Changes

::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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (EDT)

::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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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 consistences, 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. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] ^{([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])} 21:45, 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. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] ^{([[User talk: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. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 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. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 4 May 2019 (EDT)