# Talk:Conservapedia

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

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

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

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

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

Should "Grokipedia" be linked in the § See also section? It was added by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan in Diff/1314300330. It's not it's own article, it's a redirect to Grok (chatbot) § Grokipedia, so I edited the link to point there instead even though it's WP:NOTBROKEN. I don't have any strong feelings as to it's inclusion or exclusion, but I figured it's worth asking what makes sense. Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO is pretty broad, so it's not that outlandish. Personally, since it doesn't have more than a short paragraph and doesn't really exist yet, I think it's unnecessary atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair, I’ll just leave it. Those two should fit together like uninformed peas in a pod anyway. Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)