More Conservapedia Fun.

Not ever revising wikipedia in any way, is the revision history supposed to show something? Do we have to compare both versions to find the three words, or are they supposed to be blatantly obvious? I have looked but can't see what I'm supposed to see. Any help?

Actually, looking at it more, there are more than three words missing, all in the "double meaning" section of the book titles.

Thrawn trilogy would be so much better on silver screen than the I-III that Lucas wrote.

Badger3k:

Actually, looking at it more, there are more than three words missing, all in the "double meaning" section of the book titles.

If you click here, you'll see how the Star Wars Wiki page looked when the Conservapedia article was 'written':

http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Thrawn_Trilogy&oldid=2128682

Here is that section from that revision of the Star Wars wiki:

The titles of all three books could be said to have double meanings:

* Heir to the Empire could refer either to Thrawn or C'baoth
* Dark Force Rising could refer either to the dark side of the Force or the Katana fleet
* The Last Command could refer either to Palpatine's command to Mara Jade or to Thrawn's battle

Here is the section from Conservapedia:

The titles of all three books could be said to have double meanings:

* Heir to the Empire could refer either to Thrawn or C'baoth
* Dark Force Rising could refer either to the dark side of the Force or the Katana fleet
* The Last Command could refer either to Palpatine's command to Mara Jade or to Thrawn's battle

So, you see, all that's happened is that Conservapedia haven't replicated further edits on SW wiki since the article was first copied.

It seems they left out the 'cover gallery' section, the 'external links' and the picture on the right, swapped the positions of the 'editions' and 'overview' sections, and concluded that was enough for it to be their own article. I'm actually struggling to spot the three words seemingly left out - anyone spot em?

Hey, this could be a great new game - spot the differences in Conservapedia's plagiarised articles.

"the new republic"

They also left out "or Thrawn's Empire in general.", so we're up to 8 words left out. Is there a point, other than lazy copying without attribution? We know the Conservapedia people are poor hacks with limited skill sets. Overall, this is more pathetic than funny.

Presumably the humor stems from the fact that "the new republic" is a reasonably well known source of opinion writing that is generally antithetical to the positions held by the proprietors of the conservapaedia, and may have been edited by similar means and motivations that lead to that track star being referred to as "Tyson Homosexual" recently...

This is just a guess...