it's a question of it all being wrong, or even funny, it's more of a "leaving out the opposing viewpoint" thing. Which might be funny in itself, of course.


Now, that's hilarious!

Even more hilarious: put Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia side by side: "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, an d from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".

http://www.conservapedia.com/Hitler

Notice they keep emphasizing that Hitler believed in evolution.

Hitler believed in evolution.
Hitler was a Nazi.
Therefore, all evolutionists are Nazis!

Did Martin Luther believe in evolution? No! Weve disproved the Luther/Nazi link.

It doesn't surprise me that a right-wing website would get this wrong. The reality is that for years, Nazi apologists and a handful of easily-hoodwinked "identity politics" types have been quoting highly questionable material issued by American and British journalists, operating under strict German censorship, during the years leading up to WWII - to present Nazi antisemitism in a way the Nazis believed would be palatable to potential sympathizers, mostly in the US.

They're essentially repeating what the Nazis themselves wanted people to hear, and in effect, they're still doing the Nazis' work for them, 55 years after all of this should have been dismissed as patent nonsense. Anyone who keeps repeating it may as well be a Nazi himself.

75 years indeed.

Hitler was a right-wing atheist.
Bible-thumpers are right-wingers.
Therefore, all bible thumpers are atheists.

This is reminiscent of the memorable Walter Sobchak line, contrasting "nihilists" to Nazis:

Right - the "55" was a typo...

Technically, I'd say the Nazi censorship in question should be dated to roughly 1936, though if someone wanted to go back further (say, 1933 or 1926 or even earlier), I wouldn't object or anything.

I'd have to say that Conservapedia, despite its obvious ideological bias, has done this whole "Hitler as evolutionist" thing almost-sort-of correctly - it's in the intro to the Hitler article, which is unfortunate but at least fair in most respects, but more importantly, in their article on Evolution you have to go down quite a ways before the word "Nazi" is used. (Of course, it probably shouldn't appear in the article at all, but at least it isn't in the introduction.)

The real problem is their use of the term "evolutionary racist" in the Hitler article, clearly a not-so-subtle attempt to associate two terms which are normally not associated with each other, even though the Descent of Man quote(s) in their "Evolutionary racism" article show fairly clearly that by modern standards, Darwin himself was just as much a racist as most other old white guys in the latter half of the 19th century. (Also note that the sole illustration in that article is a photo of - wait for it - Hitler!)

Except Hitler wasn't an atheist.

He held all kinds of strange superstitious and religious views, most famously announcing "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." not once but twice.

That dude would say any old shit to get a rise out of people. And don't look at his writings either; they're incoherent.

People who surmise Hitler was an atheist base this claim on deeds, not words. His persecution of religious people of many stripes (not only Jews) and his regime's celebration of very secular Teutonic-flavored (or perhaps even pagan?) tropes of homeland (or motherland or fatherland or whatever the fuck they called it) and "volk" do not speak to any sort of religiosity.

Good point. Hey, maybe you'd like it over there. I bet you'd fit right in.

Many of his Christian statements were made in private, including the "I am now as before a Catholic..." admission in 1941, recalled in diaries.

Hitler believed he was doing the work of God by ridding the world of "lower human forms" and both his words and deeds bear that out. He was about as atheist as Osama Bin Laden.

The "Hitler was an atheist" myth repeatedly needs to be dunbunked, because it is a disfiguring historical lie. Like so much other crap, I hadn't heard it until I encountered the internet and was confronted by all that US Christian Conservative hogwash.

Darwin as some kind of racist is another similar propaganda myth that doesn't wash. Darwin was significantly less racist than most of his peers. He famously wrote "This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races". Darwinism helped puncture the religious myths of the "Chosen race" and the notion that tribal people were "savages by birth and design". Also, Darwin was a dedicated abolitionist when most of the US Christian South were profiting from Slavery, supporting African insurrection movements in the Americas, which was extremely rare for a well heeled Englishman in those years, whenever they were discussed.

This is a stupid discussion. Whether Hitler privately believed in "God" or a "religion" in the sense that you describe is not meaningful. He was fucking nuts, and people who are nuts hear all sorts of kooky voices and ascribe to unique superstitions. When a killer says that God told me to do it, this normally speaks to his illness, not his spirituality.

That he trampled and terrorized conventional, organized religions while presiding over a successful cult that celebrated personality and a stylized, secular form of nationalism is the reason people feel comfortable labeling him as nonreligious.

These secular, nationalist appeals (to say nothing of economic despair) are what persuaded people to get behind him, not his devotion to his Maker.

Now let's argue about whether Hitler was a vegetarian.

It is meaningful when US Christians keep going around falsely claiming Hitler was an atheist, and try to gain political capital from that, when he clearly wasn't.

But the killer should nevertheless not be called an "atheist" in that scenario, eh?


They've got an article about that too, apparently. There have been many attempts to debunk this as yet another Nazi "myth," but until they fix the Martin Luther article I'm just going to go ahead and say he might as well have been both a vegetarian and an Animal Rights activist.

If by atheist you mean someone who believes in no divinity whatsoever then Hitler was no atheist. However he believed that Christianity was non-Aryan because of course it had its roots in judaism. The only fit religion for Aryans was the old German religion with its chief god Woden as of course used by Hitlers favorite composer Wagner in the Ring cycle.

Hitler unlike Stalin had respect for the power of the Catholic church and tried not to upset it more than he had to and was of course rewarded with a measure of silence from the pope.

It looks like you have been unblocked after intervention from Geo.plrd.

But I wanna argue about whether he supported gun control.

*pout*

I'm quite surprised they granted an unblock. They block at the drop of a hat. Sometimes not even that. Conservapedia has fewer than 30,000 users, but is blocking them at a rate of about 1000 per month. At those rates, about 40% of the editors are blocked each year. Not sure how they can stay in business with numbers like those.

Conservapedia has been the target of a group psychopathic trolls who set up another site called Rationalwiki. They have been relentless in an effort to shut the site down. Stephanie Simon wrote about the ongoing conflict between Conservapedia & Rationalwiki in the LA Times. Simon even claims the Ratwikians adimt to engaging "in acts of cyber-vandalism." This is why CP Sysops are quick on the banhammer.

I hate it when that happens.

Yes, Hitler did make statements to this effect, but Hitler also referred to Christians as "stupid," and pointedly cited evolution as discrediting the Bible (I'd be glad to supply chapter & verse from Tischgesprache, also known as Hitler's Table Talk or The Borman Notes)

While it is true Hitler made references to the Lord, and Provedence, meaning Hitler is paying some credence to Jehovah, the Jewish God, that is a far cry from embracing Christianity.

I've never read the final versions in Conservapedia being discussed about Hitler and Evolution, but I am the guy who dug the research out for the authors who did. And I would recommend reading Hitler's own extended comments on such in Hitler's Table Talk, and just compare that with what we are discussing.

The arguement here is tied in with National Socialism, atheism being a fundemental precept of Socialism; (for Rightwingers, this is a "twofer," we also get to argue Nazism is Leftwing).

Let's cite the full title, The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection,. or. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Not ordinarily associated? True. Commie apologists always forget to cite the full title.

Well atheism clearly isn't a fundamental precept of Socialism, as a visit to any Catholic country with a strong Socialist movement will confirm. Maybe all those Christian Socialist movements all over Europe, for example, got it all wrong and should have just packed it in?

Yes. You are correct. The Reverend Jesse Jackson may be a good example of a God-fearing Socialist. But I've had enough go-rounds with liberal left-wing devotees who claim as an article of faith, people of faith are superstitious right-wingers, whereas the Godless left represents Enlightened humanity.

Actually, most everyone forgets to cite the full title. In fairness to Commies, they developed a non-Darwinian approach to evolution (Vladimir Vernadsky's.) And the people who are really hot for Darwin tend to be the Randroid (T-H-L-K-D) types, who eagerly seize upon the social implications of his doctrine -- not the Commies.

Let's look at this article from the Council on Secular Humanism being cited:Luther's Table Talk? It further states,Hmmm. Let's see what the Secret OSS Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler by Walter C. Langer, pg 195 says....
Hmmm...

Ah, thanks. I'd heard of Rationalwiki, but wasn't aware of a Hatfield-McCoy style dispute there.