Eric D. Snider

Something Wiki This Way Comes

Snide Remarks #534

"Something Wiki This Way Comes"

by Eric D. Snider

Published on March 5, 2007

Did you know that Wikipedia is full of anti-Christian and anti-American bias? Well, it is! For example, if you go to the Wikipedia page for "United States of America," you'll find this as the very first sentence: "The United States of America is a country of the western hemisphere, comprising fifty states and numerous territories." Oh, our territories are NUMEROUS, are they? We're just big ol' TERRITORY HOGS, aren't we? Well, excuse us, Mr. Wikipedia!

And the anti-Christian bias is obvious: First sentence about America, and no mention of Christianity, the religion embraced by every single one of the Founding Fathers? Your atheist roots are showing, Mr. Wikipedia!

Luckily, we have an alternate source for fast, reliable information without having to wade through Wikipedia's biases. That source? Books. Your library is full of them.

I am kidding, of course. If we go back to reading books instead of looking things up on the Internet, then the terrorists have won, just like the liberals always wanted them to. No, the alternate to Wikipedia that I refer to is a new project called Conservapedia. Conservapedia is, in its own words, "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American." As the first example of Wikipedia's bias, the Conservapedia front page then says this: "On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian 'C.E.' instead of 'A.D.'" The horror!

Conservapedia does not claim to be unbiased. Instead, it openly admits its bias -- "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America" -- unlike Wikipedia, which claims to be striving for neutrality while still sometimes using Christian-hating abbreviations such as "C.E." instead of "A.D."

(For the record, Wikipedia has no official policy on which you should use. Most articles use the traditional "B.C." and "A.D.," but there are some that use "B.C.E." and "C.E." -- "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era." I agree that "B.C.E." and "C.E." are needless variants, and that it's silly to remove a reference to Christ from the nomenclature when the dates themselves are still reckoned according to the year of his birth, i.e., 1492 A.D. is the same as 1492 C.E., for example. But I'm also pretty sure that, even as a Christian, I don't care which one people use, and hardly anyone uses the non-Christian one anyway.)

And so Conservapedia offers up tasty articles such as the one on Richard Nixon, which is two paragraphs long and begins by calling him "the 37th President of the Christian United States." (Coincidentally, he was also the 37th president of the regular United States. I guess "Christian United States" and "United States" use the same numbering system, like B.C. and B.C.E.) He was also, we are told, "the 36th Christian Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961, in the administration of Christian Dwight D. Eisenhower." This is vital information. Watergate is barely mentioned, though at only two paragraphs, even Nixon himself is barely mentioned.

Or here's the Bill Clinton entry, which begins: "William J. ('Bill') Clinton served as president of the United States from 1993-2001. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote." The entry on George W. Bush doesn't mention that he didn't win a majority of the popular vote in his first election, either, though it does mention that "in 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of millions of votes [3 million, specifically], including a landslide victory in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000." That "landslide" in Florida was 3,964,522 votes for Bush over 3,583,544 votes for John Kerry -- a difference of 380,978, or 5 percent of the total votes cast. I suspect that if the outcome had been the other way around, Conservapedia would call it a narrow victory, not a landslide. But that's just the liberal fact-monger in me talking.

The global warming page, as you might expect, is delightful. It acknowledges the recent international report from 113 countries asserting that global climate changes are very likely "not due to known natural causes alone" -- but then it points out this fact, which may not have occurred to you: "These scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him."

Now, pointing out the misspelling of "atheists" would be petty, so we won't. But even if it's true that most scientists are liberal atheists -- and no source for that is cited, despite Conservapedia's frequent insistence that users cite sources -- I'm not sure how it's relevant. It's hubristic (i.e., arrogant) to think that mankind can destroy the Earth that God gave them? That doesn't make sense, logically or theologically. God gave us our physical bodies, too, yet we manage to destroy those pretty regularly. Are the Conservapedians saying that even if mankind joined together and TRIED to destroy the Earth, they wouldn't be able to? Call me a liberal athiest, but I don't think "it's hubris to think man can destroy the Earth" constitutes a valid argument against global warming.

Conservapedia has a few sworn enemies. The first, of course, is Wikipedia. The Conservapedia homepage recommends you read the page called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." There are 31 examples listed here. I counted eight that could actually be interpreted as evidence of bias (one of which has since been corrected at Wikipedia), 14 that simply refer to errors in fact in Wikipedia entries or limitations inherent to the Wikipedia system (and if we're counting THOSE, we could find hundreds of similar examples at Conservapedia), and nine that are neither bias nor mistake but are simply irrelevant.

My favorite example in that last category is #7: "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American." If spelling words the British way ("colour, "humour," etc.) constitutes an anti-American bias, just think how anti-American it would be to actually speak a foreign language!

But then, for some reason, Conservapedia also has a bizarre hatred for Merriam-Webster. Yes, the dictionary. Conservapedia has a page devoted to Merriam-Webster's "errors and biases." To wit:

"The date for 'eminent domain' is incorrect: 1883. The term was used as early as 1125." (No source for this is cited.) Now, actually, M-W says 1783, not 1883. But more to the point: There's no way the term "eminent domain" was being used in 1125. The concept may have existed, and people may have had a term for it, but whatever that term was, it could have borne no more than a passing resembling to "eminent domain." The English being spoken in 1125 was vastly different from the English of today (which would make it anti-American, of course). The words "eminent" and "domain" separately didn't appear in English until the 1400s, so it's not likely a combination of them popped up 300 years before that.

Or this example: "The definition of 'group theory' uses 'group' to define itself!" ("Group theory: A branch of mathematics concerned with finding all mathematical groups and determining their properties.") That is bad form indeed. Of course, Conservapedia's entry for group theory does the same thing: "Group theory is the study of mathematical groups, including their symmetries and permutations."

What Conservapedians have against Merriam-Webster, I don't know. It seems like an odd target, especially when that thesaurus bastard Roget gets off scot-free.

I've spent a lot of time this past week browsing Conservapedia, and I've narrowed down my favorite pages to these two. First, the page for Fox News, which reads as follows:

Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. [1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. [2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. [3].

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version. [4]

You read that, and you think a lot of it is preposterous, and you're stunned to think that any adult human actually thinks Fox News is "fair and balanced," but then you see that there are footnotes. Surely these footnotes will cite sources. And they do! Footnote [1] takes you to a page on Fox's site where you can apply for employment at Fox News; [2] takes you to a defunct General Motors contest called "The Sean Hannity You're a Great American Car Giveaway"; [3] goes to an image of the Fox News logo; and [4] is the Fox News story about Tony Snow's appointment. So everything in the Fox News Conservapedia article is well-documented and verifiable.

But my very favorite page on Conservapedia is the one on dinosaurs. Sadly, it was edited within the past couple days, so the version I fell in love with is no longer there. Luckily, I took a snapshot of it before it went away. It looks like this:

Alt text

No, your eyes do not deceive you. Yes, that is a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur. He is also holding a baby alligator, or possibly an iguana, or possibly a baby dinosaur, which I guess would fit the theme more. My only question is how the artist got them all to pose for it.

Alt text

(By the way, when the page was edited, not only was the Jesus picture removed, but so was the quote from Pope John Paul II about evolution not being incompatible with Christianity. Apparently, though evolution may be compatible with Christianity, it is not compatible with Conservapedia.)

Conservapedia has begun to get some attention over the last several days, and they even got their own entry on Wikipedia. But the article was tagged for possible deletion due to Conservapedia being, so far, an un-noteworthy site with few outside media references to it. Hopefully this edition of "Snide Remarks" can be a drop in the Internet bucket as the Conservapedians seek notoriety.

Here's the real problem with Conservapedia: It's completely useless as an encyclopedia, i.e., a source of actual information. The idea of a compendium of knowledge having open, declared biases is oxymoronic. By definition, a compendium of knowledge should contain ALL available facts, not just the ones that make certain subjects look good. It is impossible to browse Conservapedia and learn anything you didn't already know. Instead, it's a way for conservative, home-schooling, fundamentalist Christians to find reinforcement of the things they already think. Bias may creep in to Wikipedia here and there, just as it will any time humans are involved in a project, but at least the governors of that site have neutrality as their goal. Conservapedia baldly announces its biases up front, thus guaranteeing that no one will ever be able to take it seriously as a reliable information source.

The scary thing is, there are a lot of people for whom that's perfectly OK. As long as it doesn't challenge their beliefs, bring up unpleasant facts, or suggest their heroes have flaws or their villains have merits, Conservapedia has all the truth they need. And really, what's more American than that?

[Note: All the Wikipedia and Conservapedia quotes in this column were accurate when the column was posted. Owing to the nature of those sites, it's entirely possible things have been changed since then. The point is, I didn't make anything up.]

Stumble It!


Not every column has to be a gut-buster, you know. With this one, I was just hoping to spread some amusement around at the expense of some goofballs. My thanks to an alert reader named Matt who pointed out the site to me, and in particular the dinosaur page, which is one of the best things I've ever seen in my life.

Conservapedia was founded by Andy Schlafly, son of famed conservative anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly. Andy seems to have done a lot of the editing on Conservapedia himself, as his handle ("Aschlafly") appears frequently in the edit histories. According to the site's "About" page, it began as a project for 58 home-schooled teens in New Jersey. Glad to see the kids are learning.

On March 7, this column was linked at I was delighted by this, not just because it resulted in several thousand extra visitors to the site, but because I love Fark and I think it's cool to be mentioned there. (It happened once before, too, with the junket whore column.)

Oh, and a third reason to be glad for the Fark mention: Within that influx of new readers were several people who didn't grasp the whole "sarcasm" thing and took a couple things seriously. See comments #76, #83, #89, and #103 posted below for examples. A couple people who posted comments on Fark itself seemed to miss the point, too. Of course, the column is kind of awkward, the way I start out pretending to agree with Conservapedia before turning around and openly mocking it. So maybe it's my fault.

This item has 195 comments

  1. Markk says:

    I'm surprised that Wikipedia cannot find enough sources. I have been reading about Conservapedia virtually everywhere, mostly by people pointing out how stupid it is.

  2. Robert says:

    Not funny. Not funny at all.

  3. Lowdogg says:

    I was amused by this column. The picture from the dinosaur entry is incredible.

  4. Dave the Slave says:

    not as funny as it is scary.

  5. tia juanna says:

    Eric, I am never quite sure how to take you or how much you like just pulling my leg, but this was just amazing. Say it ain't so Joe! If I was an Internet surfer, I might just go and see if Conservapedia really exists. As it stands I'll just take your word for it...maybe.

  6. Thoughtful Observer says:

    All that I could think when I was reading the entry for Fox News was that if someone tried turning that in as an essay in middle school or high school, they'd fail because they didn't back up any of their claims. It's a good thing that they are all home-schooled, because their parents won't fail them.

  7. matt says:

    First I thought that conservapedia was a joke that you made up. Then I wished, with all of my heart, that it really had been.

  8. Euphrasie says:

    I thought you'd made it up at first too. The tone at the beginning of the piece (Hee, I called Snide Remarks a piece!) sounded like satire to me. Then I was really confused when you started mocking them.

  9. Andrew D says:

    So what's Conservapedia trying to conserve, anyway? Right-wing bias in the name of anti-bias?

  10. B says:

    Say what you will about Conservapedia, but I learned a lot of things from it. For example, I found out that the Theory of Relativity is anti-Christian. Who knew?

  11. melis says:

    "What Conservapedians have against Merriam-Webster, I don't know. It seems like an odd target, especially when that thesaurus bastard Roget gets off scot-free"--- COMPLETELY hilarious and totally made me smile today! Love the pic of Jesus on the dinosaur too... On a serious note, it's sad that there are a huge faction of people out there who will be completely satsified with Conservapedia so they won't have to take the risk of opening their minds, or dare I say it, expend the engery needed to actually produce a constructive thought. Sad sad sad.

  12. Jesse says:

    As a Christian and a Conservative, I can honestly say that my brain has never hurt more. I tried going to Conservapedia, but just glancing at it made my mind want to cower in the corner and sob.

  13. Jonathon says:

    I'm so sad to see how many of those Conservapedia quotes have been edited to be less funny. Though maybe I should be happy that they're now a little less scary.

  14. sue says:

    This reminds me of Ernie Lauffenberger who told me 33 years ago that all the Popes were Jewish and he could prove it because he read it in a book. I didn't know then and I still don't know how to deal with this way of thinking. Maybe incredulity. (Oh dear, I had to check with M-W for the spelling.)

  15. card says:

    Wow. I am frightened.

  16. Joshua Steimle says:

    Is there some way I can still be a conservative without being associated with conservatives who believe Jesus rode dinosaurs? Although I would be interested in seeing more works from the artist. Can anybody read the signature? Looks like it might read "Fuischka" or something.

  17. whea-wix says:

    Conservapedia quote about Kangaroos:

    "Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobarmin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

    After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters."

    Now, I believe the Bible. There was a flood. But come on! Kangaroos rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters! Those would have to be some mad rafting skillz!

  18. Brandon says:

    Any chance some of this stuff was written by people trying to make Christians look bad?

  19. Ryan Byrd says:

    Jesus on a Brachiosaurus holding an alligator. Pterodactyl in distance. Classic.

  20. Matt says:

    "Any chance some of this stuff was written by people trying to make Christians look bad?"

    Yes and no. Some vandalism happened, but it was aimed at Conservapedia, not at Christians in general. When this started showing up on the science blogs, some people did sneak in some weird stuff for fun, but the hilarity of it all is that the stuff that was already there was so goofy that you couldn't discern what was real and what was not. You can look at the edit histories on Conservapedia to get an idea of what changes were made when and by whom.

    Most of the buffoonery on Conservapedia is genuine, including the silly list of indicators of anti-American, anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia.

  21. Robert G. says:

    I'm surprised you didn't mention the embarrassing grammar and spelling mistakes in that "Fox News" article, because they were even funnier than the "athiest" misspelling. For example, "news" is spelled "new" and the sentence "The success . . . is because" is grammatically unsound.

    I know these are home-schooled kids writing these, but you'd think Andy Schlafy would help them sound a little more credible.

    As for myself, I like the following line from "The Theory of Relativity page: "This theory rejects Isaac Newton's God-given theory of gravitation and replaces it with a concept that there is a continuum of space and time."

  22. B says:

    17: Rafting kangaroos sounds like a great idea for a movie

  23. Aaron says:

    The first 3 paragraphs feel like a transcript from an episode of the Colbert Report.

    My 2 year-old saw the dinosaur picture and shouted "Jesus! ROAR!" That's going to take a lot of coloring sessions in nursury at church to rectify.

  24. Steve S says:

    I loved the high-school term-paper like concusion to the article on Islam: "Because Islam is an uncomplicated religion to live by, it is sure to continue in its popularity around the world." No opinion there!

    The article on England ( is just laughable, riddled as it is with misspellings and just plain dopiness. ("England as a nation began to exist in approximately Roman times, when the Romans invaded and took control over the bottom half of Great Britain.")

    Surprisingly there is no article yet on the BBC, even though we know how much "the BBC hates America." Another person widely believed to "hate America" is described fairly innocuously: "Osama Bin Laden is the leader of al Qaeda, a worldwide Muslim terrorist group thought to be responsible for 9-11 and other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He was protected by the Taliban until the American invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11 drove him into hiding." [That is the ENTIRE ENTRY on OBL. . .] The wikipedia entry is a bit longer:

  25. David Cornelius says:

    I wonder if Jesus uses the alligator as a weapon, as in: "Don't mess with Dinosaur-Riding Jesus, or he will throw an alligator at your face."

  26. Ben C. says:

    #25... LOL! That is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

  27. whome says:

    B says:
    17: Rafting kangaroos sounds like a great idea for a movie

    Whatever you do, don't suggest this to Disney. They'll make some stupid movie filled with kicks to the groin -- and worse yet, starring Tim Allen. While I won't have to pay for it, I will still be subjected to painful trailers.

  28. Cory says:

    I wonder of there is a Liberalpedia too, because I bet it would be every bit as ludicrous as the Conservapedia. Both right-wing and left-wing partisans make me ill.

  29. Matt says:

    "I wonder of there is a Liberalpedia too" Of course there is - it's called Wikipedia. Were you not paying attention?

  30. Julie says:

    I just spit all over my computer when I saw that Jesus picture. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Thank you for that....

  31. Chuckwagon Sparetire says:

    Now I know this is out of the blue (possible pun intended), but is it wrong to wish for the death of Ann Coulter just to make her shut up? Normally, I'm a pretty conservative person, but that woman irritates me. As regards this Snide Remarks, I bet Conservapedia is funded by Ann Coulter.

  32. B says:

    27: Not to worry, it will be animated, and I'll do my best to keep the voice talents of Tim Allen away from it. Sadly, there will still be too many fart jokes, as it's against the law to make a kids movie without fart jokes.

  33. Brandon says:

    Wishing the death of someone because of their politics = major partisan hack. I can think of plenty of liberals I disagree with, but I don't want them dead.

    Calm down.

  34. B says:

    33: In normal cases, yes. But Ann Coulter isn't human, so wishing her dead is no big deal.

  35. Randy Tayler says:

    Man... I'm gonna start Crazypedia, and just copy Conservapedia word for word.

  36. ClobberGirl says:

    The Clinton article currently says,

    "Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city."

    Just... no comment.

  37. Sean says:

    A few selections from the Liberalpedia:

    1. Abraham Lincoln was an undercover Democrat.

    2. The Soviet Union fell because it feared the Second Coming of Franklin Roosevelt.

    3. There is no mention of Al Sharpton's illegitimate children, because after all, he doesn't have that many.

    4. Communism really does work. It's just never been administered correctly.

    5. Limitations on virtual child pornography, topless dancing and daytime advertising of the Playboy channel on children's TV stations violate the First Amendment. Restrictions on paid advertisements criticizing Congressional incumbents in the 30 days before elections are no problem.

    6. The John Birch society is a bunch of loons who think the U.S. Constitution consists of exactly one amendment that gives all citizens an absolute right to own tanks (this will be one of two factually correct entries).

    7. The Conservapedia is a nothing more than a collection of narrow-minded, self-reassuring ramblings by uneducated hacks who believe that the Bible is the sole source of all knowledge, both spiritual and academic, and speaks on every conceivable topic, including the debate of Mac vs. Windows, and therefore anybody who disagrees with their bizarre, narrow and self-contradictory interpretation of said Bible is irredeemably gripped by the jaws of Hell. But the whole thing will be well worth it as long as they have that hilarious picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

  38. Karmacoma says:

    Thank you Eric for writing something that unfortunately makes me even more scared of USA (I live in a far-away place called Europe)... Does that make me anti-american? So sorry... :(

  39. Jack says:

    Yeah, in Red Utah where I come from, I get a lot of this stuff.

    Not just from my brain dead 8th grade peers too... (If you're reading this, you know who you are...) (Harrison) (Michael) (Not to point fingers or anything.)

  40. David Manning says:

    If anyone speaks positively of Conservapedia, you then have permission to never take them seriously ever again.

  41. Brandon says:

    38: Right, Karma, you just stay over there in Europe as you slowly die off due to low birth rates and a huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Muslim immigrants who, I might add, do choose to have children. You'll be outnumbered in a few decades... by religious people who make those who write the conservapedia look moderate.

  42. Binky says:

    As a conservative Christian American, I hang my head in shame.

    But Dino Jesus is AWESOME!

    I gotta get DJ airbrushed on the side of my van. My American Christian van. And on the other side? Satan riding a Yeti and holding one of those hairless cats. And on the back? Jesus and Satan fisticuff-fighting, OLD school! (Maybe even with word-balloons coming out of their mouths, yelling "Have at you!!!")

    But first, I need to get me a van. An American Christian van. (Day-am! Why doesn't Fox News also make cars???)

  43. Binky says:

    And to Karmacoma (#38): don't think of this sort of thing as a scary part of the USA, think of it has the HILARIOUS part! So come, Karma, come! Come on over and visit! We can have a sleepover party at my house and braid each other's hair and giggle and write manifestos and each chick'n fries! You won't be sorry...

    America: Come for our bounteous supply of fried foods---stay for the hilarity!

  44. mommy says:

    YIKES! As a christian-American-homeschooler I thank you for havingthe fortitude for not pointing out the mispelling of the word atheist (and I cringe at the whole concept of conservapedia).

    If I never visit the site can I pretend it doesn't exist?

  45. Chuckwagon Sparetire says:

    Brandon is right, I don't actually wish for the death of Ann Coulter, I just wish for a permanent restraining order on her making any kind of communication based on politics, she gives politics a bad name, i.e. worse than the politicians do. I think it's OK to wish for a person who can't say anything nice to say nothing at all.

  46. Amp says:

    41: Do you write for Conservapedia? Because your comment is on par with the site in terms of ignorance and paranoia.

  47. Brandon says:

    46: Is it? Are you really going to debate the fact that Europe's birth rate is less than 2? Are you refuting the fact that millions of Muslim immigrants are pouring into Europe every year? Or do you disagree with me that hardcore Islam is more extreme than hardcore Christianity? (Danish cartoon riots, anyone?)

    Let me know when you are interested in discussing my statements instead of flinging personal attacks.


  48. Dave the Slave says:

    I doubt even Ann Coulter believes what Ann Coulter says... She's totally just trying to make a buck and sell books with her ridiculous comments. Anyone who claims to be able to correct the wrong-headed opinions of their detractors by name calling is a moron...

  49. Dave the Slave says:

    ..and the Dino-Jesus would make a killer tatoo/biker gang! Who's gonna mess with JESUS?? especially on a DINOSAUR?!? espECIALLY especially holding a loaded ambiguous REPTILE?!?

  50. Amp says:

    Ah, but Brandon, you didn't specify "hardcore Islam". You warned Karmacoma, and presumably all non-Muslim Europeans, against Muslim immigrants who choose to have children. Do you really believe all childbearing Muslims are extremists? If so, I stand by my comments.

    I know about the European birthrate--I took issue with your "beware of the Muslims" stance.

  51. Brandon says:

    My comments were misconstrued, and I apologize for my lack of clear communication.

    They were two separate statements; A.) that Muslims have more children on average than non-Muslims in Europe and B.) that extremist Muslims are more scary and worrisome than extremist Christians.

    Basically, if Karma is scared of America because some hardcore Christians believe that kangaroos floated on rafts during the Great Flood, why not fear hardcore Muslims on hisher own continent, who believe that all non-Muslims should convert to Islam or die?

    At the risk of sounding like a wacko Christian, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

  52. Slash says:

    I love how these things always turn into a weird, "We have to breed faster than the people who don't look like us or we are doomed!" Statistically speaking, the more education a woman has, the fewer children she will have. In general, the more educated a culture is, the fewer children it has. Why do you think Europe, Japan, and America have declining birth rates while third world countries still breed like rabbits? Because we like sex less?

    The real answer to the issue is to educate everyone, not try to outbreed people we don't like. Education reduces fundamentalism, and lowers birth rates across the board. Everyone wins. Oddly enough, I find that the same people who are terrified of immigrants having more kids than the natives are often the same people who don't want to spend money on educating immigrant children. A self defeating attitude to be sure.

    In fact, we already see those changes due to education happening. While immigrants may have many more children than the norm in developed countries, within a generation or two the birthrate drops back down. The children and grandchildren of immigrants have about as many kids as the people around them. Weird, huh.

    Stop fear mongering. The percentage of muslims that think everyone should convert or die is probably even less than the percentage of christians who think conservapedia is a great idea.

  53. Slash says:

    'At the risk of sounding like a wacko Christian, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."'

    Are you saying that Europeans shouldn't criticize the whackos in the US until they stop letting muslims immigate into their countries, or until they start having more kids? What actually ARE you saying there?

    You know, the US has both muslim immigrants and declining birthrates too.

  54. RandomCommentsAreFunny says:

    to everyone commenting on muslims, declining birthrates, dino-Jesus, etc, please keep this gem of wisdom ever present:

    O'doyal rules!........ O'doyal rules indeed....

  55. Brandon says:

    Wow, I got the almighty Slash to comment about my comment. I lose by default.

  56. HP says:

    Why is no-one commenting on Jesus' enormous size? He's holding a full-grown alli-croco-cayman in his hand and riding a brachiosaurus like it is a pony. Dude, Jesus is BIG!

  57. Logan says:

    Yeah these splinter -pedia sites are great. You should check out lostpedia next!

  58. Logan says: answers some questions. The last supper was of course held with dinosaurs!

  59. card says:

    Slash: Interesting comment about education in women and birthrate. Based on my experience, the reason there is a negative correlation between education in women and birthrate is because guys don't like educated women. In fact, I have noticed that if my education or occupation is brought up in a conversation with a male, it has a pretty good chance of ending right after that topic.

  60. Slash says:

    Card, you only know losers then. Smart is sexy. My wife is working on her masters degree in architectural engineering right now, and that is way hot. Most of the guys I hang out with are married to women with post grad degrees.

    Are you Mormon? I have heard that complaint more than once from LDS single women. Is it more of a Mormon cultural thing? The guys aren't as in to the educated babes? I guess that would make sense with the heavy emphasis on staying home and raising babies. If you have a hard won advanced degree, people will probably suspect you'd like to actually use it.

  61. Jeff J. Snider says:

    I'm not saying this is necessarily true about Card, as I don't know her at all, but most of the girls I have known who complained about guys not liking them because they were educated ... well, let's just say there were plenty of other reasons not to like them, not the least of which is that they are so deluded they think people don't like them because of their education when in reality, they haven't showered in a week. I think it is easier for people (both men and women) to choose their best quality and assume that the person who didn't like them was intimidated by it.

  62. Amp says:

    I'm a woman and when I was in college, more than one guy told me that I was intimidating because I was too smart. I don't say this to brag, but to back up Card's point. That being said, my general experience is that it is a very small minority of guys that think smart women are a turn off. One guy I know fell in love with his wife after he found out how good she was at doing the crossword puzzle. My own husband has no problem with my intelligence--and he readily admits that in some areas, I am smarter than he is.

  63. G says:

    As the education levels go up, birthrates go down because of several factors, the most obvious ones being the delay in starting families in order to obtain higher education, even Master's and PhD's, and also the focus on success in a career and making money. This goes for both men and women. There are many other correlating factors that could also be considered as the education level of a country goes up; the move away from an agricultural society, loss of traditional values' focus on family, higher population densities, access to birth control, etc. To say that it's because guys don't like educated women is, well, delusional. To go along with Jeff's line of thought though, card's argument may be backwards. It's not that they aren't the social butterflies because they are smart, but that some people are smart because they can study because they are home on Friday and Saturday nights.

  64. John Doe says:

    Let me agree with Brandon and say to Slash that correlation is not causation. Just because educated people don't have children doesn't mean that education=less children. It's like saying increased ice cream sales cause the month of July.

    It's more likely credited to the hedonistic ideals that education values above family. "You should be free to do what you want, when you want. Anything that limits you (morals, family, children) is evil. What makes you personally happy is all that matters." There's a reason Mormons feel the family is under attacks. It's because it IS under attack. Parents are portrayed in movies as morons, children are brats who make you miserable. We applaud the teacher who could, possibly, kinda/sorta touch a child for good, while we malign the mother who stays home to rear her children.

    I'm studying psychology and our professors come out and tell us that this is one of the flaws currently in this field. Psychologists lament "If only people were smart enough to know that YOU, the individual, are the world and anything that interferes with your own happiness (like marriage or children) should be shunned at all costs." We are much more educated today than we ever have been, and women are getting more educated than men, yet divorce is on the rise and so is shacking up. All this despite the studies that show shacking up or causual sex without commitment causes people to be less happy than married couples.

  65. Melissa says:

    I can totally see the Conservapedia point of view on wanting correct "American" spelling. I mean, when I read "colour" and "behaviour" I make a beeline for an underground shelter. Those red coats are a comin', Pa! Take cover in the barn, y'all!

    Never mind that the first Americans were all British (they came from Britain = British - that is, if we're going to get into the "correct" historical references that Wikipedia apparently isn't acknowledging) and that most of the English language stems from Latin and the rest of the Romantic languages.

    If the Conservapedia guy wants to be Biblically accurate, why doesn't he get on the case of every English-speaking person in the US because we're not all speaking HEBREW?! Hello, Jesus didn't speak English, so why is it that he's (the Conservapedia guy) proclaiming this personalized homogeneous American standard? Is this guy allergic to facts, or is he just P.O.'d that the Wikipedia people wouldn't let him alter their pages with his ignorance.

    Wikipedia is about facts, and getting the whole truth from all potential sources, rather than deleting widely-accepted and scientifically proven history just to placate anyone who has an opinion. People mistake Wikipedia as being a free-for-all when it comes to changing the entries. They have those editors there so people don't throw Jesus-riding-a-dinosaur pictures on there and other craziness.

    The Conservapedia guys are coming - let's break out the pointy white hoods and burn some crosses!

  66. card says:

    It's true that there are a plethora of reasons why different people choose not to date people, and me, in particular (I shower, though, so that's not it). I am just saying that in my experience, the discussion of education or occupation ends conversations.

    Slash, your comment about the mormon culture may be true in some cases. I had a friend who was shocked that I ever thought of having a family someday because I never whined about it like most girls. We dated shortly thereafter.

    ...and G, your comment about being home studying on Friday and Saturday nights was hilarious. Generalizations are sometimes really funny.

  67. B says:

    65: You have no idea what you're talking about. The dinosaur picture clearly proves Jesus spoke American, just like Fred Flintstone. Yabba-Dabba Jesus!

  68. Greg says:

    Conservapedia is pretty ridiculous. I must say that Jesus riding a dinosaur is totally false! They were forbidden to ride them by the Mosaic Law! Blasphemy!

    I must say, though, that all the comments about it being "scary" or about not being able to believe that there are whole groups of people out there that support this type of thing are all pretty funny too. Scared of what? Who contributes to that site? What group? There is no national movement behind conservapedia and a dinosaur-riding Jesus is no more representive of conservatives than a black Jesus is of liberals. Oh, I'd better rephrase that. A dinosaur-riding Jesus is less representative of conservatives than a black Jesus is of liberals.

    You don't hear support from any conservative or Christian that doesn't handle snakes on Sundays. We don't go around saying, "this is a point of view that definitely comes from the frustration of conservative Christians about the way that society has left them behind. We should try to understand the feeling of powerlessness that this is coming from." We say, "this is some pretty funny and stupid bull crap. LOL. ROFL."

  69. Cafe_Au_Lait says:

    Oh, dear. The discussion has raged away from the point at which it started, but I had to say, the idea of kangaroos floating to Australia on vegetation rafts was one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Thanks, whea-wix!

  70. Jammies says:

    For Karmacoma: America has pretty much the same assortment of personalities, decent and otherwise, as you'll find anywhere, really. Yes, scary forms of idiocy do seem to be cropping up in places, but then again a glance at even one of the weekly editions of News of the Weird makes it clear that it's not just us. And wherever it's happening, the people involved are usually in the extreme minority anyways. What it's like will pretty much depend on who you are.

    On a tangent, check out last week's News of the Weird, which includes a Provo couple's daring getaway plan for a bank robbery.

  71. Olof_V says:

    Being a born and bred Dutchman (and proud of it!) I had to check the article on the Netherlands. Okay, the bias-thing is obvious, but why rant over gossip? "below water" "dikes" "Amsterdam" "Philips" (with a useless comparison to GE) and... you guessed it; "flowers". I'm 'glad they didn't call us child-murdering drunk and stoned sociopaths that deny the True Word of God. Maybe next update...

  72. Cory says:

    The Conservapedia is to conservative thought as what Michael Moore is to liberal thought: poor representations of the ideology. Baseless, partisan bomb-throwing only sets one's cause back, be it liberal or conservative.

  73. Max says:

    That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while- that picture of Jesus is absolutly priceless and the entry on Fox News had me in stitches!

    Thanks for that =)

  74. Asa says:

    I learned something today from conservapedia... I learned... umm that... dogs in fact lay eggs... Absolutely amazing the wonders of Our Lord Jesus Christ Almighty Who Died On The Cross For The Salvation Of All Mankind. (This is his full name)

  75. Boogers McGee says:

    The saddest part of this all -- you can't create an account on this wiki. Even though it tells you that you can! Hah!

  76. Justin says:

    As far as your remark of everyone of our founding fathers embracing Christianity. You should double check your facts on that one and learn about Deism which several of our smartest founding fathers were advocates of. Saying every American fore father was Christian is asinine otherwise why would we have that pesky first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom.

  77. Robert says:

    We don't go around saying, "this is a point of view that definitely comes from the frustration of conservative Christians about the way that society has left them behind. We should try to understand the feeling of powerlessness that this is coming from."

    If they are being left behind, it's because they refuse to move forward.

  78. Dr. Jett Rink says:

    Is this guy serious? What a freak.

    Why is that certain group of "Christians" so confrontational, aggresive and "fundamentally" un-funny or open minded?

    As for "several" anything over three (3) is usually recognized as several. That is unless you are incredibly thin skinned or on the defensive, I guess. And what happened to the Founding Fathers idea of seperation of church and state?

    Man, these guys are always their own worst enemies.

  79. Dr. Jett Rink says:

    ps: Reminds me of FOX Newschannels "Half Hour News Hour". Meant to be funny. Meant to be a "Conservative Daily Show". I watched it once. Once.

    It was awful. Just not funny at all.

    I guess maybe they dont get that "The Colbert Report" is a parody of a certain conservative "news" show.. They must think it is a serious news program, I guess.

  80. Mike says:

    Where are the conservatives I grew up with? Hard working people with horn-rimmed glasses and a love for fiscal responsibility, small government, and a christian obligation to the poor? In support of those people (or perhaps, in memory of them, since they all seem to have passed on) I'd like to say that Conservapedia is not a "conservative" sight, but a dominionist sight. To any conservatives still left alive, I would say: "Get it together and take the name back", before these new fools bring science and education to a stand still.

  81. Pasketti says:

    You can see the glorious Dino Jesus picture in the history:

  82. JRoyale says:

    Eric, you need to learn how to use the history page at wikipedia/converstupidia.

    Here's the link to the Dino page you quoted in the article

  83. Jonathon says:

    Christianity was not the religion embraced by all of the founding fathers - this is a fallacy. Pick up a history book and read it.

  84. Markk says:

    Going back to the "education is intimidating" thing: I myself would probably feel intimidated by a woman who was smarter than I was. However, since I have never met such a woman, this isn't something I need to worry about.

  85. EconAtheist says:

    [sobbing tears of utter distress]

    These... these people are dumb.

  86. adam says:

    This is the entire article on Sigmund Freud...

    Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was the atheistic father of psychoanalysis. He was a professor in Vienna, Austria. In 1938 he fled the Nazis by traveling to England, where he was welcomed and made popular.

    Freud proposed that the human psyche consists of three parts -- Ego, super-ego, and id -- and that defense mechanisms are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id. Critics of Freud point out that he fabricated some of his data in order to make some of his claims.

    Late in life, Freud asked his doctor to kill him, which his doctor did.


  87. House of Payne says:

    I've heard stories like Amp's ("more than one guy told me that I was intimidating because I was too smart") from women of varying religious backgrounds. Whenever I hear it, I wonder, who are these guys? A guy who is intimidated by a smart woman can't be that smart himself, right? So why do they care what stupid, insecure men think of them? These are not the guys that smart women want to end up with, right?

    So either the problem is that there are no smart guys, or that girls who hear comments like the one quoted above are not spending enough time with smart guys. Or maybe the problem is that smart guys get attracted to girls of any intelligence, but dumb guys only are capable of being attracted to dumb girls...

    This line of thinking intimidates me. I have to go think about something stupider.

  88. John Doe says:

    Also on the whole education is intimidating, I just summarized a report that showed males are less attracted to women who make more money than them or have high education (college or above, and not even "higher" education, just a high level). So Card is somewhat accurate as far as empirical data is concerned.

    However, there is no data that says why. The study I read said men prefer traditional women as one reason (traditional gender roles) and they feel a woman with a high education focuses more on a career than family. Thus men prefer women who are more likely to focus on the man/family/relationship rather than a woman who will obsess about her career. Thus to say it's because men fear powerful women is rather short-sighted, in my opinion.
    So while Slash may be anecdotally correct in his assessment, he is wrong to attribute this phenomenon to Mormons or Card's limited circle of friends/acquaintances.

  89. Jeff Boerst says:

    If you truly believe that "Christianity, (was) the religion embraced by every single one of the Founding Fathers", Google "The Hellfire Club".

  90. Jeff J. Snider says:

    Rule of thumb: if a humor column includes a statement that is obviously false (such as that every single one of the Founding Fathers embraced Christianity), there's a good chance it was included humorously. I'm just sayin'...

  91. Terry Oakes says:

    Christians and/or conservatives; Don't be concerned about being associated with the Dino-Jesus. When I saw that I was kind of embarrassed to be a human...

  92. Jennie says:

    What I like about that dinosaur page is that it traces the etymology of the word "dinosaur" to latin. But "dinosaur" comes from Greek: "deinos" (terrible) + "sauros" (lizard).

  93. Sean s says:

    I just have one comment, not all home schoolers are christian at all, sometimes parents (like mine) think I'll get a better education outside of the public schools, which, in some places, is probably right. Just for the record Evolution is the only explanation of life that makes and rational sense, and after seeing it all the continuing escapades of the fundamentalists, continue to amuse me, until they start blowing up buildings.

  94. Bob says:

    I actually learned something I didn't know from conservapedia. The article on the flying spaghetti monster compares it to "Russel's teapot" - which I had never heard of before, but much to my surprise it appears to exist as a concept in the "liberal bias" world.

  95. Hoffy says:

    Hi Bob - though it's actually Russell's Teapot. Not sure if that was another Conservapedia typo or a slip of the fingers on your part. If the former, I would love to read how they interpret the theory...

  96. Brandon says:

    Much like Jeff hinted at in 61, I've noticed a direct correlation between how smart a girl is and how attractive she is... and it's an inverse relationship. If a guy tells you you're too smart for him, I'd be willing to be that this really means, "You're not hot enough," which is less socially acceptable to say.

    Guys are shallow, yes. Just not in the way you think.

  97. John says:

    This is hilarious and inspiring. I started a wikipedia based site of lies and stories myself about 3 days ago and even though it is in it;'s infancy, this renews my hope in lying to the masses -

  98. Rob says:

    You think this is bad look through this site for a little while

  99. Amp says:

    Sorry, Brandon, but I was hot in college.

  100. c broox says:

    The fact that something doesn't promote christianity doesn't make it anti-christian. just another reminder that most self-proclaimed 'christians' have no actual idea what jesus was all about, and have probably never read the bible.

  101. Maddalena says:

    Is jesus holding a bra in his left hand too?

    Definately looks like a bra.

    Also, hilarious article.

  102. Lucas says:

    Amazing...... Amazing.

    Compares well to 'Creationwiki'; for example, see the article on the eruption of Mount St Helens, and the "scientific" claims made therein...

  103. Mike says:

    Just so you know Mr. Snider: The Founding Fathers were deists. If you are interested in learning about deism you can go to your local library and borrow "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers. Here you will find very interesting info on the design of the U.S. dollar bill which clearly depicts their deist views. For more information on our Founding Fathers you can check out Michael Parenti's "Democracy For The Few" which has a very interesting chapter on them. Happy reading, hopefully you will choose to expand your mind a bit.

  104. whea-wix says:

    In response to #98: I learned this from Who knew?!

    If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood, TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

    You may be moved to try and witness to these poor lost souls yourself, however AVOID TALKING TO THEM!

    Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

    Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.

  105. card says:

    Brandon, your comments reach a new height of hilarity.

  106. B says:

    104: It's totally true. I'm an atheist and I often lash out at children due to my extreme grumpiness and bitterness. That is, except when i'm in a mischievous mood, then I try to trick children into renouncing their so-called god. Usually by offering them candy.

  107. Brandon says:

    Well, Eric, it's good to see that your article has provided fodder for anti-Christians everywhere to come out and play.

    Good work. Next week you should write about how stupid black people are.

  108. Mike says:

    You know, I bet that if we removed the website headings and titles from Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia [a deliberate, absurdist parody of Wikipedia designed to spread misinformation], most people couldn't tell the difference.

  109. g says:

    I think a few people somehow mistakenly decided that Eric's comment about the founding fathers wasn't a part of the sarcasm and now are trying to correct him.

  110. matt says:

    G: the funniest part is that no one is arguing with them! Every 20 comments or so someone pops up and tells us to read some book about founding fathers and Deism and then the conversation moves on. Obviously they're not stirring up any passionate debate.

    Do they not realize that Eric's telling jokes, or are they just googling "founding fathers, christians" and picking fights?

  111. Matt says:

    "Just so you know Mr. Snider: The Founding Fathers were deists."

    That's not necessarily the case. The founding fathers were almost certainly a mix of Christians and Deists. Both the claims "they were all Christians" and "they were all Deists" are not supported by the evidence regardless of the existence of books on either side proclaiming otherwise.

  112. Jeff J. Snider says:

    It's not Google that is bringing all these visitors; this column was Fark'd yesterday, so there have been thousands of visitors to the site who have never been here before. Unfortunately, several of them don't quite get this thing called sarcasm, and they are in such a hurry to argue with the second paragraph that they don't read the rest of the column (or the other comments) before posting their own comment. Oh well.

  113. David Manning says:

    C'mon, people, let's keep this up! This is the best (and no question, funniest) comments thread I've ever seen on this site!

  114. Hoffy says:

    Hey, Brandon, post #107, are you saying criticising Christianity is like racism? I never realised people were born Christian and could never change it...

  115. John Doe says:

    So hating people who can change is ok, but hating people who can't is bad? I thought hate was the bad part about racism, or are you saying it would be ok to hate black people if they could change their race?

  116. Hoffy says:

    Not a question of hating - but trying to deflect criticism of your beliefs by saying it's like racism is disingenuous to say the least. No one's beliefs are above criticism, whereas to criticise someone on the basis of his/her race is clearly stupid.

  117. Matt says:

    #107: Eric is a Christian. Making fun of Christians that act like idiots is not the same as making fun of Christianity. If black people are acting like idiots, it's OK to make fun of them to as long was you're making fun of the idiocy, not the blackness.

  118. John Doe says:

    Hoffy, I see your point now and I concede the point. Everyone here has been very good at only making fun of the site and extremists.

  119. bigmonkey says:

    Jesus riding a dinosaur...brilliant! I have picture for my desktop.

  120. Tanaka Taro says:

    This was a great blog entry, I've been laughing more than I should at work from it, people's comments, and other links that have come up.

    It scares me to say this, but conservapedia actually got something right on the global warming article: it is not currently within the capabilities of humanity to destroy this planet, if you define destroy as blowing up into tiny little pieces, like Alderaan in Star Wars. We CAN, and have been able for quite some time, end all life as we know it, including ourselves. Maybe a few microbes and invincible cockroaches would survive...

  121. Vadiv says:

    ......microbes, invencible cockroaches, and Osama Bin Laden, of course...

  122. Megan says:

    This made me laugh (from the Clinton page)

    "His election is notable as he never won a majority of the popular vote, though he won more votes than any of his opponents, unlike his successor"

    Looks like the liberals have infiltrated

  123. beavis says:

    Check out the entry for "premarital sex." hehehehe!!

  124. Ragz says:

    I am a bit confused. Is this all suppose to be a joke of some kind? This is the goofiest and most ill-informed bunch of nonsense and surely cannot be a serious attempt at information. Is this some Comedy CFhannel thing?

    This Eric guy must be a comic of some sort, not a good one but a comic anyway.

  125. gregory of tours says:

    "First sentence about America, and no mention of Christianity, the religion embraced by every single one of the Founding Fathers?"

    I think Eric needs to read a history book. This is simply and completely wrong.

  126. Momma Snider says:

    #s 125 and 126: See #s 109 and 112, among others.

  127. Brandon says:

    If I ever have a website and need lots of hits, I'm definitely going to use the phrase "Christianity, the religion embraced by every single one of the Founding Fathers".

  128. G says:

    Eric, you need to get more of your articles on fark so that more people will come in at half-time wanting to play in the whole game. Then they can keep throwing in arguments without all the information and look silly.

  129. John Fahey says:

    My favorite Conservapedia entry (so far) is under "debates" and "Was the World War inevitable," or something like that. I learned that there had been no war between Christians for 1500 years, until the World Wars. Amazing, despite reading about the War of (Christian) Spanish Succession, 100 Years War, 30 Years War, Norman Conquest of (Christian) Britain and the (Possibly Antichrist) Napolionic Wars, there wern't Christians involved. What a finding!

    Thank You, Conservapedia.

  130. S says:

    the entry for "women" is a gas, also. apparently god hates menstruation?

  131. Ray says:

    Entry 120 above is probably wrong. We may be able to wipe ourselves out and drastically reduce biological diversity. But this is temporary. Mother Earth has had great catastrophes befor and has bounced back. Scientists estimate that biological diversity would be back to present levels before 2 million years are up: 2 million years, of course is as a day to Mother Earth. Of course that won't do the human species any good, since we will have wiped ourselves out.

  132. Ian Cook says:

    I love these comments. It's amazing how dumb people can be. I guess some people don't understand sarcasm, or humor for that matter.

    I love the pic of Jesus on the Dino, it's going on my profile page on myspace. I can't help it, I just crack up thinking about it.

  133. M. Lembecke says:

    No wonder people think Christians are idiots. I get so angry at stuff like conservapedia - it only makes it more difficult to tell Christians and Christ-followers apart

  134. Lowdogg says:

    I'd really like to see this column overtake Eragon as the most-commented upon piece. So here is my vote in that direction.

    I wonder how many people realize that all the Founding Fathers were Mormon?

  135. card says:

    #130: You're right. That was an interesting article. I don't know what interpretation or translation of the Bible they use, but my Bible never uses the word subservient. That is for darn sure.

  136. Amp says:

    I second #134.

    The "women" entry was so disturbing it was almost comical. Why would God hate menstruation? The premise doesn't make any sense, and the evidence is shaky, at best. Menstruation is how women can have children--which I believe God wants men women to do. Why would He hate the means by which men and women fulfill His first commandment to Adam and Eve? Plus, all the stuff about a menstruating woman being "unclean" is misleading. Most of the purification laws relating to blood had more to do with basic hygiene rather than the state of the soul. If I'm not mistaken, to declare a person "unclean" just meant they had to be separate until their illness was no longer manifest. I think the "God hates menstruation" is quite a stretch of logic.

    I have heard that "help meet" is translated from a Hebrew word that connotes an equal partner, but I can't verify it. Can anyone?

  137. card says:

    I don't know where you're getting the menstruation part from. The conservapedia page I read doesn't even mention it.

    But, I like how "Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam..." As if Adam can't think for himself. That line of thinking reminds me of "The devil made me do it." So, so funny.

  138. Matt says:

    It was an earlier revision of the article that had the menstruation references. You can see that revision here.

  139. John Doe says:

    I think conservapedia requires a lot more policing and editing than wikipedia for at least 2 reasons. First, there are crazy fundamentalists out there who are going to write outrageous things that 90% of Christians find crazy. Second, people are going to find conservapedia and rather than respect it like they do with wikipedia, they will go and mess it up intentionally. Then they'll go to all their friends and say "Look how dumb Christians are." I can't blame them too much since the premise of conservapedia is fairly wacked out anyway.

  140. Chocolatestu says:

    My favorite thing about the article on women was how, whenever they used the word "Man", it was capitalized. "Woman" was always lower case. Even the word "woman" should be subservient, apparently.

  141. David Manning says:

    Yes! We've finally out-commented the board for the "Eragon" review. I always wanted this to happen! Let's all give a big hand to all the conclusion-jumping people linked from Fark for their ever-generous contributions!

  142. card says:

    Thanks, Matt. That was a fantastic bit. I like how the part about menstruation was bigger than the part about women.

  143. S says:

    to be fair, that menstruation part comes from another source not affiliated with conservapedia. i have a feeling that their (the menstruation people's) worldview represents a small portion of the christian community at large. but i like everyone's comments; it's refreshing to see discourse on the internet on some controversial topics that doesn't involve a whole lot of that name-calling and flaming that plagues most other internet outlets. maybe our shared disdain for extremism and bias (in either direction) is helping everyone see eye to eye on this one.

  144. Thoughtful Observer says:

    I can't help but wonder what happened to the days when fundamentalists explained that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to tempt humans away from God. Trying to explain modern theories with attempts at logic, instead of just "the Bible said it was so," and "God controls everything" is almost dissappointing, since it seems that their logical explanations (such as kangaroos rafting to Australia from the Middle East) will never sound plausible since they so obviously strain credulity. Their logic defeats their arguments by being so illogical. Does that make any sense to anyone else?

  145. Vadiv says:

    so what you're saying people are..uh..stupid?

  146. Vlad the Impaler says:

    Funny. Scary. Strange.

    But FWIW, I'm a card carrying member of the VRWC, read all sorts of conservative websites and a few magazines, and have never even heard of "Conservapeida." Frankly, I'm not sure it isn't a parody. (Given the wackiness of some evangelicals, though, it's hard to tell).

  147. LawrenceFriday says:

    Best part of Conservapedia: check the "Protected deleted pages". Most of the deleted pages are unsurprising (mostly obscenities). But the best one? "Examples of bias in Conservapedia".

  148. Radcliff says:

    I've spent a happy half hour following leads from this thread on fun articles to read, and I found the article on Censorship. It's too long, so I thought I'd display it here:

    'Censorship is the act of withholding information from a larger audience by a group of people or a single person who has the power to do so. Oftentimes it is done for the protection of the people, or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people. Conservapedia is heavily censored in order to maintain a right-wing focus, free of "liberal bias."'

    At least they're up front about what they're doing . . . (Conservapedia, of course, not the liberal media . . .)

  149. Matt says:

    "Frankly, I'm not sure it isn't a parody."

    Definitely not a parody. The founder was on NPR last week. He sounded just dim enough to pull off something like Conservapedia.

  150. Karmacoma says:

    Reading some of the comments made after my own initial comment, I guess i should've checked them a lot earlier... To Binky: Thank you for invitation, I just might do that. ;) And Brandon: Although it is true that there are a lot of muslims immigrating to Europe these days, I think it's fair to say that less than 1% of all of them are in any way extremist. And please bear in mind that there are just as many different types of islam as there are of christianity. No, I am not a muslim myself, but I do not mind the fact that I am currently living surrounded by them either. They don't bother me, nor are they forcing me to "turn into a muslim or else they'll kill me"(seriously?!)... Maybe you should actually try sometime to live amongst different cultures than your own and you'd see they're not that different after all.

  151. John Doe says:

    To Karmacoma:So let me get this straight; a group of radical muslims can go about preaching outright hate and death, but you're ok with that (along with killing people because of cartoons). Some radicals Christians say some stupid things online and you're afraid of America. Pot, stop calling the kettle black.

    Both groups are minorities. One minority kills people. One minority says dumb things. Get over yourself and your magical land of Europe.

  152. Amp says:

    Christian aren't a minority. According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, they make up 79% of the US population. Or were you talking about dumb Christians? Let's hope they're a minority.

    And please tell me you are not honestly claiming that all Muslims kill people, or that Christians don't. Even a cursory knowledge of Christian history will tell you otherwise--it's not exactly a history of passive resistance. Common sense should tell you that all Muslims aren't murderers.

  153. Greg says:

    Hey...It may or may not be as ridiculous, but here is the liberal conservapediaesque online encyclopedia.

  154. John Doe says:

    I thought my liberal use of "minority" and "radical" would tip people off. Apparently, that's not enough for Amp. Amp, show me when there was a cartoon that was blaphemous that resulted in death. I don't know of any Christian ones. Both Christians and Muslims have quite the history of killing people, I'm talking about more modern times (and don't get me started on the atheist regimes of Mao Ze Dong, Lenin, and Stalin where millions of religious people were killed because of their belief in superstition, so no group can say I'm better than you). The example that Karma-face was that Muslims in Europe vs. Christians in America. Show me a large gathering of Christians who killed people and rioted because of an offense equivalent to what happened in Denmark. Then tell me that you feel safer in Europe, where there is concrete death because of Muslims, than you feel in America because there are dumb Christians.

  155. John Doe says:

    Oh, I forgot I need to be ultra pc around here. I'm referring to a SMALL MINORITY of muslims. Strange that nobody jumped on Karmacoma for declaring the entire US a hazard zone because Christians exist. But say something more true about Muslims and people run out of the woodwork to defend them. Just goes to show that Muslim=pc/good. Christian=evil/hated. It's PC to make fun of one, but not the other. Poor Dr. King and his dream that people would be judged by their character is dead.

  156. Amp says:

    Heh heh heh. My misreading of how John Doe meant "minority" is pretty funny. In case anyone else missed it too, he seems to mean that both radical Muslims and radical Christians are minorities within their respective religions. Is that right?

  157. Matt says:

    "and don't get me started on the atheist regimes of..." Except those were just psychopaths killing people because it served their ends. The atheism was incidental. There's never been any sort of atheist dogma of genocide. Now Christianity & Islam - they've got plenty of holy scripture to back up whatever nastiness they want to come up with. The God of Abraham commanded that entire cities be wiped out, children and all.

    Not that I think Christianity OR Islam are inherently violent or evil, but you've got a much harder task if you want to make a case for atheism being an ideology with a capacity to drive people to murder the way that Christianity or Islam has.

  158. John Fahey says:

    I wonder if Christianity (and Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) will get credit for at least teaching AGAINST murder etc. It seems like most of the murders cause by radical religionists are committed by people who were flagrantly disobeying many tenants of their religion already. For example, the 9/11 terrorists got drunk and carried on the night before they killed thousands of innocent people. That behavior is markedly against Islamic doctrine.

    I think that the concept of a just God of any religion, who will punish people for their crimes and murder is a very effective counter to murder.

    PS. Matt, Communism was an athiest state. In Stalin's case, the state decided that whole segements of the population (Kulacks) were detrimental to society as a whole and liquidated them. Come to think of it, the communists hunted down a whole lot of jews and Russian Orthodox folks too...

  159. Matt says:

    My point is that there is no "Atheists Creed", "Gospel of Atheism" or "Atheist Commandments." If one wants justification for an action (ANY action, good or bad) the Bible and similar holy texts can provide such justification. Anything goes if you believe that God said to do it. Atheists don't get to blame their actions on a greater power. When an atheist does something bad, it's not because atheism told him to do it or because he believes it will please a diety. Atheists are responsible for their own actions. Well, actually, everyone is, but only atheists make that an article of faith. ;-)

  160. Ray says:

    Following up what Matt says: Communism is a religion, as dogmatic as any of the received religions. Its deity is History, and the Inevitable Triumph of the Socialist... blah, blah. Its dogmas were as rigid as any religions (and as impervious to contrary evidence, for a while), and heresy was punished with great cruelty. The point is, commies are not really atheists. Atheism (disbelief in a supernatural God) was only a by-product of their dogma.

  161. Lewis says:

    Those fools! Global warming from human causes? Dumb atheists. I found the real reason... those are FIRE-breathing dinosaurs.

  162. kevith says:

    I hadn't looked at the comments to this "Snide Remarks" since just after it was posted but then noticed that it had overtaken Eragon as the most commented. I just wanted to join those above me in saying: Congratulations Dino-Jesus! And a special thank you to the 1-post wonders out there for making it possible.

  163. Cory says:

    Fire-breathing dinosaurs? Now that just crosses the line! :)

  164. Nathan Barrett says:

    What's better than a Jesus who rides dinosaurs? A Jesus who rides FIRE-BREATING dinosaurs. Funniest thing I've seen all day.

  165. Myles Paulsen says:

    I really think there should be Conservapedia Howlers site. The kangaroos howler is great. Pity it doesn’t tell you if they took the koalas along for the ride in their pouches. Funny how all the marsupials ended up in the same place in Australia, on the other side of the World. No one has mentioned a real beauty tho. Have a look at the Conservapedia entry on China It devotes an entire 418 words on the subject, and notes that “Civilization in China began in 2200 BC and continues to the present day.”, without bothering to say what is special about that date, or what came before. It does note a couple of pars down, however, that silk worms were being used to produce silk there in 2700 BC. That’s right, 2700 BC, a full 500 years before the beginning of Chinese Civilization!

  166. Jim says:

    " "The United States of America is a country of the western hemisphere, comprising fifty states and numerous territories." Oh, our territories are NUMEROUS, are they? We're just big ol' TERRITORY HOGS, aren't we? Well, excuse us, Mr. Wikipedia!"

    If you click on this link you will see all of the U.S. Territories. There are 15 territories, of which, 10 are inhabited.

    Numerous is a relative term. It can mean anything from several to thousands depending on the context.

    As far as I understand, one country with 15 territories is a high ratio in relation to other countries at this time in history.

    The author of wikipedia could phrased the article differenlty by stating 15 territories. However, it is not a stretch to call characterize the situation as numerous territories.

    The point you are trying to make maybe correct, but, you picked a poor example to illustrate you frustration.

  167. Bickmo says:

    Jim #166: What the...? Did you know this was a humor article?

  168. Dave the Slave says:

    #116- but, you picked, and awkward place, to put unnecissary punctuation... Maybe does not = May be.... ..... could phrased....

    Jim, see me after class, you can do better than this... :-P

  169. Andrew D says:

    Can we expect a breakdown of every logical fallacy contained in Eric's writings, Jim? If so, I look forward to them! They will be very fun to read indeed.

    P.S.: You have your work cut out for you, for Eric's writings are like swiss cheese: there's supposed to be holes.

  170. Emma Pattinson says:

    Using Common Era instead of Anno Domini isn't Christian "hating". It just provides a reference that can be used by everyone regardless of religious orientation. Personally, I don't see the problem with this. I don't think it would bother Jesus much either.....Get on with the love and compassion and stop nit picking!

  171. Dave the Slave says:

    dont you know Jesus taught us to be tolerant and love ONLY those who are tolerant and love us, and have exactly the same opinions and views as we do? right? anyone...?

  172. Brian says:

    That dinosaur picture is righteous. Sorry had to say it.

  173. turtled28 says:

    For Melissa from comment #65, they are ROMANIC languages, NOT Romantic.
    Common misconception/mistake.

    That rant aside, I loved the pics, I loved the remarks. (people who create things to conform to their views in SPITE of evidential fact are sad, sad little people.)
    Thanks for the enlightening article. My faith in humanity has slipped yet another notch...

  174. sdix says:

    #173 and #65 Romanic = Romantic. They are synonymous terms. Neither is incorrect. Romantic CAN mean derived from the Roman language family.

  175. Ryan says:

    As far as the Theory of Relativity goes as referenced near the beginning of the comments, if they are holding forth that it is false, they are falling in line with an interesting list of similar Nazi party policies. An interesting part of history if you look into Heisenberg and his peers and what the Nazi's labeled "Jewish Physics."

    Scary what people believe these days...

  176. Icewedge says:

    CP is ridiculous.

  177. Craig says:

    #65, #173, #174. Actually, Romantic is indeed not correct; however, the preferred term is Romance although Romanic is an acceptable synonym.

    And ultimately, it's probably more accurate to say that English evolved from an Anglo-Saxon stratum onto which Norman French introduced a hefty amount of vocabulary and has since accreted terms from various languages, most predominantly Latin, in both its ancient and medieval forms.

  178. Clumpy says:

    Actual quote from Conservapedia:

    "Conservapedia surpasses 24 million page views!!
    We did this without gossip or pornography, unlike Wikipedia."

  179. Clumpy says:

    Sorry to double-post, but I've been reading this site on-and-off for the last little bit and it makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that these self-deluding nutcases propose to speak on behalf of conservatives with their biased ranting depresses me. This isn't the mainstream Republican party. They make no attempt at being unbiased, unlike Wikipedia, and have no discipline. That's all I'll say on that.

  180. Lexie girl says:

    How totally and inexcusably insane! I wonder if Conservapediests dance around with raddle snakes too. But, if not used as a trustworthy source, the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia” does act as a good joke. It’s hilarious that people could be so close-minded. Hilarious and very sad. Hilarious and very scary.

    What I also find funny is the debate pages. “Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?” in which one comment under the “No, copyright law doesn’t apply to us” section read, “Unlike those godless liberals at Wikipedia, who delete any picture without copyright info.”
    Well, of course it is stealing in a way. If it wasn’t stealing then it wouldn’t be illegal to use the pictures.


    “Is it ok for Conservapedia to have biased articles” in which was stated “If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself.” Of course you is supposed to be “your”.

    I don’t know what to say...

    Big Smiles!

  181. The Dude says:

    Referring back to advice to children when encountering an atheist, you have to love the character of "Kanga-Jew," the Jewish Kangaroo who failed to hop his way to Australia after the flood and witnessed the life of Christ.

    Go here and scroll down...

  182. Uchiha says:

    Nobody's mentioned our beloved

    RationalWiki, an entire site pretty much dedicated mostly to mocking and refuting Conservapedia (although there are other interests there, like countering the anti-science movement in general). Our take on Conservapedia, as well as dozens of archived pages documenting the daily insanity there - yes, we're obsessed, but it's really [swear word] funny! For unknown reasons... goat is also extremely popular at RationalWiki.

    Anyway, since this was posted, Conservapedia has continued to grow in size, but internally its management is falling apart through corruption and turmoil. The site is still just as insane and hilarious as ever, and once again, the
    insider info, crazy capers and embarassaing secrets all available here.

    If you find Conservapedia both abhorent and hilarious, drop on by!

  183. dave says:

    how big is jesus? not that big.

  184. planetarium vagatio says:

    conservapedia is quite funny, but if you want hillarious biasness try the official north korean site!

    41: Brandon i also live in europe in moldova, here we have a large population growth and no muslims at all! i also lived in italy and there most immigrants were from other christian countries like romania and the phillipines

  185. Jordan says:

    Ok, honestly...
    i'm sorry but I have to rant.

    If you're complaining how Wikipedia is so damn antichrisitan and this Conservipedia is conserving christian values, how does one that exploits is bias so much more that the other deserve more recognition? The world isn't ONLY based on christian doctrine. The world is more than that. Open your eyes. Stop being an ignorant conservative. Your obviously blind to the world if you only see it through one eye.
    It's people like you who anger the hell out me.
    America is controlled by ignorant,white christian men that try base their decisions of their faith instead of the good of their people.
    This is wrong.
    WAAAAY wrong.

    Open your eyes.
    One day it might save you.

  186. Kourtney says:

    ah HA! One article and 123 comments later, #124 FINALLY figured out what's going on here: This Eric guy must be a comic of some sort! (I added the emphatic exclamation point because every major discovery deserves one.)

    I've always assumed that Eric created this web site just to improve his typing skills. I stand corrected.

  187. Eric says:

    Almost a year later, and people are still not getting it.


  188. Ben says:

    #185: Jordan. Wow. I mean really, wow.

    Joke, dude. Wiki "satire," see what you come up with.

  189. spiceybiscuit says:

    Wow, I am laughing so hard right now and I am work, so everyone thinks I am a loon. That picture of Jesus riding the dino is probably the funniest piece of fiction I have come across in some time (the fire breathing Dino also made me laugh harder) The comments are also very good. As someone that can be ruled "liberal" (i.e. I think for myself) I have a brother in law that believe the world is only 10,000 years old. Try having that conversation with him when I bring up my Arch/Anthro degree.

    Again, people, the world is staring at us right now and we look bad. Can this be really happening in this world of information and technology? Can it?

  190. Jeff says:

    spiceybiscuit, I agree, the jesus/dino picture is amazing. I also saw this at work and had to stifle laughter for some time when I got to that point. I've already taken it to use for my own purposes (I hope conservapedia doesn't come after me for copyright infringements). But, although fire-breathing would have added immensely to the picture, I don't see any of that. Am I missing something?

  191. john doe hater says:

    Dear John Doe, you say america is safe because you guys, christians, whatever don't kill people and muslims do? You are quite right, america is safe - for now. Because when frends of the people your soldiers murdered and are murdering in iraq, afganistan, vietnam, korea, all over south america come after you in your own country. Then no god, nothing is going to save you, and you are going to be feeling rather unsafe, I think. Compared to the genocide america is getting off, hitler was a pussycat.

    Just for the record: I too am a european, am an atheist and like the idea that is the USA, hope to visit some day. But I am afraid of what prejudiced people like john doe are doing to it. And yes, my country and europe in general have a lot of crazys too. But at least they don't advertise as much as american crazys do.

    I like america, despite the fact american soldiers tried to kill me when I was 8 years old.

    Remember the song, dear john doe? March on christian soldiers, marching on to war, with the cross of jesus,...

    Don't give me that bull about peacefulness. You're just as bloodthirsty as everyone. By 'you' I mean the crazys, which I hope is the minority.

  192. Jeremy says:

    So this article was hilarious, although not half as hilarious as conservapedia itself. My favorite quote thusfar is from their article on the "Homosexual Agenda":

    Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.


  193. googoobh says:

    When I started reading this comment / artical I thought is was a joke .... sort of like Steven Colbert ..... but it is a bit more of irony , and insane then anything I guess. Most of it misinformed .....

  194. John D says:

    As it so happens, I'm fairly conservative politically, and this Conservapedia is an embarrassment. I'd like to sit Andy Schlafly down and explain to him that he is only damaging our image by doing this, since it makes him (and all other conservatives) look like a bunch of xenophobic, narrow-minded, Bible-beating idiots.

    I also didn't appreciate the digs at home-schooling, since I'm a product of that educational system. We're not a bunch of hyper-religious maniacs, and I am very tired of seeing that stereotype perpetuated, even as a joke. I knew a lot of other home-schooled kids, and while most of us were Christians, none of us were taken out of public school because our parents thought we were being taught blasphemies against God. It had more to do with the generally lousy quality of our local educational system.

    Okay, rant's over. Now for a lighter note. When I saw that picture, I was reminded of a joke from Saturday Night Live. It was on Weekend Update, back when Jimmy Fallon and Tina Fey were the anchors. I forget most of it; something about evolution being taught in Georgia high schools. The punchline was "As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called Jesus horses."

  195. obiwen says:

    Extremely entertaining column! I do so enjoy reading about dumbasses and their dumbass pursuits.

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.


Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

This site created and maintained by Jeff J. Snider | Diamond Clarity Chart