Here I'll add my screenshots and links pointing out incorrect, ironic, hypocritical and contradictory fragments in Conservapedia articles which, IMHO, do not yet warrant inclusion into Ridiculous quotes from Conservapedia:
First, Ken(Conservative) shows some leftover common sense by creating a talk page and saying Obama is more likely to be an atheist than a Muslim, then tries to hide that from Andy. The article link itself still has the first bits of this article (as a reason for deletion).
First, the article praises him for being a conservative president, then bashes him for his authoritarian rule (note the magazine pic caption saying "says like it is") and mentions electoral fraud, as well as journalist assassinations, then praises him again.
Now, this is just wrong. A user (surprisingly enough, not Ed Poor) creates a disambiguation page for pages which don't even exist. (And yes, they weren't deleted -- they didn't exist in the first place!) Excuse me if I'm wrong, but that seems like the exact opposite of how and why a wiki should create disambig pages.
A growing list of gun facts has only accumulated four edits, all of them in the second half of 2008. The list itself only has a single fact.
Interestingly enough, our friends at Conservapedia actually have an article on us! In a yet another display of CP's total trusworthiness, the article's title actually misspells the name of the wiki in question.
Unsurprisingly, the article doesn't mention the fact that LP is supposed to be a parody of CP and just states that it's a "parody wiki based off of liberal views".
Ironically, the "General Information" section could have just as well been written about Conservapedia itself, with "poorly-written" getting an extra meaning as well.
Honestly speaking, I'm surprised how this page still hasn't been deleted. Especially as one of CP's big sysops has already seen the article (Karajou, that is).
The whole article.
While they claim that "conservatives are willing to admit their mistakes", they keep making excuses about the subjects in the "Conservapedia's Response" column. A more appropriate title for the column would be "Conservapedia's last-minute excuse" or "Why Conservapedia is still right".
For example, their excuse for a failed 2012 U.S. Presidential Election prediction: "The prediction said American voters, not all votes cast.", accusing the Democrats of election fraud with no evidence at all.