Talk:Uncyclopedia

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Note: An alternate version of this article is being written here.

. Furthermore, it makes fun of creationism and Christianity by writing articles that are written from a parodied Christian point of view (i.e. "Islam is a completely false religion and anyone who follows it is damned to eternal hell fire" or "Evolution is a vile, satanist religion and anyone who follows it is a vile terrorist"). It is quite clear that this site is against Christianity.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? From that sample, Uncyclopedia sounds just like Conservapeida, albeit maybe a bit more bluntly-written. --Scrap 20:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Yup compared to some of the stuff I've read on CARM that's not much of a parody. Sulgran 20:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Why the anti-Europe emphasis on this page?

It's all ignorance. Try traveling to Europe some time. You might be surprised. --BillOReillyFan 19:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I live in Europe. I think its an accurate reflection of public opinion. Remember that as a tourist the locals you're dealing with are likely to be serving you or selling you something. So they're hardly going to slag your country off to your face. --Pacman 06:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Worthy of citation

is this content worthy of being here? It mostly seems like "oh someone created some random parody page on the internet" and it doesn't seem scholarly or conservative... Richard 15:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia is truly the most pathetic ripoff of Encyclopedia Dramatica out thre...

Pathetic is not the word. ScorpionVote for Pedro 08:49, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia

Uncyclopedia is not a ripoff of ED, it is much funnier, is bigger, and has received more worldwide recognition. ED is stupid, its just a bunch of stupid jokes about gay people. It looks like middle schoolers wrote it. You don't know what you are talking about--DemocraticSocialist 19:24, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

That's what democratic socialist think... TIM WILLOUGHBY PWNS BOTH UNCYC AND ED!! TimWilloughby 11:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I think ED is much funnier. It started first, and is willing to offend anyone. It is certainly more politically incorrect. Crippes 20:04, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Why is this page locked?

Why is this page locked? It's almost brand new. I don't get it--DemocraticSocialist 19:24, 23 May 2007 (EDT) Unlock this page, why is everyone on here so totalitarian

Yes this is ridiculous. Unlock it please! It looks pathetic! No wonder Uncyclopedia likes to parody us. ScorpionVote for Pedro 18:51, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Unlock! This is stupid. I know that if we unlock this it's likely to attract vandalism, but this looks more like if we don't trust ourselves. Unlock it, please.--Faizaguo 08:09, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
If I had a vote I'd second that motion!--McWooty 16:43, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
I third the motion. This page has been used by Uncyclopedia as an example of bias within Conservapedia and is outdated, besides.Userafw 12:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia

Uncyclopedia's article on Conservapedia makes me sick. All it is is just a bunch of libbies from Wikipedia making absolute mockery of everything true. It's ridiculous! They say it's from a bunch of "misguided, sheltered children". I think Uncyclopedia is from a bunch of fifth-graders from the ghetto of Chicago who have had no parenting or true guidance plenty of unbiased, first-rate education from Satan the greatest minds on earth. As evidenced by the immaturity, foul language and crude topics ScorpionVote for Pedro 08:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Infact, why don't we just add this to the article: "Uncyclopedia takes a clear stand against all conservative and Christian values. Anything from the right side of the political spectrum is hated and reviled on Uncyclopedia." ScorpionCENSORED 10:57, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
We should categorically state that they are against God, not just our deeply held values. What they are doing is basically blasphemy and will not go unpunished. DVanian 20:08, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
That's rather generous, if you ask me. ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:34, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Uncyclopedia editors! Go ahead and post away! ScorpionVote for Pedro 23:35, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I was being sarcastic! ScorpionVote for Pedro 10:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, please, Uncyclopedia makes much more fun of Wikipedia than of Conservapedia. That is because it makes fun of everything. It is a satiric parody on an encyclopedia, so if you visit the "Conservapedia" article, wouldn't you expect that it made fun of Conservapedia? If you go into the page about liberals, it makes fun of liberals, and the "evolution" article makes fun of evolution. How is that more liberal than conservative?--AFM 10:46, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia is mostly a crude liberal rant, and I doubt "parody" is even the right word for it. It's a sick waste of time, like swimming in a sewer. Its entry about Jerry Falwell when he passed away illustrated that. If you genuinely like that, so be it, but you're not helping yourself or anyone else by wasting your time in it.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Can someone change this?

"At any rate, it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism."

"Uncyclopedia" is not a person, it can't hate something. And the "aims to destroy Conservativism" is just plain crap. Besides, just because they make a joke about it doesnt mean they hate it, or want to destory it. A bettter statement would be something like "Christian and Conservativism belifes are often the butt of many of the jokes at Uncyclopedia". Tesfan 11:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do hate it. Look at what they scratch out! The "truth". BS! And look what they're doing to me. Every time I post something on my user page, someone from Uncyclopedia sees it and posts it! Why, what I'm writing here will probably be posted. Well, I'll just remove it. Someone said my parents need to beat me more. I think that person's parents let him run free in the streets and join up in all the gangs! ScorpionVote for Pedro 20:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

They make fun of everything, including jews atheists, literaly everything Eljawa 10:26, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

They don't make fun of atheists, that article is making fun of Christians.

A letter to Uncyclopedia:

Dear Uncyclopedia:

I am so sorry for being so doggone biased and hateful against liberalism. I give you my sincerest punch on the jaw apologies and ask for your silence forgiveness and I promise to continue to post the truth never again offend any liberal on earth. Liberalism is reality, and I was so wrong to even think about questioning this fact. You are so right about everything you say!! May your beacon of Truth and the American Way shine forever in the dark, dank dungeon of the evils of conservativism (oops, I'm sorry for mispelling! It's "conservatism" wild bungaloo ape!) And I thank you sincerely for even stooping to post my knowledge crap on your page! I am doubly humbled and I hope you are not too angry to post this letter to show ALL the Reality Liberals™ how sorry I am! Sincerely,

The funniest guy on here (hey, this page wouldn't be nearly as sensible funny without me! ScorpionVote for Pedro 14:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Yah, perhaps I'm being a bit too hard on these people. They're only doing themselves harm, and I'm not doing anything good by getting angry at them. Perhaps I should just leave them alone and move on to more important things...sorry guys. ScorpionVote for Pedro 18:51, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Communist/Cremationist Mandated Oath of Un-Darwin, Un-Muhammedness

I, a Conservapedian of conservative mindset and distinctly undarwin and unrealistic attitude, do hereby swear to write, 'chop pictures, and write some more about my, and indeed all other Conservatives, unbridled abhorrence of Evolution and the many good, Real™ things that all True Scientists and Intelligent People™ stand for, like Islam, fags, cianide, Political Correctness, never hurting anyone (except Christians), a totally figurative interpretation of the Bible, the death penalty, sexual-education classes that teach kids to rape other people, no rights for heteros, Christians and normal people, and slaying innocent babies.

My pure and unadulterated hatred of Darwin and Allah is clearly reflected in my, and all other Conservatives, use of this Hitler-centered wiki to make fun of people that equate Christianity, creationism, and conservative religiousity of all kinds with communism, cursing and killing anyone who looks at me funny.

How?

How is it clear that Uncyclopedia is aiming to destroy conservatism? Uncyclopedia is a parody site, its editors are free to go after anything and everything. There are articles, such as the one on the Iraq War, which parody liberal rants, and there are others which parody conservative rants. There are articles which make fun of conservatives, and articles that make fun of liberals. There is no policy on the site which says things have to be of a liberal, anti-Christian perspective, and as a Christian myself I find the implication that the editors of Uncyclopedia are all anti-Christian quite puzzling. Rangeley 23:54, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

The content page seems well-supported. It says Uncyclopedia has parodies of liberal sites but that, on balance, most of the parodies (or the harshest parodies) are of conservative sites. In other words, Uncyclopedia is yet another liberal exercise on the internet. I don't know whether you are a Christian or not, or even what you mean by claiming to be a Christian, but you don't dispute anything in the content page or provide any information to negate the conclusion that Uncyclopedia is yet another liberal website. Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 00:18, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I think the site reflects the views of young people, who history shows, are usually more Liberal than not. Since Liberals show themselves to be more filled with hatred and contempt of opposing POV's, the site is what it is. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, first of all one is not limited to parodying only sites at Uncyclopedia - one can parody or satire anything and everything. There are certainly articles about sites, such as one on this site, but the two links I provided to you above are actually about the Iraq War, and a related news item to that war (a Democrat proposed bill for withdrawal.) Everything is fair game, and as stated in the about page, "Absolutely no POVs are enforced at Uncyclopedia."
Thats the nature of the site - its equal opportunity. Its hardly a "liberal excercise," or a project set up deliberately to target conservatives and conservatives alone (or target conservatives harsher than others.) There certainly is not a quota of political humor, if that is what you are looking for - I dont know if there is more liberal or conservative humor on the site, but I do know that the opportunity exists for both, as proven by the articles I linked you to (ones that I actually wrote myself.) There is not a uniform, or homogeneous POV across the entire site, it differs from article to article, user to user. For these reasons, I do dispute the sentence "it is clear that Uncyclopedia hates Christians and creationism, and aims to destroy Conservativism." Saying that would be like saying the internet hates Christians and wants to destroy Conservatism. While its true that liberal sites exist, conservative sites do too on the internet. Even if there is an imbalance on the whole, this isnt because the Internet is set up to be liberal or conservative, it too is set up as an equal opportunity venue where content reflects what its users create. And there certainly is not a uniform, or homogeneous POV across the entire internet.
And by saying I am a Christian, its a rather straight-forward statement. Rangeley 09:33, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, you restate a liberal fallacy that because something is open to all ("equal opportunity" in your words) then it cannot have a bias. A lynch mob is open to all ("equal opportunity"). The issue is not so much what something is open to, but whom it attracts and its rules form them. Unencyclopedia attracts liberals, and has no rules to curb their excesses and hatred. For that reason it is another meaningless liberal exercise on the internet. Unencyclopedia teaches nothing, it spreads hatred, and then its denies its own liberal bias. If that's how you want to spend your life, that's your choice. You have free will. But we have free speech to tell the truth. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:09, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually, what I am saying is that Uncyclopedia does not enforce any point of view in its articles. As individual articles, each one most likely does have a bias of some sort. For instance, this article I wrote mocks the idea that a withdrawal from Iraq would somehow restore order in that nation. There are other articles, probably, written from the opposite perspective. This is possible because, as a site, there is no POV enforced - there is an equal opportunity for articles of both a liberal perspective, and a conservative perspective. As I said above, I dont know if there is an equal amount (there isnt a quota,) all I know is that the opportunity exists for both.
So again, some individual Uncyclopedia articles definitely have a liberal bias, others definitely have a conservative bias, but to call Uncyclopedia as a site something that favors a certain perspective (which this article still does) is inaccurate, just as its inaccurate to say that the internet favors a certain perspective. Individual sites may, and individual articles may, but as venues they both grant equal opportunity. And Uncyclopedia's appeal is not limited to liberals. Rangeley 15:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)


  • Inaccurate in what way? If you put up a site, and mainly Liberals frequent it, can one say it isn't mainly a Liberal POV just because you slap up a notice that says "All POV's Welcome"? Of course not! If there are 1000 anti-Conservative or Christian articles and two that are mocking Liberalism, that is a choice made by the users and the administrators of the site. It shows the site to be mainly used by Liberals and Secularists....to attack or parody Conservatives and Christians. Period. The Daily Kos allows me to post, but most of what I say is edited immediately, or attacked by 500 other contributors. So, using your logic it is a balanced site. Not so. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, your comments are as silly as claiming that Hillary Clinton holds some conservative as well as liberal views, and that you don't know which side she favors. Well, duh, if you don't know, then find out before you criticize people who do know. Likewise for uncyclopedia, if you don't know what most of its entries are like, then find out first before you claim that it isn't liberal.
For example, check out the uncyclopedia entry about Jerry Falwell after he went to the Lord:
BREAKING NEWS!
Jerry Falwell has died.
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD! ... Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat f****** bastard and famous mongoloid who reinstituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).from uncyclopedia
Now reread my comments above about lynch mob which, like uncyclopedia, allows anyone to join. You have free will to promote uncyclopedia. And we have free speech to tell the truth about it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:57, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
If it turns out that Uncyclopedia's articles are mainly of a certain viewpoint, I have no problem with this being stated - but there is a difference between saying this and saying that it favors a viewpoint. No particular point of view is encouraged, or enforced. Thats definitely part of the appeal of it for me - its open nature has allowed me to make articles satirizing Iran, or Pelosi, or Anti-War activists, things that arent always common elsewhere.
Aschlafly, the thing here is that you need to keep in mind that Uncyclopedia is not a person. Its a venue. Compare it to an "open mic night," anyone can go up and give it a go, there is no requirement for the comedy to be liberal or conservative. If during a particular open mic night, 3 liberals do a routine and 5 conservatives do one, it would be accurate to note that, but inaccurate to say that, because of this, the open mic night favored conservatives. Anyone could have gone up and done a routine, it just so happened that more conservatives did a routine than liberals. Uncyclopedia is like that, there is no requirement in the rules that people have to be of this or that ideology, its open to all. Rangeley 16:20, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, when you respond to my comments, such as how a lynch mob is likewise open to everyone, then I will respond further to your comments. It's tiresome constantly responding to your comments while you ignore mine. You do have free will to participate in a project (uncyclopedia) that is dominated by liberal hatred of Christianity and conservatives, as illustrated by my example above. You can turn the other way and pretend that your project is something else. Regardless, we tell the truth here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I actually have addressed your points, I am sorry if I was not clear enough. Unlike a lynchmob, Uncyclopedia is not an entity, and the people within it do not act together as one entity, expressing one cohesive, homogeneous point of view across the entire site. Anyone is free to join a lynchmob, but they ultimately accede to the "mob mentality," and target whoever is being targeted by the mob. Thats basically saying you are free to join regardless of your view, but you will be doing what the mob decides, regardless of your view (equal opportunity to do what the mob wants.) Thats not how it works on Uncyclopedia, which I again showed you with the several links I provided to you. You are free to join, regardless of your view, and free to write articles in that view, regardless of what it may be (equal opportunity to write humor articles in a point of view of your choosing.) It doesnt favor any particular point of view as a site, and can be equated to an open mic night as described above. Rangeley 17:07, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
A lynchmob is no more of an "entity" than uncyclopedia is. Anyone can join both. No one gives orders in either case; no one is elected leader; and there are no rules. Predictably, evil results in both cases. In the eyes of the law, someone who joins a lynchmob is criminally responsible for everything it does, even actions he disagreed with. Uncyclopedia savages people with high-tech lynchings, like the example I gave above, and yet you seem to want to distance yourself from that. You still haven't addressed the example. I'm not your judge, but I can say that I would not join or remain part of a lynch mob or its high-tech equivalent.
We have a rule here against editors who spend over 90% of their time talk here without doing something of value. You're at 100%, way over the limit, and I suggest you add something of value here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:20, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I dont see how any of that backs your claim that Uncyclopedia favors liberal stances. I agree with you that some of the stuff on Uncyclopedia is too harsh to be funny, though I would hardly call it the equivalent of lynching - saying this would be lessening the shear brutality and evil of what lynching really was. As I said above, Uncyclopedia does not have one viewpoint across all its articles - its users do not act as a group. Uncyclopedia is a venue, much like an open mic night is a venue for comedians. It provides an equal opportunity for people of all political viewpoints to try and be funny. It doesnt favor a particular viewpoint, articles of a particular viewpoint, or people of a particular viewpoint. Do you have anything in response to these points that might refute them?
You have said several times here that this is a place for truth, and I would have edited the article myself had it not been locked. But as it is, what other way is there to fix it except begin a reasoned discussion on the talk page? Rangeley 17:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, you've made 25 edits here and not one of them has any substantive value. That violates our rules. Presented with a shocking entry on uncyclopedia about Jerry Falwell, you won't even apologize for it. Instead, you deny responsibility even though you are a Sysop at uncyclopedia.
Enough. If you're going to stick around here, then you should apologize for the Falwell entry or remove it, and you should abide by our rules. I'm not going to block your account, but other Sysops here might if you don't change your ways. I am done wasting my time with someone who tacitly approves of such an offensive entry about Jerry Falwell, which is just the tip of the iceberg of hatred featured at uncyclopedia, of which you say you are a Sysop.--Aschlafly 18:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I feel like this discussion has gotten really off track. I dont see how any of that backs your claim that Uncyclopedia favors liberal stances. Rangeley 19:01, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I read this, and I wonder how this follows from the Conservpaieda Commandments? Is this true and verifable? Where are the sources? Do counter examples such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, San Francisco and many, many other articles. The website is mocking everyone. I have difficulty on seeing how this is true, or verifiable, or if there is any citation to this 'agenda' that Uncyclopedia has. Yes, it makes fun of conservatives. It makes fun of liberals, Canada, Mexico, Paris... Any article that is on there, they are making fun of it. So, is this a personal opinion (violation of rule #5) or something substatinail that can be verified against rules #1 and #2? If I may also ask, if the Farwell example is offensive enough to need an apology for adding (and to be removed from the talk page), why was it added to the article itself by an administrator?[1]? --Rutm 19:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Is there anything "family friendly" about Uncyclopedia? Is it free of profanity and sexual references and images? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:20, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Some individual articles are, but the site in its entirety is not free of those things. Rangeley 21:57, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
It seems to be saturated with those things. However, I admit it also makes fun of liberals (like this one). ScorpionVote for Pedro 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
The rewording is still incorrect - the site itself does not have an "obviously liberal stance," as has been made abundantly clear. It is an equal opportunity site, in which parody articles from any perspective can be written, and are written. These individual articles certainly have points of view, whether it be conservative, liberal, or even apolitical, but there is no consistent point of view across the entire site. And before saying there are "no standards," you may want to look at some of the rules of the site. [2]. Articles with no redeeming value can be deleted through the deletion process, others can be rewritten by anyone. Rangeley 10:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure how much credence to give a page of "rules" that says that they don't have to be followed! Perhaps the "no standards" comment could be improved. Maybe "no moral standards"? Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Rangeley, if you do not believe the site doesn't have an obviously Liberal stance, you are most certainly in denial. Providing equal opportunity, as has been proved over and over, does not, in and of itself, mean something isn't biased. We provide equal opportunity to Liberals and non-Christians, but I would never claim we are not biased towards Conservatism and Christians. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 12:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley has made 32 edits on this site but not one of them has been substantive. The most he's said is that he does not know whether uncyclopedia is predominantly liberal in entries. When confronted with an example of a harshly liberal entry on uncyclopedia, Rangeley simply repeats his prior uninformed denials. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
TK, that might actually be a helpful example. This site, Conservapedia, allows anyone to edit the site, yet it clearly states in the rules that it is going for a Conservative point of view. Edits to the contrary are reverted, and the goal is to get an encyclopedia providing the conservative perspective. If a liberal wants to contribute to this site, they are absolutely free too, so long as their edits are in compliance with the conservative point of view. For this reason, its absolutely true to say that Conservapedia is a site with a conservative stance.
Uncyclopedia, on the other hand, does not enforce a point of view. Its not only open to people of all ideologies, but its open to articles of all ideologies. Whereas Conservapedia provides "equal opportunity to contribute with the conservative POV, regardless of your own views," Uncyclopedia provides an equal opportunity to contribute with all views. While its accurate to say that Conservapedia has a conservative stance, its inaccurate to say that Uncyclopedia has a liberal stance, because of this difference.
What I said earlier is that I have not tallied up the number of liberal and conservative articles for any sort of comparison, but if its found that there are more of a particular view, I said I had no problem with this being noted. Lets say that it turns out that there are more liberal articles - this could be said in the article. But I hope you see that its misleading to take, from this, that the site itself holds a liberal stance. As I said, its like an open mic night. If 2 liberals and 5 conservatives perform at it, it doesnt mean the open mic night itself had a conservative stance, it just means that more conservatives used it then liberals. Compare this to, say, a "conservative open mic night," which is explicitly open solely to conservatives. It would be accurate to say that that particular open mic night had a conservative stance.
So to clarify, in any case, you could certainly note the composition of articles, users, etc (more liberals, more conservatives,) but saying that the site itself has a stance, when it does not in fact have one, would be a mischaracterization. Rangeley 18:35, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • So, you are saying the site Owners and Bureaucrats are totally apolitical? LOL! They are Liberal-activist owned, I would say none of the Bureaucrats are apolitical or center, none of them are Conservative, as anyone reasonable would know it to mean. So, the site reflects the Owners and Bureaucrats. I think you try too hard to deny reality. Take care now, and thanks for visiting! Bye. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
No, I dont beleive I ever said that. What I did say is that Uncyclopedia does not enforce a point of view. As my profile states, I am a sysop at Uncyclopedia, and if you are interested, got a score of "Economic Left/Right: 5.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.59" on Political Compass. I additionally have served as an administrator at a political discussion site since 2003, and spend a lot of my time online in discussions of some sort - hardly an apolitical person. Not all of my entries at Uncyclopedia are of a political nature, but those which are certainly are right leaning, and I linked you to a few of them above. There are other editors at the site who have different views, and they contribute in these views. People of all views can contribute parodies and satire, in their views. The site's content does not reflect the views of the owners; individual content reflects the individual sense of humor of the contributor, whatever views they may hold. Rangeley 19:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, you're spewing nonsense above, and you can't even spell "believe" correctly. You make up falsehoods about Conservapedia and are clueless about uncyclopedia also. You're a dream come true for the vicious henchmen who contribute to uncyclopedia. You remind me of a kid a lynch mob enlists to buy the rope and find a tree, who thinks he's not guilty because he didn't agree with the final decision. I've got news for you: in the eyes of the law, the teenager who stands outside during the bank robbery is culpable for whatever happens inside, even though he didn't expect or support it.
Please go somewhere else to promote your hate-filled uncyclopedia. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
What in particular do you consider to be "nonsense" and "falsehoods?" Rangeley 20:41, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
You apparently made up this falsehood:
This site, Conservapedia, allows anyone to edit the site, yet it clearly states in the rules that it is going for a Conservative point of view. Edits to the contrary are reverted, and the goal is to get an encyclopedia providing the conservative perspective. If a liberal wants to contribute to this site, they are absolutely free too, so long as their edits are in compliance with the conservative point of view. ...
Every one of your sentences above is false. I'm not going to spend all night correcting your falsehoods. Comply with our rules and do a meaningful edit before someone else mercifully blocks your account. Please.--Aschlafly 21:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Are you claiming Conservapedia is not meant to provide an alternative to liberal bias? This was based directly off the about page here, which says: "Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!" [3] Are you also claiming that edits from a liberal perspective are not reverted? In which case, how would you counter a liberal bias while allowing liberal bias to remain? And the sentence dealing with anyone being able to use this site was in direct response to TK, who said: "We provide equal opportunity to Liberals and non-Christians, but I would never claim we are not biased towards Conservatism and Christians" I truly do not see how any of my statements were without base or inaccurate. Do you have any sources which would contradict my claims about either site? Rangeley 21:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, you're an example of what's wrong with uncyclopedia, where the truth is held in contempt. You made three false statements above about Conservapedia. You can't back them up, so the proper course is for you to admit you were mistaken and to retract them. I'm not going to respond further to you until you comply with our rules make some factual edits to other entries here. Otherwise, please go somewhere else where people don't care about the truth. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I have no problem with admitting I am mistaken, if I am mistaken. What I am asking you is, are you truly saying that the statements, "conservapedia provides an alternative to liberal bias," "conservapedia removes liberal bias if its added to its articles," and "anyone can edit conservapedia so long as they edit within the conservative viewpoint" are inaccurate descriptions of this site? Because the first statement is from the about page and the Google search for this site (description: An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint,) the second can be observed in countless reversions, and the final was stated explicitly by TK on this very page. There is the backing I based my comments on, I am willing to accept that it could still be wrong though. Do you have sources which contradict these, and would show me to be mistaken in my statements? Rangeley 21:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Rangeley, I'm inclined to agree that your claims about Conservapedia are correct in the general thrust of what you are saying, but incorrect if taken precisely as said. For example, you said that Conservapedia "allows anyone to edit the site" , yet there are many who can't, because they are vandals who we've banned. Or, if you don't like that example, try this: Only registered users can edit Conservapedia, unlike some other places that allows "anyone" (i.e. including non-registered users) to edit.
Think I'm being picky? Perhaps. But I think the same applies to your criticisms of this article. Yes, you may be correct to say that the site itself does not take a liberal stance, but the general thrust of the article is that the content of the site tends much more towards liberal viewpoints than conservative viewpoints. So instead of being picky, how about you propose some better wording that maintains the general thrust of that. If you are not prepared to do that (perhaps because you don't agree with the general thrust), then I think you'd better leave off this argument altogether.
Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
This is not really being picky, saying the site itself has a liberal stance is a clear mischaracterization - and certainly, a level of preciseness is to be expected on an encyclopedia article that might not be for a casual conversation. My summaries probably would not have been suitable for an encyclopedia entry for their lack of precision, though it seemed that Aschlafly took issue with everything I said, not just the lack of precision.
I have already proposed a general solution above. It would be noted that the rules say "absolutely no points of view are enforced," that its content parodies and satires people and concepts from across the political spectrum, as well as things outside of it, as its not strictly a political site. It would also note that Uncyclopedias user base contains both liberals and conservatives (compare it to the ED article, which notes that there are both liberal and conservative members there as well.) I beleive that the rules here state that things must be verifiable, so unless a verifiable study were done to determine the ratio of humor, I am not sure that such a conclusion could be reached on whether the majority of its content leans one way or another, without it being merely a personal opinion. We do have links to articles that are liberal there, and articles that are conservative there, so this much can be verified. Rangeley 23:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Please delete

This may be off-topic, but please delete the ED article. FillmoreMan 21:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • There was some doubt in your mind it is off topic? You posted there, gave no reason. Try again. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to know what article he is talking about. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Encyclopædia Dramatica. Bohdan 23:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Maybe to turn the tables on these guys, we should start copying content from their talk pages and post it on here! ScorpionVote for Pedro 22:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Jerry Falwell "went to the Lord"

We can't just assume someone went to Heaven. While it is more likely for Jerry Falwell than for, say, Mao Zedong, we should try to keep things as sourcable as possible. FillmoreMan 12:03, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I would consider "went to the Lord" as a euphemism for "died", rather than a specific claim about where he went, even though it would normally only be used of someone who who was a Christian. As such, I see no need to change it. Philip J. Rayment 21:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • FillmoreMan, how many times do people need to be told that we are not interested in the Wikipedian "Neutral POV"? Here we are a Conservative and Christian - friendly encyclopedia. We do not endeavor to please everyone, and if you actually believe, or anyone else believes, there is any doubt Reverend Falwell actually and truly went home to the Lord, then we will pray for you. Andy meant it literally and most of us know it to be factual. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:55, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
I believe his point was that God decides who goes to heaven, not us. Maestro 00:56, 18 February 2008 (EST)
    • My argument here is that this is "supposed" to be a neutral wiki saying this is not neutral but biased toward Christian and conservative sides Wikipedia is criticized for not being neutral well neither is this wiki you are no better than Wikipedia goodbye I'm going to edit UncyclopediaCal05000 17:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)Cal05000
We criticise Wikipedia for not being neutral whilst claiming to be. We don't claim to be. See also my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. Philip J. Rayment 22:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the legitimacy of the complaint that Uncyclopedia is neutral

I would find the protestations that Uncyclopedia does not satirize conservativism a great deal more than liberalism if the Wikipedia article on your website satirized the liberalism of Wikipedia (see: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ). I also believe that there is not much satire in regards to the evidential bereftness of the theory of evolution and the fraud that has been used to promulgate the theory (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud%2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation ). I think a preponderance of liberals edit Uncyclopedia and that majority probably rules in regards to many articles. Certainly the theory of evolution is a sacred cow of liberals and it seems as if there is no real biting satire in respect to this liberal sacred cow. Conservative 16:36, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Why is it that every time I visit Uncyclopedia their articles on Atheism and evolution get even more hatefully anti-Christian? They even go so far as to create a template that says "God **** this!" That's really scary. Don't they realize that they're only ****ing themselves with this belief? They're so hateful towards Christians ScorpionVote for Pedro 21:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Enjoy Feebasfactor 23:09, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Haha! This is hilarious! That's the best page on there I've seen yet! BTW, have you checked out Evolution? That's great! ScorpionVote for Pedro 13:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Search for articles written about liberals like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton they are funny as well. Orion Blastar 12:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Sombody check this

I was just on Uncyclopedia, I added this: [4]. Depending on how this vote goes, we can see if some users have morality. Capercorn 11:34, 10 November 2007 (EST)

  • At 15:50 UTC on 10 November 2007, the Jerry Falwell article on Uncyclopedia was deleted by consensus of the Uncyclopedia community. Capercorn 19:47, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Uncyclopedia is a vile site. Capercorn, was its entry on Jerry Falwell deleted because most voted for its deletion? Please explain a bit more what you did. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:16, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Like the AfD present on Conservapedia and Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia has a VFD (Votes For page Deletions). I nominated the page on Jerry Falwell for deletion after reading it. After a short period of time, a SysOp will look to see the consensus on the article, and delete if the consensus is to delete it. After a unanimous vote to delete it, a SysOp deleted it. A had checked the edit history of the page, and determinied that the page was written by IP addresses. IPs can't write to save their collective lives, their humorless. Normally, really, really offensive stuff like that is deleted as soon as sombody finds it. I wouldn't have found that if it wearn't for the entry. And for that, Uncyclopedia thanks you. Capercorn 21:18, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Proof of deletion can be found here Capercorn 23:13, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Uncyclopedia's entry on Conservapedia is unbelievably vile and sickening. Anyone who is under 18 shouldn't even visit it.
Uncyclopedia's best and only purpose seems to be to remind adults about how much evil does exist on the internet. If the internet is ever restricted by government, it is going to be because of vile sites like Uncyclopedia.--Aschlafly 23:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Good work, Capercorn, on getting that deleted, although the comments from those voting for deletion[5] don't inspire me to think that "some users have morality". Anyway, I've updated this article as a result. Philip J. Rayment 23:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)
I checked the History on the Conservapedia page on Uncyclopedia. More IP vandalsim. You guys know how to deal with IPs. I wish Uncyclopedia were the same way, a lot of the offensive stuff would be gone. I will still stick to that compared to Encyclopedia Dramatica, Uncyclopedia is very tame. BTW, shouldn't external links to websites like this have NSFC (Not safe for Children) tags? User:Capercorn 23:43, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Satire?

Somehow, I always considered Uncyclopedia a place just for people to goof off. Unbelievably vile and sickening... heh. Barikada 14:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, same. Some people have to cool off, and stop being so uptight. I found it funny... Bias 16:17, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It is funny, Conservatives here are welcomed to join Uncyclopedia and write articles that make fun of liberals. It is what I do there mostly, and they are nice to me even if I don't always agree with them. Any article that is not funny, will most likely be voted on in the vote for deletion area. People can make their case why it is not funny, and via a democratic process vote to keep or "huff" (IE delete) the article in question. While some articles can be considered vie and sickening like the one written on Jerry Falwell after he died, please note that there was a vote for deletion and it was deleted. If Conservatives have a problem with there being too many liberals on Uncyclopedia, maybe more Conservatives should join up and write articles that make fun of liberals so provide more of a balance there. I myself don't take Uncyclopedia seriously, and it was never intended to be a serious Wiki or even a Wiki that promotes the truth. For example Jesus died for our sins, I think he can take a few jokes aimed at him and Christianity. If God doesn't have a good sense of humor, then a lot of us are doomed anyway. As the Dilbert comic strip says laugh or you'll go insane. Orion Blastar 19:12, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Uncyclopedia makes fun of liberals, here is proof

I myself am a Conservapedia member for quite some time, plus I contributed to Uncyclopedia articles as well. Let me cite some articles that I worked on that prove that Uncyclopedia makes fun of liberals as well. Holy Bible: Revised Liberal Edition, HowTo:Be A Liberal, Non God Fearing Democrats, I can't believe it is not liberalism to name just a few. Orion Blastar 22:35, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Well, yes, but I think you'd agree that a few counterexamples do not disprove a correlation. See liberal logic.
Thanks for your contributions to a few entries here. Any way you could increase that a bit? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:54, 17 February 2008 (EST)
I could, if I found the time to do so. To be honest I am more welcome at Uncyclopedia, but I might try to increase my edits of articles here later. What point I tried to make is that Uncyclopedia makes fun of everything basically, and not everyone there is a Liberal. I could provide more counterexamples if need be, if they would be included as counterexamples in the Uncyclopedia article here. Orion Blastar 23:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)
"Orion", a few counterexamples, and rather tame ones at that, do not disprove the overwhelmingly liberal bias at Uncyclopedia. In fact, it's not just liberal, but it is viciously liberal. Check out how it treats God. No, we're not going to conceal the truth about Uncyclopedia here. Lynch mobs probably welcome co-participants also.--Aschlafly 23:34, 17 February 2008 (EST)
How it treats god? does that mean if a person does not like the idea of god, then they are a liberal? I think you need to look at the definitions of conservatism and liberalism. anyways, it is a PARODY site. Everything is made fun of, none of it is serious. People are just trying to be funny. It results in bias, sure, but it doesn't mean that everybody there is a liberal who has no values.Skwisgaar 11:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I am not asking you to conceal the truth. The articles I cited show that not everyone at Uncyclopedia is a Liberal, which you are trying to conceal. There are always exceptions if you open up your eyes to see them. Orion Blastar 10:54, 18 February 2008 (EST)
No one claimed everyone at Uncyclopedia is a liberal, but there's no denying that the site is predominantly and viciously liberal. You have free will: spend your efforts there if you so choose to support the site. But we're going to tell the truth here.--Aschlafly 11:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Then there should be a reason to tell the truth that there are articles on Uncyclopedia that aren't viciously liberal. Orion Blastar 12:38, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Oh, but we're still telling the truth. We're just omitting a few bits of truth we don't like. --FrankincenseMonster 16:36, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

It's supposed to be a parody

Just to clear something up: Uncyclopedia is an equal-opportunity parody site. Granted, they tend to go after Conservatives more than Liberals, but that's mainly because of the demographics that make up the site. Anything on it is intended to be taken with a grain of salt, possibly several. The Conservapedia article, for instance, is written from the point of view of a person biased towards the Liberal side. It's supposed to be so irrationally ignorant and liberal that it's funny. I suggest that the article (or at least the inevitable rewrite) be edited to include this fact, rather than exclusively looking for the bad side of Uncyclopedia. As is, it sounds like Conservapedia hates them and is getting riled up over something that isn't even supposed to be taken seriously. --FullMetalGuitarist 16:31, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Hmmm...you think? It seems every chance they get they make an attack on Christianity or conservativism. I dunno if what you said is their intentions but it could very well be ScorpionVote for Pedro 17:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, come on. They make fun of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Liberals, Bill Gates, Apple, iPods, and everything else as much as they make fun of Christians, Conservatives, Jesus, and God. People, seriously just take it as a joke, it is a parody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yelonde (talk)

Jerry Falwell

Shortly after Jerry Falwell went to the Lord?????? Do we have any verifiable source that Jerry is actually in heaven? Otherwise it should be rewritten. Shortly after Jerry Falwell passed away, died, croaked ... or something like this. Maupiti 07:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

(ignore it, it has been adressed earlier. (Thanks for your prayer TK)) Maupiti 07:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Delete Uncyclopedia

At the moment, this Uncyclopedia thingy isn't getting any positive publicity for Conservapedia. Couldn't it just be deleted? It's only significant because it has said something negative about Conservapedia. Afterall, it's just a random website. --UaSsAu 09:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations!

Uncyclopedia's article on you has just been featured on the front page! You should be honored. Though it's a bit more hard hitting than Jon Swift's puff piece, remember that criticism can make you stronger. --Naughtyned 15:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

uncyclopedia

They have an article on Bias in conservapedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamkay (talk)

It's comedy....

Oy, I can't believe I have to explain this. Most modern comedy (as opposed to Henny Youngman: "take my wife please" comedy), is usually observational or satire. (Ever since Lenny Bruce and George Carlin entered the world of comedy, it's different, you can't expect it to be clean and unoffensive. (Think about it, when was the last time [[Bill Cosby said something even remotely funny.)

The reason why (IMHO) the internet is a bastion for comedy is simple: the FCC. Because of their ridiculous regulations, television comedy has been so lobotomized most people are turning to the internet. One of the reason's for Youtube's success is because of the amount of standup comedy they have. (And they also have this. Comedy on (especially network) television has become lobotomized, where you have a censor going over items and telling comedians what they can't say. [Reminds me of the old censor of plays in England, see here what George Bernard Shaw had to say about that.]

My point is, being that the internet is open to everyone, you have some of the funniest stuff ever you'll find on the internet. Come on! You've even got wiki's devoted to Stephen Colbert! (If you can take a joke, see what they say about us).

My point is, comedy has always shocked people, sometimes it's just meant to make people laugh. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance Comedy has only one standard: "Is it funny?" (Kind of like the Oscar Wilde quote, [how appropriate when discussing Uncyclopedia]:"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written.") Some of the funniest people are conservative, the Blue Collar guys, Nick Dipaolo, Colin Quinn, Dennis Miller etc. etc.

Anyway, I needed to get that off my chest and I hope you're all still listening.

Full disclosure: Though I have an account @ Uncyclopedia, I don't think I've ever written anything there, so I'm not trying to promote it, OK? ד.לערנער 10:33, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Why can't I expect comedy to be clean? The point is, clean comedy exists, so it's possible, so comedy doesn't have to be immoral, so why should we accept it otherwise? Rather, that looks very much like an argument justifying immoral comedy on the fallacious basis that that is its nature. Philip J. Rayment 10:46, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Uncyclopedia is great! It provides clever satire from a wide variety of perspectives and, to survive in the world, you must realize that there are other people with other perspectives on the world. If you don't like something on there, just parody it (but make it clever/funny) and they already remove the really bad stuff --Helps 11:25, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Lighten up, jeesh. Conservatives are supposed to be able to take a good joke. LeaningRight 11:28, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes PJR, comedy can be clean - if you watch reruns of Bewitched & I Love Lucy :) -- D L e r n e r Articulate 11:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

So current comedians are not as clever as those back in the 1950s and 1960s? Not surprising, I guess. Philip J. Rayment 21:39, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
So, George Carlin's detailed dissection of the English language isn't clever? -- D L e r n e r Articulate 21:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm not familiar with him, but I didn't say that modern comedians are not clever. I asked if they were not as clever as those back in the 1950s and 1960s. Which is what you seem to be implying if those comedians could be funny and clean and modern ones can only be funny without being clean. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
The style has changed. I ask you, who do you find funny in todays comics? Jack Chick doesn't count though he does amuse me... ---user:DLerner--- 08:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
So what you're claiming is that modern comedians are just as clever as past ones, but choose not to keep their comedy clean because of the current fashion? Yeah, that's a really good excuse for smut. Philip J. Rayment 09:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
You didn't answer the question. Who DO you like? ---user:DLerner--- 22:24, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not a comedy aficionado. This might sound silly, but I like comedy that's funny. And clean. Philip J. Rayment 06:11, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Reverted edits?

It's come to my attention that the edits of Naughtyned (here) and TheWritter (here) have been reverted. Why is that? Isn't it standard wiki procedure to leave edits on talk pages alone and keep them as a record? I'm just asking, as I'm slightly puzzled over this. --FullMetalGuitarist 14:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

On Conservapedia at least, it's common to revert posts of vandals and trolls, although I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here (I haven't checked closely). Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Jerry Falwell

the page on Jerry Falwell is still in existance, and is planned to be featured on May 15th, the anniversary of Mr. Falwell's death. CJK 10:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

"Bad right wing jokes and other deleted nonsense..." in other words, "no jokes but liberals' are funny! WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE!" Get over it, Obamaites and Hillaryites! ScorpionVote for Pedro 17:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
What? You people need some humour transplant! The website is intended to be a parody! I know some stuff are offensive, and I reverted as much as possible. But really, please, don't be too negative on everything. You are not the only one who's mocked on Uncyclopedia. There's always someone else. Me?--Faizaguo 13:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Did anyone notice that some Chavez worshipper changed the article on him? The first was funny because Chavez is a communist bastard, but now it's mocking AMERICA, like almost every other article on there. Whose problem anyway?? ScorpionVote for Pedro 11:58, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
None of these responses acknowledge the original problem: the fact that the Jerry Falwell article has been rewritten and featured needs to be mentioned, and the "update" that it has been deleted needs to be removed, as it is obsolete. --FrankincenseMonster 17:49, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia's article on Uncyclopedia

It is very short, out-of-date, and completely out-of-proportion to this talk page. I would like to rewrite this article from a conservative POV while maintaining accuracy (for example, the whole "Ding-dong, the witch is dead" statement has not been there for years, and yet it still remains on the site). However, the page is protected from being edited. I am asking that it be unblocked so I can write a more up-to-date version of the article. Thank you. JonathanC

I have unprotected the page for you. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 12:27, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

This is Senseless

I've seen how biased you people are, and honestly, I never want to have anything to do with this bloody site. It's biased to America, anti-every other nation in the world, and it's senseless.

However, I am a socialist-Conservative Englishman, and I am religious, but I must say that this article is nothing but rubbish. Uncylopedia is a PARODY SITE, it parodies things. It is meant to be satirical; it satires both religious and atheist individuals. Because they make a joke does not mean they're out to destroy religion, and if they say they are, they're most likely satiring atheists.

If you people can't take a joke, then don't go to Uncyclopedia. One final comment as well, stop the damn "America is better than everyone else" bias. America is one of the worst countries in the world. It isn't some holy nation destined to rule the earth, it's got idios in government, terrorists in Congress, and Freemasons running it. --Briton77 11:43, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Mr. "socialist-conservative Englishman", I urge you to get yourself a good dictionary, and then use it. "Parody" is not a term that encompasses vile and childish liberal smears. Your country used to produce quality parodies. With more open-mindedness toward conservative truths, your nation could return to its past greatness. Help it, please.--Andy Schlafly 11:50, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
Do you honestly expect us to take that thing you just said seriously? Didn't you listen? Else, try to visit the Uncyclopedia articles about e.g. liberals, evolution, Obama, Democrat Party etc. and tell me just how "liberally biased" those articles are.--AFM 10:51, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Uncyclopedia"
Personal tools