Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Daily Mail

2022-02-20T22:06:45Z

Masitrery:

[[Image:Dail Mail front page.jpg|right|thumb|250px|July 15, 2005 edition]]
The '''''Daily Mail''''' is the second biggest selling British [[tabloid]] newspaper. It supports the [[Conservative Party]]. It leans right-wing in its editorial stances, but also supports [[euthanasia]],<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref> and is noted for its stance on [[gun control]] and the NHS. It has a Sunday edition called ''The Mail on Sunday''. Its two million plus circulation is one of the largest of any daily newspaper in English.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766</ref>

==Early History==

The ''Daily Mail'' was founded as a [[broadsheet]] newspaper in 1896, but changed to a tabloid format 75 years later. Its closest rival in terms of being less liberal is the ''[[Daily Express]]'', which sells far fewer copies.

When it was launched by Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (who later became respectively [[Lord Northcliffe]] and [[Lord Rothermere]]) it made an unashamed bid for the mass market. It was published at half the price of other newspapers, and kept its coverage both more concise and more populist. This approach led to it being highly successful.<ref>Taylor, S. J. ''The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail.''</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' also set out to be entertaining, using in particular competitions as a means of promotion, and focusing on human-interest stories as a way of attracting readers to whom in-depth political analysis did not appeal. Among other promotions, they began the [[Ideal Home Exhibition]], which continues to be held in [[London]] every year.

The paper lost circulation during [[World War I]], when it spoke out in favor of [[conscription]] after the outbreak of war, and particularly when it attacked [[Herbert Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], who was at that time a national hero. It was accused by the Prime Minister, [[Herbert Asquith]], of disloyalty to the country.

After the resignation of Asquith, [[David Lloyd George]] asked Lord Northcliffe to join his cabinet, but Northcliffe refused.

==1920s==

After Northcliffe died in 1922, his brother Lord Rothermere took control. It was under his regime that the ''Daily Mail'' published the "[[Zinoviev Letter]]". This letter which purported to be from Grigori Zinoviev, president of Comintern, the internal communist party of the [[USSR]], was addressed to members of the Labour Party of Great Britain and exhorted them to carry out a violent revolution. The letter was a very plausible one, originating in Riga, and although it later turned out to be a forgery, the editor of the Mail had no reason to doubt its genuineness at the time. Four days later the [[Labour Party]] was defeated in the 1924 general election. Historians agree the letter was a forgery but their consensus is that it made little difference in the election. The fact was that the Labour government's recognition of the Soviet Union had been unpopular and it only held power because of the temporary support of the Liberal Party, and a rift within the Conservative Party. Once those factors changed, Labour had little or no chance of winning the 1924 election.<ref>https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/01/22/whats-the-context-britains-first-labour-government-takes-office-22-january-1924/</ref>
After the election Labour leaders used it as an excuse for their failure; it became a roadblock to needed internal reforms in the Labour party.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/04/uk.politicalnews6S</ref>

==1930s==

In the 1930s, the ''Daily Mail'' was politically sympathetic to [[fascism]], and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the [[British Union of Fascists]] and their leader [[Oswald Mosley]] in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The ''Mail''’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both [[Benito Mussolini]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] and his [[Nazi Party]] – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the [[Sudetenland]] in 1938. The Mail was one of several British newspapers to publish extracts from ''The Protocols of The Elders of Zion'', and was critical of the Balfour plan to set up the State of Israel.<ref>Griffiths, Richard. ''Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-39''. Jeffrey Herf, ed., Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence. Routledge, 2013, 120-123.</ref>

[[Neville Chamberlain]]’s [[appeasement]] policy was supported by the ''Daily Mail'' until after the [[Munich Agreement]], but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of [[Poland]] in 1939 and thereafter whole heartedly supported war against the burgeoning Nazi tyranny.

The Mail's attitude needs to be seen in the context of prevalent positive or tolerant attitudes towards Hitler in the 1930s. As later as Saturday 29 February 1936, the ''Daily Mirror'', a socialist newspaper, featured an exclusive personal interview with Hitler on its front page. It had a large picture of the Fuhrer making the Nazi salute and the headline "Hitler's Let's Be Friends" Plea To the World". It described him as a "Man of the People" and "Man of Destiny", and allowed him to put his own case at length, claiming to be a "Man of Peace".<ref>Daily Mirror, Saturday 29 February 1936.</ref>

In the pre-war period, Hitler was widely seen as the leader who had done most to solve Germany's economic woes and overcome unemployment. Among those who went from England to meet Hitler in the 1930s were not only Lord Rothermere but also George Lansbury, the Labour Party leader, and David [[Lloyd George]], the veteran Liberal leader, who was photographed shaking Hitler's hand.

==Support for euthanasia==

The Daily Mail recently published an article in support of euthanasia.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref> The article and author of the piece stated that:

*"When I wake up in the watches of the night, I still wish that I had killed my mother. In her late eighties, this spirited, independent, active (almost hyperactive) old lady began to slither downhill."
*"For a few months, I felt almost grateful that she did not know what was happening to her."
*"She was never happy for a single minute in those last years, until the last day when a kind of peace descended…If only she had died before she reached this state! If only her hitherto dignified life had ended as nature so plainly meant it to end."
*"As I began by saying, I wish I had possessed the courage to smother her with a pillow, rather than leaving her in that living hell for over two years. Had the roles been reversed, I would have begged her to kill me."
*"I do not know whether my poor mother would have wanted an assisted suicide or not. All I know, since watching her agonisingly slow death, is that I would most definitely want to take my own life, or for someone to take it for me, before I reached this stage."
*"I see no virtue whatsoever in these terminal circumstances, in pretending that there is some mystical thing called 'life' which God or Morality have forbidden us to terminate…The half-life of paralysis, and pain, and misery for all around you is no life at all. In my view it is far better to end it all in circumstances which are, if possible, in your control."
*"So yes, I would welcome the legalisation of assisted suicide in this country and would support any moves to bring it on to the statute books…The trouble is that Keir Starmer's guidelines are no help at all - in fact, they mean we are in the ludicrous position of the law saying one thing and doing another."
*"Increasing numbers of people in this country believe, like me, there is an overwhelming case for changing the law. The two objections to changing the law do not stand up…One is that the system is open to abuse. It is claimed that unscrupulous carers or family will force sick or elderly patients to 'opt' for suicide because they do not want to be a burden…But the sorry reality is that unscrupulous and unpleasant people will always abuse the weak and the elderly, whatever the law. Their malign activities will go on whether the assisted suicide is legalised or not…The second objection to legalising assisted suicide is that there is often something noble about people suffering an illness for as long as nature or God decree…There are those who cite the example of Jade Goody - a girl who lived in many ways a terrible and immoral life but who bravely used her terminal cancer to give her children a decent future…Yet most cancer patients are not represented by Max Clifford and will not make a million from their prolonged deaths…On the contrary, for many families the continuation of a terminally sick patient's lingering condition in expensive care can be ruinously expensive, especially if the relatives have to give up their jobs to become carers."
*"It is true that unscrupulous children might make parents feel that they are a burden. But the illness and decrepitude of some patients is often placing a burden - an intolerable burden - on families, making it impossible for them to live their lives and calling for reserves of goodness or sheer energy which they simply do not possess."
*"It is not immoral for carers and younger family members to feel entitled to a bit of a life apart from the agonising bedside, and I fail to see why the preservation of life in such circumstances is always to be seen as virtuous."
*"But beyond this, in a free society, it seems intolerable that grown-up sentient beings can not decide when to bring life to an end, without the added horror that those they love best will be criminalised."

==Recent history==

The fortunes of the ''Daily Mail'' were revived after a decline in the 1950s by its then-editor Sir David English, and its current editor Paul Dacre continues that trend. He has widened the paper's market by launching an Irish edition and a summarized edition for UK expatriates.

The newspaper's website "MailOnline" has been criticised by the newspaper's readers for pandering to people with left-wing views.

==Political and editorial stances==

The ''Daily Mail'' claims to represent Middle England and Conservative values, opposing the [[liberal]] establishment. It generally opposes the [[European Union]] and the increasing trend to see Britain as part of [[Europe]]. It is usually against immigration, although it has supported the wish of white asylum-seekers from [[Zimbabwe]] to remain in [[Britain]]. It is generally against [[abortion]], [[same sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] and in favour of the [[monarchy]], tax cuts and harsher penalties for criminals. It is generally supportive of [[Israel]], although it has recently been attacked for its lack of support for the war in [[Iraq]].

It generally takes a strong stand against criminality. It is critical of the British government for "caving in" to edicts from the European Court for example in granting prisoners the right to vote in elections.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5045279/Outcry-MPs-prisoners-right-vote.html</ref>

It has run a series of articles about bogus "child" migrants posing as refugees.<ref>Revealed: Just one in five lone 'child' migrants caught lying about their age are thrown out of Britain.</ref><ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3853830/How-child-migrants-straining-care-British-children-paying-price.html</ref>

It perceives many public media such as the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] as biased to the left politically. Its columnists tend to be politically right-wing. It endorses the [[Conservative Party]] in most elections, and publicly repudiates groups like the [[British National Party]], who are associated with racist (but in many other respects socialist) policies.

The Mail is often accused of fear mongering with numerous health scare articles (recent examples include the psuedoscience article "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" and the "Mouthwash 'causes oral cancer'") article.

In 2017, [[Richard Branson]]'s Virgin Train company announced that it would no longer sell the Daily Mail.<ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/virgin-trains-daily-mail-a8154851.html</ref>

==Wikipedia ban==
[[Wikipedia]] has banned its editors from using the Daily Mail as a reference, allegedly because of "poor fact checking and sensationalism".<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website</ref> This may be an attempt to censor right-wing views.
There is no objective evidence that the Daily Mail is any less accurate than other British newspapers or mainstream media sources such as The Guardian.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers|Daily Mail]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Conservative News Organizations]]
[[Category:Conservative Newspapers]]

Talk:Conservative companies

2022-02-10T20:44:39Z

Masitrery: /* help */ new section

A useful website for looking up recent spending of a company is: https://www.opensecrets.org --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (EST) 
Also, this is a nice list of potential candidates, but each one should be checked, since I see reason to disagree with some of their listings: http://www.theamericanmaverick.com/2012/11/top-american-companies-supporting.html --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:15, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:Should it be turned into an essay, or is mainspace more appropriate? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:11, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::That is a good question I am still trying to decide on. We have the liberal corporate bullies page in mainspace, so since this is more or less the opposite of that, I think they should probably go together. Our "best/worst" pages are typically essays, but then, this lies isn't saying "best" or "worst," but just attempting to research and list which company generally act in conservative ways. That is more objective than a best/worst list. Because of this, I'm leaning more towards mainspace, but I can go either way. Do you think it should be an essay? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:15, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::I guess I lean in favor of keeping this a mainspace article. I asked because it seemed to me to resemble the "best/worst" essays because of the "Debatable whether conservative" section. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::::I can go either way also. I am also open to other titles for that section, too. I'm using it for companies which seem to support both sides to some degree, but seem at present to be leaning conservative. This is (obviously) very much a work in progress. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:29, 22 January 2018 (EST)

== Texas "bathroom bill" ==

<strike>Here is a case where liberal companies sometimes support conservative values despite their apparent leanings: 
"Many major tech companies have already come out against the measure, including Apple, Amazon, Google, Cisco, and Facebook. Another letter on Monday signed by 14 CEOs from Dallas-based companies like American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, At&T, and Texas Instruments also urged legislators to drop the bill." [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/business-against-texas-bathroom-bill/533928] It doesn't mean they are conservative, but might be useful information in later development of this page. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 22 January 2018 (EST)</strike>
:What??? Companies urging conservative Texas legislators to drop a conservative bill to require public school students to use the bathroom of their biological gender does not sound like something conservatives would do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:36, 22 January 2018 (EST)

::Ummm..."hold the phone." I got something messed up in research. That's why this didn't sound right--it wasn't. Thanks. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:44, 22 January 2018 (EST)

== Brand vs parent name ==

Opinion question: What should we do when there is a conservative parent company, and thus multiple brands under them are as well? For example, Taco Bell is a brand which is conservative. However, this is because its parent company, "YUM! Brands" is conservative. This parent company also owns KFC and Long John Silver, which are therefore conservative as well. Is it best to be concise by listing the parent company (perhaps with some well-know child brands listed parenthetically) as I have been doing, or would it be better to list the well-known brands separately, then perhaps include the parent in parentheses? This would take more space, but might be more user-friendly. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:26, 22 January 2018 (EST)

== Duplicate ==

Well, I thought it seemed astonishing that we didn't have a page on this. As it turns out, we do: [[Greatest conservative corporations]]. I am thinking that since this page has a brander purpose, it should be kept. However, is it beneficial to keep both? should I perhaps change this to only list semi-conservatives? Any suggestions? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:02, 23 January 2018 (EST)
:I agree that this article is of higher quality than the older one. I recommend making the other article an essay, particularly as it has the word "greatest", which is subjective. It can have a link to this article and vice-versa. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:38, 24 January 2018 (EST)

== Companies caving to the gun control lobby ==

If any of the companies listed in these articles ([http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/24/seven-companies-that-caved-to-anti-nra-pressure/ 1], [http://thehill.com/homenews/news/375416-companies-scramble-to-distance-themselves-from-nra 2], [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/list-companies-dropping-nra-partnerships-after-florida-shooting/article/2649953 3], [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/24/over-a-dozen-companies-cave-in-face-of-anti-nra-campaign/ 4]) are also listed in this CP article, we should probably note this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:12, 24 February 2018 (EST)

:Thanks for the heads-up. One company which was listed as "slightly conservative" (Hertz) has been demoted. I also added FedEx to that list, since they are still holding out in favor of the NRA, even though some of their other polices are liberal. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (EST)

::I see that FedEx is listed twice in the article, in the "Slightly conservative" and the "Debatable whether conservative" section. Assuming this is a mistake, this should be fixed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:59, 26 February 2018 (EST)

:::and that is why I was surprised to find that FedEx wasn't on this list.... it actually was. I did a search on the page, too, so I'm not sure how I missed it. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, I've fixed it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (EST)

::::More on the bright side: HotelPlanner.com chose not to cut ties with the NRA,[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/28/hotelplanner-com-sticks-nra-preserves-discounted-rate-nra-members/] and Roku is refusing to censor NRATV due to its support of freedom of speech.[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/28/roku-refuses-censor-nra-tv-following-mob-pressure/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (EST)

:::::That is good news! I've never heard of HotelPlanner.com, and I also can't find any political info on them. All I found was that it is a private company, and they are looking to buy up other companies. Roku I've heard of, but also had difficulty finding info on them. Apparently, [https://www.2ndvote.com/business-entity/roku/ 2nd vote had the same problem]. Perhaps these two are staying mostly neutral? Not sure--do you think either should be added based on this alone? It seems like some pretty weak evidence. HotelPlanner made it clear that this had nothing to do with politics, they are just sticking to the business deal. Likewise, Roku basically said that unless it breaks the rules, anything goes. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:30, 28 February 2018 (EST)
:::::FedEx is really taking some heat, and still saying outright that they support the right of citizens to arm and defend themselves. Their donation list is less that ideal, but do you think they should be promoted to "somewhat conservative"? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 28 February 2018 (EST)

::::::If they're too obscure to add, then it's probably best that they be left out. I'm just letting you know about these developments because they might be useful for this article, but I'm not necessarily advocating for them to be added. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:54, 28 February 2018 (EST)

:::::::They are not necessarily obscure, I just can't find political preference info on them right now. Anyway, thank you for the info! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:06, 1 March 2018 (EST)

While Delta probably isn't a conservative company, it's possible that its action was misunderstood but poorly executed: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/deltas-distancing-from-the-nra-was-just-a-bad-publicity-stunt/article/2650601] Either way, it just lost a big tax break because of the move: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/02/georgia-governor-signs-bill-nixing-delta-tax-break-after-nra-split.html] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (EST)

:I heard a little about this, but not that is was a publicity stunt...very interesting! In any case, they certainly don't seem to be conservative (though to their credit, they do support the salvation army) [https://www.2ndvote.com/business-entity/delta-air-lines]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 04:25, 3 March 2018 (EST)

== Wanted: Conservative banks, insurance, and transportation companies ==

Since almost all of those "big evil corporations" run by "the 1%" are flaming liberals, there are a number of corporate categories in which I cannot seem find a single conservative company. These include banks and financial institutions, insurance companies (I am excluding health sharing organizations from that category), automotive manufacturers as well as retailers and rental agencies, and airlines. These are categories where if you need the service, it seems that you have no option but to patronize a liberal establishment. Does anyone have suggestions of potential companies in these (or any other) categories they would like me to consider and research? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:15, 5 March 2018 (EST)
:There are at least a few small credit union and investment firms, but I don't know if they are notable enough to list. These include the David Holmes Agency (which I decided to list), Christian Community Credit Union, and Evangelical Christian Credit Union. Any thoughts on those? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:38, 5 March 2018 (EST)
::Many of the companies already listed in the article are obscure at least to most readers, so I think these companies would fit in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:35, 5 March 2018 (EST)
:::Hmmm...I was mostly trying to go with larger companies people ''would'' recognize, with only a few exceptions. I guess I'm not doing a very good job at that. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:25, 5 March 2018 (EST)

== Companies donating to Planned Parenthood ==

This article might be useful, either for this page, or for other articles such as the companies themselves: [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/30794-this-christmas-remember-these-companies-fund-planned-parenthood] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:54, 1 December 2018 (EST)

:Thanks! It looks like this article and the one you linked to mostly agree. It does refer to Walmart as liberal, and while they are to some degree, they do actually support some conservative causes, which has landed them in the "debatable" category.
:Unfortunately, it is much easier to find liberal companies, than conservative ones. The lean nature of this list is not for lack of research, but lack of candidates. In many cases, entire industries (such as cellular service) is liberal. The best you can hope for sometimes is a conservative retailer (like Patriot Mobile or Charity Mobile) which uses some revenue for good, then passes the rest of the money on to liberals who provide the service or product at a discounted rate. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:35, 22 January 2019 (EST)

== Reference formatting ==

1990'sguy, you're sure the set width method is better, we can do that. However, my concern was that I keep seeing it set to a single collum only, even een it seems there should be two. I suppose we could try a different width though, or just leave it as-is. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:37, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
:It could be the browser you're using, since it shows two columns on my computer using Chrome. I will make a minor tweak, and please let me know if it fixes it for you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:40, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

::Oh dear... this is probably worse. It does consistently show multiple columns on my screens, but on larger monitors, it is showing more than two columns. Alright, yes I guess we'd better stay with at least 35em. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:16, 19 May 2019 (EDT)

== Useful sources ==

This article lists some businesses that advocated against pro-life laws in conservative states -- it might be helpful if their list overlaps at all with the companies in this article: [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/10/top-execs-of-180-companies-abortion-necessary-to-be-successful-in-business/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

:Thank you! I only found one entry which overlapped: United Technology Corporation, which is one of the few companies on that list that is actually reasonably large. It was already marked as "debatable," since it is a defense contractor with some significant donations to the GOP, but it has some serious liberal leanings. Most of these companies seem to be small or no-name foundations and companies (including some LLCs). Among the signers of this letter are Tinder (obviously an ulterior motive there), MakeLoveNotPorn (sounds suspicious), Soma Massage Therapy (ditto), Ladies Get Paid (feminist organization, I assume. Never heard of it before), Women Online and The Mission List (ditto), and Female Founders Fund (also ditto). It sounds more impressive if they just say "top executives of more than 180 companies" rather than "twenty companies along with 160 no-name organizations" --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:21, 11 June 2019 (EDT)

::Notes (to self) for follow-up: look into "SoulCycle" and "Equinox (capital?)" Nether have anything of value listed on the usual indexes. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:27, 8 August 2019 (EDT)

== Add a section for neutral companies? ==

The title of this article is "Conservative companies," and I don't want to stray far from that. I'm also not looking for an excuse to make the page larger. However, does anyone have thoughts on whether or not to add a list for companies that are politically neutral? Or perhaps a different page? Would that be helpful? 
The thing is, many companies are just minding their own business (literally) and working within the free market to make a profit for their shareholders. That's how it is supposed to work, and it's what makes our economy thrive. Besides, that way no customer has their money being used for a cause they don't support. Rather than charging extra and then giving it to a cause some customers oppose, these companies choose to just do business while staying out of politics, and thus reducing their expenses which the customers must bear. 
The list of such companies would be somewhat sizable. However, I'm not opposed to giving such companies some recognizance (and patronage). Any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:56, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

:Such a section seems helpful to me -- companies which don't engage in the promotion of left-wing policy, despite not being explicitly conservative either. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 05:39, 16 August 2019 (EDT)

::I think I'll get started on it, then. If this section gets too large, we can always break it off to separate page later, I suppose. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:29, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

==My Pillow==
How do they rank? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 20:26, 12 June 2020 (EDT)
:I hadn't ranked them because they were such a small company. He's made a political splash now, so I guess we could include it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:29, 22 February 2021 (EST)

==Adding an explanation to each listing==

It would be helpful if a brief reason accompanies each listing to justify their designated status. Currently, readers will have to dig through all the sources, most of which do not reveal their content in the reference list. The page [[Essay:Greatest conservative corporations]] is doing this already, though it's a much smaller page. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 03:35, 11 February 2021 (EST)

:True, that's a good point. I wasn't sure how to keep the formatting clean, but at least a quick sentence might be a good idea.
:By the way, here's CNN's hate-list of companies they claim weren't doing enough to support BLM. Funny thing is, I'd consider these liberal companies. https://www.ccn.com/7-companies-you-should-renounce-if-you-support-black-lives-matter
:--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:28, 22 February 2021 (EST)

::Thanks for your opinion. I thought about the format too, and I've been planning to transform the list into a table to keep it clean, separating company name from justification. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 19:06, 26 February 2021 (EST)

:::I was hoping to avoid doing that out of laziness...haha. Probably a table is a good idea though, if we are going to include justification. Question: what color scheme were you going for? I see Red and Yellow currently. Thanks for your efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:22, 27 February 2021 (EST)

::::Great to have support for the planned conversion! I am temporarily using decreasingly red colors as background for each category. My vision is to eventually combine all categories into one table, while using one additional column to indicate categorization, similar to this "notorious" list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
::::I also think it helpful to include leftist companies (Coca Cola, Twitter, etc.) into the same table as well, otherwise we will have too many companies not listed and confuse readers who, like me, came here to look for companies not just to support but also avoid. As is seen from the example WP list, it is very easy to promote some while also denounce others IN THE SAME LIST. I don't think I have the user right to do this though, as it apparently involves moving the page. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 00:13, 28 February 2021 (EST)

:::::I'm not sure I like the idea of mixing conservative and liberal companies on the same list...wouldn't it work better to make a separate list? I do agree that looking at this list and not seeing a company which we have research (and decided isn't conservative) doesn't really help the reader as much as listing out the liberal ones somewhere/somehow.
:::::As for colors, it seems like red is typically thought of as "bad" or "no" (due to stop lights), so I think I like the green/yellow scheme you have doing on now.--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (EST)

:::::By the way, another outstanding issue is subsidiaries. In some cases, I listed each brand name, but when there is a parent company of a dozen brands, doing this will bloat the list. For example, consider "Flowers Foods." They have a bunch of brand names, but breaking it out will make the list messy. Leaving it as it is, though, hides recognizable brand names. Few people know what "flower foods" even is. Any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:52, 28 February 2021 (EST)

::::::I think the current treatment of parent company and its subsidiaries is good. Sure, one can't easily find a brand by looking alphabetically, but for a long list it's easier to use ^f anyways. I'll circle back (:P) to the list expansion idea later (mainly to make the list more helpful while avoiding splitting). --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 16:13, 1 March 2021 (EST)
:::::::Flowers Foods isn’t an obscure corporate name like Perrigo (manufacturer of most generic OTC medications) or Vi-Jon (manufacturer of GermX and many generic personal care products). For one thing, they have Flowers-branded bread stores that are company facing. I would say they are at least as well known as Unilevar, Proctor & Gamble, and ConAgra. They also provide products for a lot of food service establishments (like the SRQ rolls where I work). [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:14, 6 March 2021 (EST)

== Progressive Insurance? Comcast?==

I can’t see the reference through the paywall, but several years ago I was told Progressive Insurance has ties to George Soros, and I know they pulled their ads from Glen Beck’s program on FoxNews to participate in cancel culture. Also, how is there any debate about Comcast, which owns MSNBC and has (or at least had) a liberal moron for a CEO? Are we sure this is accurate? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 17:59, 6 March 2021 (EST)
:Both addressed. Additional sources would be helpful. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (EST)

::Thanks for the call-out. Yeah Progressive doesn't don't sound good, at least not anymore. I'll look into Comcast, but you're probably right. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (EST)

== O’Sullivan’s First Law ==

I don't mean to bloat this page, but might it be worth mentioning "O'Sullivan's Law?" 
First published on October 27, 1989 (in the National Review), it states that "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:56, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

:I don't know. Newsweek moved from far left to center in the past two years. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 02:16, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

::I haven't been reading their publication, so I'll take your word on that. However, such change can be driven by one person or a few individuals. I can't imaging a liberal indoctrination company just suddenly deciding to do the exact opposite of what they were before without being pushed that way. Nonetheless, we can leave this point out of this article. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:01, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

== Confusing category "No longer conservative" ==

All other categories indicate the value status of a company, while the category in question indicates a change, not a status. The article has made it clear that value of companies is dynamic, so there is little need to emphasize some specific cases of value change. Those "no longer conservative" can only be either Neutral or Liberal, so they can all find home in other categories (Liberal as a category is a recent addition I envisioned to be helpful). {{unsigned|Luminoxius}}

:Fair point, it is an outlier of sorts. However, my original plan for this page was for it to just list conservative companies. If it's not conservative, it isn't listed. Then we decided to include neutral companies as well, since there's nothing wrong with just doing business in the free market, without getting entangled in politics. But without the "no longer conservative" section, if someone came and searched for Chick-fil-a a year ago, they simply wouldn't find it. Since this is not a comprehensive list, they would assume that it is a conservative company (as they were known to be), and that we just hadn't added it for some reason. The "No longer conservative" section was intended to show that yes, we have researched them, and in contrast with public perception, they are not actually conservative anymore. If we want to change this from "Conservative companies" to "All companies on the planet categorized by political affiliation" then yes, "no longer conservative" would be pointless. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:08, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

::This brings us to a previous discussion where [[User:DavidB4]] "agree that looking at this list and not seeing a company which we have research(ed) (and decided isn't conservative) doesn't really help the reader as much as listing out the liberal ones somewhere/somehow". I understand that the original plan for this page was simpler than what it has become. That does not prevent us from transforming the page into something more impactful. A page's name can be changed as it develops. Alternatively, we can have a new page for a combined list, which I will be happy to work on. --[[User:Luminoxius|Luminoxius]] ([[User talk:Luminoxius|talk]]) 23:39, 24 May 2021 (EDT)

:::Yes, I guess the question is, do we want a "conservative companies" page and a "liberal companies" page, in order to reduce bloat, or put it all in one big list, and hope it doesn't crash people's browsers? Having one big list seems like maybe a better option, but that page is going to be huge. Then we also have [[Liberal corporate tyranny]] which was intended to list out liberal companies, but it kind of became a jumbled mess and was largely abandoned. The other problem is that if we put liberal and conservative companies on the same page, the conservative ones risk being drowned out. Basically if it isn't recognizably conservative, it is most likely flaming liberal. The vast majority of companies are liberal, so the bulk of the content will be those. If we either leave them in separate sections as they are now, or come up with some other good way to separate them out, it might work. I know you were thinking of color-coding, and while that might help, I don't think that by itself would be enough. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:27, 25 May 2021 (EDT)

== help ==

Can someone tell me a list of all companies that don't support BLM? I know defunct companies like Bradlees, Circruit City, Foodtown and Zody's don't support BLM since they are no longer in business (thank god), I need names of current ones.