Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2014-05-07T21:27:00Z

Burkean: /* 187 */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Leaving Las Vegas ==
While clearly not originally intended to portray a conservative message, I feel that one strongly comes across in the film. Semi-autobiographical story of an alcoholic writer who loses everything because of his drinking and continues to spiral until it eventually costs him his life. opinions? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:07, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

: I disagree Wayfinder. Much of Jewish culture is based around the concept that Jews follow tradition for no other reason than because God expects us to. Take Kosher laws. Certainly, there can health reasons for being Kosher, but that is not why Jews become Kosher; it is because it is expected by God. Kosher laws don't change or update with new dietary findings. There are no Kosher fad diets. Ask a random Jewish person who keeps Kosher why he/she does and, 9 times out of 10, they will either say, "Because I always have" or "Because God expects me to". In the later case, performing an act because God expects it is logical, in an of itself.

And in Fiddler, there is an extra point to tradition. As Tevye says, "Because of tradition, we've kept our balance for many, many years." To wit, tradition is the only thing keeping Jews from falling into the abyss. And, in fact, the more Tevye gives in to the modern times, the more his culture is ravaged until he is forced to leave his homeland. Tradition is deeply respected in the film, as much as, and for the same reasons as, it is in the Jewish culture. And for that reason, I would consider it a Conservative film. --[[User:Sirreality|Sirrealtiy]] 12:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

: You make some good points, Sirrealtiy, but I must reiterate that the film isn't about Tradition's strengths, but giving into change for its own sake. Not once does Tevye ever consider why there are these traditions in the first place. When he argues with himself over Tzeitel marrying Motel or Hodel marrying Perchik, and so forth, he never considers the traditions at all or even explains their use. He almost casually disregards them. When it comes down to Chava, though, he can't get around it, and, again, he has no real good reason for any of them. So Tevye comes off as rigid and petty. This is important because Fiddler on the Roof came out at the height of the first wave of hippy counter-culture in America, and it ran with it. By the time the film gets to the conclusion, that the Tsar is running them out of Anatevka, the message is loud and clear: You can't resist change at all, so don't even try. This would, on the other hand, be more of a conservative film if we went into the reasons for these traditions, a lot of which would've been known, especially to the likes of the Rabbi, before casually discarding them. : --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 01:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Since we're talking Disney cartoons here, would films like The Little Mermaid qualify under Conservative or Liberal? I want to make sure so I don't end up making a big mistake later on. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 16:56, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::Actually, I think Beauty and the Beast would qualify as feminist propaganda, and thus make its Conservative status debatable. True, it didn't have Belle trying to work as a CEO or something (then again, given the time period, I don't think "CEOs" even existed at that time) unlike the films for the past 15 years, but it does push the feminist propaganda that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s, and all education was supplied to rich white males, and that Belle was somehow breaking societal standards by reading (which there have been women who read during that time as well and wasn't even looked down upon. Marie Antoinette for one.). Trust me, I'd recognize that propaganda when I see it because I had to be subject to that propaganda from a militant feminist professor by the name of Heather Lucas (who did actually imply the above thing about women not getting an education until the 1960s). Plus the fact that she was refusing to marry for children can easily be construed as being anti-family. Also, as some people pointed out, there were some left-wing stuff in Titanic as well (I think Jack basically made some comments that were negative towards capitalism in that film. That as well as the aforementioned scene with Rose qualifying as pornography, and heck, technically she was committing pedastry with Jack as well). I took the liberty to moving them to the debatable whether Conservative section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:36, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Edit: It should also be worth mentioning that the village, while "shallow," was not really materialistic, not under the definition of matter being the most important thing, and certainly not in regards to the aspect of wealth, race, and jobs. Probably the closest they've gotten to materialism was their considering Belle to be "odd" due to her reading a book all the time, which even then seems to speak more to the feminist propaganda of Women not being educated at all until the 1960s. There wasn't exactly anything materialistic about the village. I had removed the reference to the village as being materialistic since it really didn't fit the definition at all. Also, the so-called "wedding" had a brief shot of a priest (specifically when Gaston makes that opening joke), making materialism in the village even less likely (materialism is atheistic, and the presence of a priest likewise implies the village was Christian, something that cannot intermingle with each other). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 17:26, 17 December 2013 (EST)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Conservative? Some guy says all the right words to a vulnerable girl, then gets her to strip naked so he can draw her (that's porn). Then he gets her into the back of a car and they fornicate. Not exactly my definition of conservative. --[[User:Crubs|Crubs]] 15:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== The Iron Lady ==

I highly suggest seeing The Iron Lady. I'm not sure how widespread the release was but it received critical acclaim in Britain, and a good insight into the other side of the Atlantic during the time of Reaganism. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:06, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Add "Back to the Future" to the Debatable category? ==

According to the article for [[Back to the Future]], the film contains both positive and negative values. Should it be included in the "Debatable" category?--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 23:52, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

==Batman 3==

This review [http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/occupy-batman-storms-gotham-city/] calls "The Dark Knight Rises" a conservative film which compares the Occupy movement to the ill-fated French Revolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

==Zulu==

Zulu is definitely a Conservative film. Since when do Leftists (I never call them Liberals) have the character to do their duty even if it means their death? What you see here is an emergency situation, where the officers in command put aside both their differences and their peculiar ways of life to do what was important. Chard put away being an engineer for a couple of days, and Bromhead put aside being a societal-gentleman/officer. They were determined not only to do their duty, but to win. If they abandoned their post, they cede it to the enemy and they probably would've been hunted down and destroyed, as the force at Isandwana was. They fought for reasons a bit higher than themselves, and in the end they prevailed. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:34, 11 February 2013 (EST)

== Additional films to consider ==

*Saving Private Ryan-World War II, June 1944.
*We Were Soldiers-based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore; 1965, Vietnam.
*Cinderella Man-The story of James Braddock; heavyweight champion from 1935–37.
--[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 23:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Bee Movie ==

Why is Bee Movie a conservative Movie?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 06:27, 7 December 2013 (EST)

== 187 ==

I thought 187 should be on this list --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:44, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:Don't know about that. Doesn't ''187'' portray [[public schools]] as a victim, rather than the cause of the problems?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I suppose one could see it that way. And obviously in real life I detest Samuel Jackson's radical racial politics. I don't remember much whining in the film about more money being the solution or celebration of teacher's unions. To me the overriding message was that we have degenerate youth in this country who wish to be decadent and apathetic and do not value a good education and a teacher who believes that students should be motivated and want to learn has finally had enough. Thomas Sowell has discussed the youth in inner city schools who actually want to learn being denied that by the thugs ruining the learning environment or because they get beat up for wanting to achieve. The film captures this unacceptable state of affairs wonderfully. That part struck a chord with me as a conservative. I certainly didn't see apologia for the public school system going on. The lack of discipline and the complicity of bureaucratic nonentities is thoroughly critiqued. Obviously, I would agree with you that breaking the public school government created monopoly is the solution. But this film as I see it is more about the problem than the solution. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 21:15, 16 February 2014 (EST)

:You make great points, and please feel free to add the movie to the entry. That said, I doubt that outside gangs are a major reason why so many kids are not learning basic skills in public school. The real problem is that the liberals who control public schools don't want kids to learn and be able to think for themselves. Someone who can't read is more likely to vote a straight Democratic Party-line ticket than someone who can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 February 2014 (EST)
You're absolutely right. Most of the time, there's no difference between the hooligan thugs and the liberals, as lack of discipline in our public school system facilitates their existence. Also, with bureaucratic control, and the war on homeschooling, cadres of teachers who care about their job and not education are protected and those who could provide a better education (because they are motivated, because they don't teach a mindless curriculum and because they believe in discipline) see their schools shutdown by teachers who would sacrifice a child's future (much like a child sacrifice in the heathen societies of old) on the altar of their precious careers. It's high time parents held them accountable. And for that, we will need an end to the century old progressive inspired idiocy of government control of schools and a free market in education. At least the progressives were honest about their intentions back then, as they quite explicitly stated that their purpose was to mold, indoctrinate, and otherwise turn children into loyal and obedient servants of the state, as opposed to God or family or their own individuality. Children are taught to lap up content free curriculum like cattle. It's disgusting. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:26, 7 May 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Geert Wilders

2014-02-17T03:13:15Z

Burkean: Created page with "This man is a hero. Makes me proud of my Dutch heritage. Only in a backward leftist Orwellian nightmare could he be considered a hatemonger. --~~~~"

This man is a hero. Makes me proud of my Dutch heritage. Only in a backward leftist Orwellian nightmare could he be considered a hatemonger. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 22:13, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2014-02-17T02:15:33Z

Burkean: /* 187 */

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2014-02-16T22:51:56Z

Burkean: /* question about signing */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive3|3]]

== <hiero> tag and WikiHiero ==

Is it possible to introduce support for WikiHiero on Conservapedia? On Wikipedia it is possible to insert hieroglyphs into an article using this tag along with the WikiHiero syntax to enter the signs correctly. It'd be useful to have this feature here too.
--[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 07:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Someone is trying to steal my password ==

I recently received this E-mail:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 92.16.2.122)
requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php).
The password for user "Kuyper" is now "[removed]".
You should log in and change your password now.
If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it,
you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

You might want to consider looking into this as hacking is a serious problem. [[User:Kuyper|Kuyper]] 16:50, 28 December 2008 (EST)

*The operative phrase is below. There wasn't any "hacking" or even "cracking" here.

<blockquote>
'''If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it,
''you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.'''''
</blockquote>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== How to edit? ==

I read the article on Barak Obama. Basically, it is a train wreck. I am not an expert on him, but I thought I could at least take out all the snide innuendo's, and even if the artilce is much shorter, at least it will be more credible. He is, after all, the President of the United States, and deserves some minimal respect.

However, I have no idea how to edit articles on this thing, and there is just about no help or assistance. It certainly does not seem to be user friendly.

So, I am just about ready to give up.

I also read the article on Virgnia, since that is where I am from. Under the list of counties, it only had about half of them. It was a terribel article. I do not understand how this organizaiton works, but many of the articles are not vey good, and then when you invite people to edit them, how do we do it?

Sincerely

Daniel Sharp

: With all due respect, your misspellings are the worst I've seen. Please improve and then try to improve the Virginia article, with good spelling. Thanks much, and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 January 2009 (EST)

:: As well as the links that I've just put on your user talk page, see [[Help:Contents]] for some more advice. However, that help is not designed for someone who has never edited a Wiki before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

:::Daniel Sharp is also user [[user talk:Lucyjordan|Lucy Jordan]]? I'm really confused here. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

There are some very serious problems with the entries concerning topics related to Confucianism. Many of entries are not strictly incorrect but are sufficiently superficial to be grossly misleading. When it comes to topics as foreign as Confucianism, brevity is not your friend. I will try to help, but unfortunately I do not have the time or the resources to do everything that needs doing. You need a total overhaul.

==Noah's Ark Page Locked==
I would like to create responses to the criticisms on the [[Noah's Ark]] article but the page has been locked by an administrator. The problem is that the locking admin (MountainDew/DanH) is MIA.

Can I get a little help? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:54, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Multiple Problems ==

I've made many edits this month, but most of them have disappeared from "my contributions" and from the pages I edited. Also, many of the math pages (e.g. [[Covariance]]) can't display formulas properly. Finally, another user made an edit to my user page a while ago. But that edit has also disappeared from the record. What's going on? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*Conservapedia suffered a hard drive failure earlier this week. We restored up until the 19th, and are adding more current revisions manually, as we find them viable. Sorry for the loss, it has effected all of us. Look for bits and pieces to appear back slowly, bit by bit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 31 January 2009 (EST)

:*The hard drive failure explains the missing edits, but why isn't the math environment working? The following should appear as an equation, but doesn't:

::<math>
\mbox{E}\left[T\right]=
\begin{cases}
\mu\sqrt{\frac{\nu}{2}}\frac{\Gamma((\nu-1)/2)}{\Gamma(\nu/2)}
&\nu>1\\
\mbox{Does not exist}
&\nu\le1\\
\end{cases}
</math>

:*At the moment, this problem is present on every page I've looked at ([[Linear model]], [[Normal distribution]], etc...). [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 10:34, 31 January 2009 (EST)

:: The math problems are a problem related to moving to a new server. Other, more major issues are taking priority over the math. I'll get to is soon though. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 16:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Messed up linking... ==

I created a new page for the Show hannity that took over Hannity and colmes. I'm not sure what I did, but linking to [[Hannity & Colmes]] directs to [[Hannity]]. If an admin could let me know what I did wrong so I can fix it, that would be great. Thanks.--[[User:TylerG|Tyler]] 23:58, 1 February 2009 (EST)
: Well I found the problem, [[Hannity & Colmes]] is for some reason linking to [[Hannity]] and not [[Hannity and Colmes]]...--[[User:TylerG|Tyler]] 00:04, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:: We've had problems in the past with ampersands in article names, although I thought that problem had disappeared. Perhaps it is back again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== New outage? ==

The past few times I've checked the site all the pages were protected. One time was around 3PM. Was there an extension of the 1-6AM closing?
[[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 09:55, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Conservapedia's editing is turned off over-night, for all but Administrators and specially righted editors. That would generally be between Midnight and 6:00AM, Eastern Standard Time, U.S. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)

==Wikipedia==
Article [[Wikipedia]] says "Wikipedia bills itself as a democracy." However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy here], Wikipedia clearly does not bill itself as a democracy. Regards, [[User:J|J]] 19:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Requested move of [[Hull City F.C.]] ==

Not sure if this is the right place, but can the article [[Hull City F.C.]] please be moved to [[Hull City A.F.C]], as that is the correct name of the club. (see the badge and the club website [http://www.hullcityafc.net/page/World/ here]. Thanks, [[User:Ozoo|Ozoo]] 14:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

*Done. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

== How to start? ==

Just joined and want to edit an article.

If I know that part of the information is incorrect should I first describe the changes I'm going to make on the talk page or should I just go ahead and make the changes? {{Unsigned|ChrisMH -- 09:08, 1 December 2009 (EST)}}

:Glad you joined! In my totally unofficial opinion: If the article's been undergoing a lot of controversy recently, or if there's been controversy before about the issues you want to address, I'd describe the changes. If it's been undergoing a lot of editing recently, and the changes are major, I'd describe them. Otherwise, I'd go right ahead and edit; if someone objects, he can always (revert and) describe his objections. This's what I'd do; it's definitely not official policy. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:27, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::Chris, the important thing to remember is that encyclopedia's rely on ''facts''. '''That means having verifiable sources included with your edits.''' If you or I know something is a fact, and we add it to an article, that doesn't help other users without their ability to confirm it with a reliable source. Please check the links I placed on your talk page, including our Manual of Style for help. Our Guidelines will also be of help. Remember part of your online reputation includes not using anonymous proxies to mask your location. That said, welcome to you as well, and that is the ''official'' word on your question! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:43, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I noticed your main page states "wikiproject" - I recommend changing to "pediaproject" or something along those lines; don't want to reinforce or reference wikipedia, sticking to conservapedia. sw

== Technical problem creating AT&T article ==

I've recently attempted to create an article about telephone giant [[AT&T]], but having technical difficulties. The article is created, but attempting to view the article results in an error message stating that there is no article for "AT." Basically, attempting to view "AT&T" results in "AT" being displayed. Anyway we can fix this? AT&T is the largest telephone provider worldwide, certainly worthy of an article if [[Vodafone]] is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:21, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== Keep Needing to Reset My Password ==

I apologize if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm still relatively new here. After I log out every time, the next time I log in, the form says that my password is incorrect. I e-mail myself a new password, then promptly change my password to something new. The website accepts it and I log in, but after I log out and try to log back in, the same situation happens. Could this because I'm trying to log in from a blocked IP? I'm at a university campus where account creation is blocked by IP, but I spoke with TK and was cleared to create an account from my home IP. Thank you for the help! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 14:50, 1 February 2010 (EST)

== My new article. ==

Hi there. I've added the article [[Nick Clegg]]. I've researched it, and tried to make it work. I'd really appreciate if somebody would take a look and let me know if it's the right kind of style. Thank you. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 12:21, 11 March 2010 (EST)

:Good start. I made a few changes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 11 March 2010 (EST)

== Regarding the UK ==

Hello. I'd like to take a serious role in the UK side of Conservapedia, and try to get some serious articles done about the United Kingdom from a proper Christian conservative point of view. Peraonlly, I think that all of the political parties in the United Kingdom are liberal.. it's just a matter of being more or less liberal. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, sorry for rambling...

If any of the administrators would like to request an article about the UK, please let me know on my talk page. I'm more than happy to accept writing assignments. Who knows? Maybe if I write enough good articles, you'll come to think of me as your 'UK Politics & Religion Editor.'

I'm going to bed now, take care. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 23:49, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks, Newton! Dive right in, and I am certain any of us who see the need will do as you ask and post on your talk page. I am sure many of the U.K articles we have are in need, as some I have spotted misleading information and removed it. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::Is there a way that I could possibly edit during your night-time period? Who would I speak to about this? At the moment, I can't edit before 10am. On days when I'm in class, I'm often up at 7am or 8am, and have a lot of free time to edit. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:12, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Sorry Newton, you have to earn that through contributions--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for your quick reply. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:20, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

== Vandalism! ==

[[User:Pcook]] is on a vandalism spree, please block him!!! I can't edit the abuse reports section!
[[User:Newton|Newton]] 13:31, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Wuhao1911 blocked him, thank you. I have removed all of his edits. At first I just removed the obvious vandalism, but then I noticed the blasphemous comments and that he has inserted parts into peoples' debate arguements, so it is all gone. [[User:Newton|Newton]] 13:34, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

[[User:YeVeg]] (is that how you type a username?) is engaging in excessive vandalism, some of it racist. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 08:04, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

== Content for Geeks ==

I've noticed that Conservapedia seems to lack some content that could be useful to geeks. Being a geek myself, I was wondering if I could write or at least recommend articles to be written or updated for the geek/technophile audience. Articles for [[HTTP]] and [[XML]] are missing entirely. Examples could be added to [[Java]], [[SQL]], and [[JavaScript]]. Finally, [[XHTML]] could probably be set as a redirect to [[HTML]] in the way [[Kitty]] redirects to [[Cat]]. This is just an idea, please don't flame me. ([[User:JlHawkwell|JlHawkwell]] 14:25, 2 August 2010 (EDT))

:You are registered here, and adding technical articles such as you suggest doesn't need permission or discussion to add, JlHawkwell. Please proceed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== What should I edit? ==

Would you mind if I do some massive expansion of chemistry articles here? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 10:07, 16 November 2010 (EST)

:I believe Mr. Schlafly responded to this same question on his talk page, so please proceed. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:27, 16 November 2010 (EST)

== "Slug" article - Candidate For Deletion ==

I don't mean to complain, but the article "Slug" is just so embarrassingly bad in so many different ways that it should be deleted. I don't have the energy to write an article on slugs - because this thing is not really editable - somebody should start over. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 00:47, 27 November 2010 (EST)

:Looks like Karajou removed the false information that was added by vandal trolls, Paul. I think you can now delete such articles or alter them, as you see fit. :D --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:56, 27 November 2010 (EST)

== 403 Errors ==

I participate as a Conservative on another board. One of the members of my group has been a regular user of Conservapedia, but recently began having difficulty accessing your site. She is getting 403 errors. I would appreciate it if you would give me an e-mail address that I can pass on to her so that she may contact someone with your site in order to find out why she is being forbidden access.

Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

: Contact info for this account-related issue is on the front page: conservapedia@zoho.com . Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== I May Have Been Blocked but I wasn't ==

Hey. I don't know if this is the place to post this, but it didn't seem to fit into any of the other categories. A user posted on my talk page that I was blocked and didn't sign it. I have only made a few edits and am very new here and no reason was specified for the block. However, I am still able to edit pages so I don't think I was actually blocked. So what is going on? Thank you. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:39, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:nope! you're not blocked, or you wouldn't be able to edit - the user was a vandal.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:41, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== CBP compilations ==

Hello, I am trying to get the latest CBP compilations, when I click on the "click hear" it directs me to a google group i am not a part of and don't have sufficient permissions for. I downloaded the pdfs awhile back to start reading, am I obviously missing something on how to get the pdf compilations or is that out of commission?
Thank You

:Good question. The pdf compilations have been a helpful format, but I'm not sure if they are up to date. I will look into this. Thanks for the inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank You

Hello again, Any luck on the compilations? still can't access them.

== /how do I start a new page ==

how doI start a new page?? Help??

== RSS ==

Can whoever made this site make an RSS feed for the "in the news" thing?

== Weird error on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page ==

I'm trying to edit [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. I tried to remove an item from the list that I moved to another page, but I get this error:
<pre>
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: p u e r i l e
Return to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
</pre>

How can I edit the page? I'm not doing anything related to that word or link. In fact I had to add spaces to the word on this page to get it to save! [[User:RickTx|RickTx]] 17:10, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
: I don't know. Maybe some automatic filter that is attempting to filter childish edits is actually filtering edits that have a synonym for childish. Let's see if this gets blocked. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:08, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bias in Wikipedia Navbox Spelling error ==

Could someone please correct the spelling of "Nazism" in the Bias in Wikipedia navbox (or infobox, I always mix those up). It is spelled "Naziism" but the template is protected. When you are done, you should also move the page on Nazism, Communism, and whatever else we lumped in there to reflect the proper spelling. I don't want to do that first or it will cause problems in the interim. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:06, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

== Profanity in Proper Name ==

What should be done about a moderate profanity in a proper name? I'm trying to make an article about the 2010 New York Gubernatorial Election, but I realized that one of the parties was the "Rent is Too D*** High Party", with the censored word spelled out in the official name. Should I spell out the word, since that is the official name of the Party? Keep in mind that Jimmy McMillan, who was the party's nominee, sued the NY Board of Elections to keep that word in the Party name after they took it out for length reasons (they eventually settled out of court by shortening "Too" to "2" and keeping it under the maximum length). I don't want him suing Conservapedia if we take it out, and I wouldn't put it past him to do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:07, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

== Blocked and no idea how to let you know about a great article for the news ==

Blitzman: Hello, I was blocked in 2009 by TK for reasons he/she would not tell me. I saw some typos in several pages but did not want to write any articles. If I did something wrong tell me. I was Blitzman just added Blitzman7 so I could add this. I have no idea why you don't have a contact us area?!?! I wanted to tell you to post this news article on the main page if you want: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/creationists-convince-south-korean-officials-to-remove-evolutionary-references-from-high-school-textbooks/

If this does not post I give up.

==Image Request==

Hi. I added the "Articles in Need of an Image" tag to my article http://www.conservapedia.com/Full_Asylum about a week ago but it doesn't seem to have been uploaded yet. Did I miss something?

Thanks,
Mike

==Page Rename==

Can someone with the appropriate administrator powers please rename [[Midnight Solstice The Near Nirvana Oras]] to "Midnight Solstice The Near Nirvana Auras"? I'm sorry but in the heat of the moment I had a little lapse in judgement and made that typo. Thanks.--[[User:Mikon8er|Mikon8er]] 02:56, 12 December 2012 (EST)
:::Done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 12 December 2012 (EST)

== Double redirects ==

The following pages are double redirects, but are locked to prevent editing:

*[[Operation Odyssey Dawn]]
*[[Libyan uprising 2011]]
*[[Muslim agenda of the Obama administration- 2012]]

Could these be unlocked or fixed? Thank you.--[[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 09:11, 15 December 2012 (EST)

:Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 13:46, 15 December 2012 (EST)

==Page Rename==
Can someone with sufficient privileges move "[[Burj_Dubai]]" to "Burj Khalifa"? At it's opening ceremony, that's what the tower was renamed. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1240729/Burj-Dubai-tallest-building-world-renamed-Burj-Khalifa.html Burj Dubai, the tallest building in the world, opens and is renamed Burj Khalifa]

Thanks. --[[User:Mikon8er|Mikon8er]] 21:10, 26 December 2012 (EST)
:Dome :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 26 December 2012 (EST)

== Wanted Pages ==

The Wanted Pages page is apparently a dead link now. Either that or there was a problem retrieving it, but I've been trying all morning to no avail. -- [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Talk]] 10:03, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== I think a user named Markr may be a troll. ==

An event that is truly supernatural could not be used to prove the existance of a specific God. To prove it was a supernatural event would mean to falsify EVERY natural explanation and would therefore require knowing everything including the knowledge that there is nothing left to know. Religions that tolerate other religions are admitting that they may be wrong and the God they worship might be a fake. Markr 12:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

The above quote comes from Markr. I may be wrong, but he seems to be trying to subtly say "you cannot prove God". Despite the large amount of Biblical scientific knowledge and all the prophecies that have come through. This sounds like he is subtly suggesting that he is not Christan. If not Vhristan then what is he? Hindu? Muslim? Atheist? Check what religion he says he is on his page and ask him about it. I do not want to cause trouble, I just want to help.

== Reasonless has a liberal bias. ==

Individual freedoms...Except when they contradict an obscure biblical passage? Or individual freedoms, except when they make soccer moms mildly queasy? Or individual freedoms except that person isn't an American, so why should they have freedoms? I strongly disagree that conservatism is based on individual freedoms. --Reasonless 23:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

The above passage is from a talk page. As you can clearly see, Reasonless is clearly making a mistake about Consrvative Philosphy. P,ease correct him about it.

User talk:Burkean

2014-02-16T22:50:07Z

Burkean:

As WFB himself said, let us talk of many things --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:50, 16 February 2014 (EST)

User:Burkean

2014-02-16T22:48:04Z

Burkean:

My name is Burkean. I was drawn to conservatism by the work of William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, and Alexis de Tocqueville. --[[User:Burkean|Burkean]] 17:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2014-02-16T22:44:55Z

Burkean: /* 187 */

User talk:Burkean

2014-02-16T22:33:10Z

Burkean: Created page with "As WFB himself said, let us talk of many things"

As WFB himself said, let us talk of many things

User:Burkean

2014-02-16T20:50:13Z

Burkean: Created page with "My name is Burkean. I was drawn to conservatism by the work of William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, and Alexis de Tocqueville."

My name is Burkean. I was drawn to conservatism by the work of William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2014-01-29T18:32:32Z

Burkean: /* question about signing */ new section

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2014-01-29T18:19:49Z

Burkean: /* 187 */ new section