Talk:Liberal corporate tyranny

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have a ton of them on the immigration and gay/trans stuff. However, I warn you, it's going to make for a pretty long page. PatriotMongoose (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Go ahead and add away! We have some long pages already, anyway. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't want to edit conflict, but at some point I or someone should put down PayPal for opposing concealed and constitutional carry. They also allegedly refuse to process payment for the purchase or sale of firearms and ammunition. --David B (TALK) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Should this article be split?

Because of the increasing size of this article, I'm thinking that it should be split up into smaller articles in order to make them more manageable (like perhaps, make each section an article unto itself). Any thoughts on this? Northwest (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

It's still not too big in terms of bytes, but maybe the layout/format could be changed to make the article more readable? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
In general, it's probably better to avoid splitting. As 1990'sguy mentioned, different formatting could help. There are a lot of bulleted (and non-bulleted) lists which leave plenty of white space. Compacting everything would get messy too, but maybe some of it can be consolidated? Also, there are some really long, headache-inducing headings. Any chance we could shorten those a bit? It would make everything, but especially the table of contents, cleaner. --David B (TALK) 16:39, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
Sounds about right. A single formatting style for each of the sections could work. Northwest (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
Or we could collapse each section? Just throwing ideas out. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
I suppose that is an option.
I'm noticing a fair amount of duplication; I wonder if we could revise the structure of going state-by-state. For example, under "Actively sides with liberalism in the culture war" Lyft is mentioned for "Executive order temporarily banning six countries with Islamic terrorist ties entry into the USA" then some of their executives are mentioned for the same basic reason, then further down they are listed again as a company for "Signed brief against President Trump's travel ban". It seems like maybe this kind of thing could/should be consolidated somehow. --David B (TALK) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (EDT)
PatriotMongoose I hadn't realized when I made a couple edits a moment ago that you had been posting large edits not long before. If I edit conflicted with you, just wipe out my changes and post yours--mine can be easily redone. --David B (TALK) 17:10, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

What do you folks think about shortening this list by putting some of these longer bulleted lists into tables? Without removing any information, we could use a lot of whitespace by putting five of more columns of text instead of just one. --David B (TALK) 13:38, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

Good idea. As long as it significantly reduces the page length. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (EDT)
Thanks, it could do that, but when there are just a couple long entries, it makes things a bit more difficult. How does this look? --David B (TALK) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (EDT)
Much better. I would recommend, however, adding three columns, rather than two, in order to save more space. At the same time, I am a little concerned at how many bytes making this change would add. This article already has much more than most articles have. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (EDT)
I was wondering if I could push it to three or four. If there aren't any long entries, it should definitely work. I can try it with this, too.
I agree about the file size, though--most of that came from applying the ref to each entry. If we could do that a better way, it would help. However, I'll run my bot on it to trim a lot of that extra away. --David B (TALK) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (EDT)
The bot only took it down 1,957 while processing the entire page, which is nice but not really enough. I don't know what to do here. He did warn us he had a lot! :) --David B (TALK) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

I was trying to fix the stuff on National Urban League as some of the sources were different (I had assumed second vote had it all from the same source. Most of them were, but some were separate sources and I was unable to fix this due to all the errors happening when trying to edit or access the page. (BTW, I've had these errors in the past (and not when editing either.) PatriotMongoose (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

There are various types of corporate tyranny on here, some more overt than others. (For instance, some outright go around attacking us like those attacking RFRAs or good bathroom bills while others just support the Leftist agenda without outright going the extra mile to attack us.) Also, there are separate categories on this. This page appears mainly to have been created to deal with the gay/trans agenda but when it mentioned other things like immigration and anti-Trump, I decided to take it further. There are several categories this could be broken down into: Gay/Trans Agenda, Immigration, Abortion, Education, supporting radical Leftist groups, the culture war (like those supporting bad programming on TV), those opposing voter ID, those supporting the UN, those supporting the climate change agenda, those supporting gun control, etc.

What should be done is make one page for each category and then put a category (there is a category button at the bottom) and add "Corporate Tyranny" to all of them as a category so that people can get to each of them easier.

Actually, some of it could be classified as "corporate tyranny" and "corporate support of the liberal agenda" and "corporate support of the RINO/Corporatist Agenda". If we played it that way, we could even have a page for corporate support of the liberal media (and the RINO counterparts that support Common Core, open borders, etc or support RINOs like Shepard Smith.). It would be better suited for a wiki format than on a static blog where I'd have a harder time getting it all on my own due to how frequently the advertisers for television media can change.

It's up to you guys, of course. I don't run the wiki after all. PatriotMongoose (talk)

Exactly what I originally suggested. Because of the sheer amount of content being continually added, my computer momentarily freezes each time I check out the article now, which is an indicator that the amount of content in there is now becoming overwhelming and needs to be split up into more manageable sizes with separate articles for each section. Northwest (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
If there is a way we can split the article that maes sense, I'm for it. Nearly 700,000 bytes is way too much. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
I don't generally like splits, but I'm okay with it if everyone else is. The lists still need some cleanup though--doing so can eliminate double digits of KB. --David B (TALK) 16:51, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Inclusion of groups in here

I think that, in some cases, it's possible that the companies opposing religious liberty laws or whatever weren't doing it because they supported the Gay/Trans agenda but because they were hurting from the Left's boycott of the state and wanted the easy rather out rather than get a spine and take their losses. (Not that it's right, but my list didn't really attempt to distinguish between the those in it for the agenda and those in it because their profits are being hurt by Leftist boycotts. I think it's safe to say that most of those I listed were in the former category, but I can't be sure it's true for ALL of them.) I got to thinking about this when trying to find companies and groups opposing the Arizona so-called racial profiling law in 2010 and found that some Arizona businesses, that I was going to list, were only against it because they were losing money due to Leftist (and even Leftist cities and counties) boycotting them.) So how should we handle those cases? PatriotMongoose (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2017 (EDT)

BTW, the guys supporting Export-Import are bad guys. I think a bunch of them were writing Congress telling them NOT to confirm a Trump appointee who happened to support abolishing the Export-Import Bank. Anyway,

it's just crony capitalism anyway.  PatriotMongoose (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Some liberal tried to vandalize the page by removing everything! I reverted it back. Still, be on the lookout. This was what I was afraid might eventually happen. PatriotMongoose (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

No need to worry about the vandalism--we will all keep an eye out for it, and if all else fails, we could lock this page for a while if it comes under heavy attack.
As for how to group these, I see your point. It will get tricky to simplify issues this way, but I though it still would be worth trying--it would be a judgement call, but probably we could generally group those who directly and indirectly oppose/support things. No matter how that stance is displayed, they are still taking a stand for their misguided beliefs. --David B (TALK) 19:55, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Duplication and organization

I was going through one particular section trying to tabulate the data to save space when I noticed some slightly concerning issues. Firstly, there appeared to be several lists pasted together, with no apparent effort made to eliminate duplicates. I eliminated a number of these duplicates (12,052 bytes worth!) but these still may be some. In some cases, there were up to six duplicate entries of the same company in this section. Since these lists do not use standardized formats, it is difficult to do automated duplicate checks. Secondly, when these lists were put together, formatting was not standardized. Once section in the middle did not even have bullet points. They also were not alphabetized together; there were a number of individually alphabetized lists pasted one after another. My cleanup edit is here Maybe you were going to clean this up anyway, I don't know. Many of your lists are much better than this one.
I appreciate your enthusiasm to list these all out, but in so doing, things seem to be getting a little messy sometimes. I know it's a pain to check for duplicates and review everything carefully, but could you at least do some cursory cleanup on these lists? You are doing a great job of gathering these, I just hope we can maintain quality with all of this quantity. Thank you! --David B (TALK) 20:06, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Suggested page rename

I was thinking that we should rename it "liberal corporate advocacy" as not every item on here is now tyranny like the Gaystapo/Transtapo. However, every item on here is corporate support for liberal/RINO (or crony capitalist) causes. (One item, the one about the parents television council, though, may be breaking a rule as they are just companies found advertising the most on shows with bad (like gay, violent, sexual, etc) content. I had been discouraged from adding sponsors of something where companies advertised on a liberal leaning venue if that advertising was likely the only tie between them and said liberalism due to them wanting to get a large reach to make a profit. However, I'd already added that bit about the television council before being informed of that. Still, I think, at least in that case, it was for multiple shows, and not just one show (in order words, it's not just a One Million Moms target of one show but shows a repeated pattern. Even if not deliberate, it was at least acute negligence to do it multiple times enough to get listed as the worst for 2016.) PatriotMongoose (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

Am going to reorganize the page

Other than the enviro-statist (or FakeScience) groups, the companies are generally spread out throughout the page. So I'm categorizing stuff to make it easier to navigate. So if entries are disappearing, that means that I'm adding them to a list together and don't want to risk having them duplicated and will paste them all back in when I'm done. PatriotMongoose (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

Sounds like a good plan--I don't have a lot of time the next few days, but if there's anything I can help with, let me know!
One quick note--There are not enough heading levels available to support the current structure. There are only six heading options in HTML (<h1> through <h6>) and I think this is the same within the wiki. You might want to try only adding one equals sign for each sublevel. It that isn't enough, you can actually start with only one equals sign on each side. In other words, try:
=Major heading=
==Subheading 1==
===Subheading 2===
====Subheading 3====
=====Subheading 4=====
======Subheading 5======
I think that will work better for you. Thanks for doing this! --David B (TALK) 00:14, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


Here's a source for some updates. [1] We should think seriously about beginning a page something like U.S. corporate sponsors of Beijing Olympics. RobSFree Kyle! 06:56, July 5, 2021 (EDT)


Hasbro. RobSFree Kyle! 03:29, July 19, 2021 (EDT)