Talk:Uncyclopedia

I have removed a lot of the content that was inaccurate, and put up some basic stuff which can be built on. The site is not anti-creationist, or anti-conservatism as was said on Conservapedia by the same editor. The rules clearly state that "absolutely no points of view are enforced," which means articles can be of any perspective - so long as they are funny, as thats the actual purpose of the site, not to attack anyone or anything. Rangeley 21:55, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Alright, does anyone still have objections? Rangeley 12:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes. I have examined that site and found it does qualify for its classification as "anticreation". If that changes, its description will be altered accordingly.
 * BTW - are you a creationist? --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, I am a creationist, and I am also a sysop at Uncyclopedia and have a bit of experience with its rules. I posted a rather lengthy post on your talk page explaining why Uncyclopedia is not anti-creationist, so rather than restate it all again, is there anything specifically in the explanation that you take issue with? Rangeley 01:38, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


 * The issue is with the site content, not its stated purpose.
 * It is understood that the site is not anticreation in its purpose, but instead more with the goal of making fun of everything (parody). In keeping with its purpose, it contains a significant quantity of anticreation content, and therefore labeling it as such is appropriate.
 * Remember, that the purpose of this site is to present the creationist point of view (CPOV), so unless the creationists here (who are unaffiliated with your site) see it otherwise, the existing description will remain.
 * Other CreationWiki users are hereby encouraged to examine the site and make modifications accordingly. I will leave the issue to the community, but recognize your bias regarding the site. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Would the internet and television also be labeled anticreation by this standard? Rangeley 16:44, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Specific TV shows and sites - absolutely. anticreation in media --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
 * But in their entirety, do you agree it would be inaccurate to state the internet or television to be anticreation simply because they are set up to allow anticreation material? Thats the issue here, where we have a venue which allows humor of all perspectives - creationist, anticreationist, liberal, conservative, etc. Just as it would be inaccurate to state the internet to be anticreationist due to its "laissez faire" attitude in regards to viewpoints, it would be inaccurate to call Uncyclopedia anticreationist. It too has a "laissez faire" stance, in which no points of view are enforced, and articles do not need to conform to any perspective.
 * While television itself is not anticreation, I completely agree that certain shows are indeed anticreationist, or more broadly, anti-Christianity. I also agree that, by this standard, certain articles at Uncyclopedia are anticreationist, or anti-Christianity. But other articles certainly are not, such as the War on Christmas article I wrote with a friend - and the existence of articles from opposing viewpoints can be looked at as concrete evidence of the policy that no viewpoints are enforced. It isnt an anticreationist humor site, where articles are all written from a secular perspective, and it isnt a Christian humor site, where things are all written from that perspective. It is simply a site for humor, with no pre-requisite of specific viewpoints. Just as you might note that television or the internet is used by both Creationists and anticreationists, perhaps this would be a proper way to discuss Uncyclopedia. Rangeley 00:14, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I appreciate the new edits, though a few more specific problems remain. More uncited statements exist, for instance the ones stating that many editors clearly hate creationism, or threats of vandalism. As a policy, people who vandalize other sites, and say so at Uncyclopedia (for instance, we get a lot of people coming on saying "hey I vandalized Wikipedia and made it funny! haha...") are punished at Uncyclopedia, and those who merely discuss it are discouraged from doing so, and are informed of the consequences. And I dont agree that parodying something means that someone hates that thing; they might, but its not a requirement, nor is it necessarilly related. Unless some sort of citation exists to a source dealing with whether people hate creationists, I think this statement is best left out. Further, if specific articles are to be noted which parody creationism, I think it is only fair to note that other articles exist which parody secularism, such as the one I linked to above. As the edit summary noted, you do not want to ignore that anticreationist articles exist - but again, its only fair to note that the site is set up to allow differing views, and indeed has them. This is the treatment I expect that would be given to the Internet, or Television, were an article to discuss their usage. People have the ability to, and have made both creationist and anticreationist material for both venues. Likewise, people use the venue of Uncyclopedia to get exposure for their own brand of humor, whether it be anticreationist, antisecularist, liberal, conservative, or other. The anticreationism category should be removed for this reason. Rangeley 18:21, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
 * As a further note, while the "Evilution" article at Uncyclopedia parodies creationists, the Evolution article at Uncyclopedia parodies evolution. This is just further evidence that there isnt a point of view that is enforced at the site, and articles of any perspective can exist and be written, which backs up the rules of the site which say the same. Rangeley 09:44, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, the evolution article does now, but before it mocked creationism, like virtually every other one. It is only by the timely interference of creationists that the article is reversed. In addition, most of the articles also mock conservativism, especially Conservapedia (Template:Satan loves this article, Uncyclopedia-mandated oath of "Un-Jesusness", etc). All in all, most of the users there are anti-YEC (both the CreationWiki and EvoWiki articles parody creationism, leaving no room for parodies of evolution). So I'd leave it where it was, although right now it looks pretty good. Scorpionman 17:55, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
 * The point is that absolutely no perspective is enforced in articles, and articles can be written in whatever perspective the author wants. I dont understand why you are trying to scare conservatives away from using the site Scorpionman, when you would be much better suited by calling conservatives to the site to write humor from that perspective if you think there is too little currently. Or in the very least, you could help get this article to represent the true nature and structure of the site rather than a factually incorrect one. It is not an "anti-creation" site, it is not an "anti-conservative" site, there is no "oath" people have to take at it. The rules state that no perspective is enforced on the site, and the existence of articles of varying perspectives shows this to be true. Rangeley 14:59, 28 September 2007 (EDT)