Talk:Major conservative organizations

Reorganization

This page should be reorganized based on the focus(es) of these conservative organizations -- (general conservatism, immigration, deregulation, judiciary/legal, Second Amendment, national security, abortion, general social conservatism, etc.).

Additionally, this list is incomplete -- more organizations could be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

That's a good idea, but there will be overlap. I'm not sure how to do this in an organized way. For example, the American Family Association supports the right to bear arms, supports home schooling, opposes abortion, defends traditional marriage, and more. That hits multiple categories, and I prefer to avoid listing an organization multiple times. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 19:14, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Maybe we could mention the AFA under "general" or under a general "social conservatism" / "Christian conservative" category? I would, personally, mention organizations like the Heritage Foundation under "general conservatism" and organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom under "conservative legal groups" or something like that. Either way, the categories shouldn't be too specific.

Also, some of these organizations, like Heritage and ADF, are either debatable or blatantly take inconsistent positions in some areas (for Heritage, trade, especially). We could list these inconsistent areas in the article, for context. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

That might work--we could start trying it, anyway. I'm a little uncertain about Heritage--I first heard of them as a good organization, but now they seem to be doing some harmful things. Trump even called them out as an opponent on at least one particular issue. ADF, on the other hand, seems to me to be solidly on our side. I know there are a few people here who oppose them, but I have only seen good things from them. I might be overlooking something, though. We could try to point out inconsistencies here, but this is supposed to be a list, so we shouldn't use to much space. I suppose at the very least, though, we could make one or more "questionable whether" or "debatable" sections to slot orgs like Heritage into. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 21:45, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Heritage is without a doubt questionable, but I don't think it's as bad a Cato or some other organization like that, so adding Heritage to this article in some way would be a good idea, so I think a "debatable" section is a good idea. ADF can stay in the "regular" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Hmm... I already hit a bit of an issue. Are we categorizing by what they aim to do (i.e. pro-life) or how they do it (i.e. Education)? I was thinking of adding LiveAction to this list, which would fall under both of these categories.

It's easy to be general using "how" categories, but "what" categories make more sense. I think I got derailed. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 22:40, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

I think "what" is better, as organizations are more identifiable that way. It's easier to find a group based on its focus rather than its methods -- however, if an organization focuses on general conservative public policy, I think an "education" category is fine if worded in a way to make clear that they don't necessarily focus only on education public policy. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

Leftist Big Tech influence

Good job to Tucker Carlson for noting how several ostensibly conservative organizations are taking money from Big Tech and are opposing taking action against them: 1,2 These organizations are listed in this article, so maybe there needs to be a section for inconsistently conservative organizations. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2019 (EST)