Talk:Thomas More Law Center

untitled

“The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian answer to the ACLU. They are fighting for our Christian faith in the courts, and they are winning.” Dr, D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

www.thomasmore.org has the above quote on its front page. i assume they endorse the quote if they use it. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it. Can you be more specific about the location of the quote? --Jason Gastrich 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aw i see the problem. It is below the tools box on the left. However, there are several quotes that cycle. There are about six quotes they use so just wait and you will see it there. However, I note on the google search there is no source for this quote other than the Thomas More site and a message board. i have no idea where or when Kennedy said this. But if the TMLC has it on its own web page it seems likely that they endorse the view. David D. (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I see it, now. Thanks. Don't you think we should add Kennedy's name to the quote on the entry? To say the center characterizes itself this way isn't exactly correct. Kennedy characterizes the center this way. --Jason Gastrich 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. Also it would be nice to find a primary source for the quote. i had a quick look but came up with nothing. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Numerous publications use that quote without further attribution other than to the TMLC, and state that the TMLC characterizes itself that way. E.g. [1] and many others which come up just on a Google search for "christian answer to the ACLU". -EDM 22:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I still can’t find a source for Kennedy but here is the slam dunk quote. The Naples Daily news interviewed the co-founder of the Thomas More Law Center Richard Thompson, who was quoted as saying "We consider ourselves the Christian answer to the ACLU,"

Then consider these other three sources:

To The Source interviewed a representative of the The Thomas More Law Center who described the TMLC as the “Christian Answer to the ACLU.”.

An article in the Washington Times describes TMLC as “a Catholic answer to the ACLU”

The Boston Globe describes TMLC as calling itself "a Christian answer to the ACLU,"

There is no doubt that TMLC uses this quote to describe itself. They may have copied it from Kennedy but there is no need to quote Kennedy as they use to describe them selves. David D. (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Thanks! --Jason Gastrich 23:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservative?

This organization never seems to have identified as having anything to do with conservatism. The editor who wants to keep the claim that it's a conservative organization is user:silly rabbit who does not have any source to his claim. Silly rabbit's justificaiton is "This is just completely untenable. Pro-life? Christianity's answer to the ACLU? I mean, really...", obviously he is just relying on his personal opinion and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Try Google sometime. If you have a problem with a claim, tag it as uncited. Summary removal of information which can be obviously sourced, and then edit warring looks like POV pushing. 30 seconds of Googling, and I found this:

• Alex Prud'homme (February 14, 1999). "Taking the Gospel to the Rich". The New York Times.:

“ He [Thomas S. Monaghan] also wants to promote his conservative agenda through Credo, a newspaper; WDEO, a radio station he owns, and the Thomas Moore Law Center, a new Catholic law firm supported by his Mater Christe Foundation. All are in Ann Arbor. ”

I'm sure many more sources can be provided. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then provide them. Find a source from the Thomas More Law Center where they say that they are a conservative organization. Your opinion is not good enough. They deal with similiar issues to the ACLU, if you check the ACLU page, they are not placed in any conservative or liberal categories. Why don't you go to the ACLU page and add a conservative category? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See [2] and [3] for starters. More can be found on Google, if you like. This group is pretty in-your-face conservative that the challenge you are raising is totally untenable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit, couldn't the same argument be made that ACLU is just as liberal as this group is conservative? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can make that argument, but you'd be objectively wrong in doing so. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources you found could give reason to mention somewhere in the article that people have identified the Thomas More Law Center as being conservative, but you cannot be it in the first sentence or in the category because that is not what the Thomas More Law Center claims to be. If you put in the Thomas More Law Center in the intelligent design and conservative category, then you should also put the ACLU in the pedophilia and liberal category. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "people", you mean "every reliable source in existence", then yes: "Every reliable source in existence has identified the Thomas More Law Center as being conservative." In fact, I would go so far as to say that one would really need to be completely out of touch with reality to assert otherwise, or have no conception of the meaning of the word "conservative" within the United States. It is completely plain from the article and the advocacy positions taken by the center. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocate

Providing legal defense to intelligent design advocates does not make the Thomas More Law Center intelligent design advocates anymore then the ACLU is pedophilia advocates for providing legal defense to NAMBLA. The category should be removed. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See Laurie Goldstein (November 4, 2005). "In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit". The New York Times.. More references can be provided, but I think this one summarizes it quite nicely. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

Note to self and any others who are interested: this needs to be reorganized. Several of the same cases are cited twice in two sections, and we should give the outcomes of all cases. Too many of them just say the center sued or defended so-and-so, without saying what the result was. Tualha (Talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits Lost in History

I was browsing the recent changes this morning, and I noticed that Danpiedra had removed a number of characters from the article. Noticing the tag to be "Section Blanking," I promptly reverted it, and marked it as vandalism. When comparing my reversion to some of the edits by Danpiedra, I noticed a number of changes (or perhaps it wasn't the aforementioned user, someone should fact check for me) that were different between the two versions. I don't know where the other content either went or came from, but could someone clear this up for me? Legoland12342 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Danpiedra: The section deleted referred to a former case handled by the The Thomas More Law Center. The deleted section refers the Law Center has having "gained notoriety" by its defense of intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. However, the Law Center's most notable case is that of Jeffrey Chessani which I updated. Does this help? Perhaps, instead of deletion, we can reedit the section about Kitzmiller vs. DASD to place it among the other cases listed. Danpiedra (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Murray v. U.S. Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner, et al.

The article claims that the DoJ's request that the case be dismissed was denied, but the exact opposite is true. It was dismissed by Judge Zatkoff. Even the TMLC's own website says so. [4] 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro too self-sourced

A bit of what an organization claims itself to be and to represent is to be expected and is appropriate. However, of the five sentences of the opening paragraph here, one sentence is the Center's "stated goals", one is its "motto", and one is how it "characterizes itself". That's followed by a one-sentence paragraph, which is then followed by a paragraph that starts with what the center says about its lawyers, then what it considers itself, then what its policy statement says. (And then that's followed by an unsourced sentence that contradicts the policy statement, which is odd in itself.) Surely we can (and should) make the opening more about what they are and do, as established by reliable third-party sources, and less about what they say about themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stumbling across it years later, I just added the POV tag due to this matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I believe that the opening section has been edited since your original comment was posted. --Cghake (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it has, it is still all grounded in what the Center has to say about itself (with a couple POVers contrasting it to the ACLU). It is not grounded in what reliable third-party sources have to say about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Point of View and Neutrality tags should be removed as all points raised have been addressed.Cghake (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pledge

I just (again) removed " The law center has also offered free legal services to several schools denied the right to permit students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." - this is both unsourced and an extremely dubious claim. Cases regarding the Pledge tend to be about schoolrooms being lead in the Pledge, not whether students are free to say it of their own accord. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI, this was re-introduced with appropriate citations. Whether or not you consider it to be "extremely dubious," it appears that it did in fact occur. Cghake (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the cite that the Center made a public offering of services; I don't actually see any sign that several schools were denied the right to permit students to recite the pledge. The case the comment is attached to dealt with teachers leading the pledge, not students being permitted to say it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Updates and Outcomes

Some of the cases have their own dedicated pages with more information and outcomes as well as sources. Others may have unpublished opinions (outcomes) or may not have been reported on by a strong source or may be so old that the archives are no longer available online (an issue with cases dating back to the early 2000's. Are all of the case outcomes necessary or just a few? Cghake (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that where we do have a good source, we should include it; while listing what cases they involve themselves in indicates their intent, showing whether they won those cases indicates their efficacy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true. The ACLU and FFRF lose cases with surprising frequency. A lot of legal matters are settled based on things that have nothing to do with the efficacy of the attorneys or groups arguing the case. Good examples: the NAMBLA case where the witness was bad, or the intelligent design case where members of the school board weren't reelected and the new board members opted not to continue with the case, or the current same-sex marriage debate where prevailing public opinion has led to what has been considered by many to be ruling from the bench rather than as a basis of law or argumentation. There isn't a problem with pulling the case outcomes where available, but I just think your reasoning is incorrect. Cghake (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

One can say of any one football game that the result may have been based on the way the sun shone or the wind was blowing, but still the accumulative effect of a team's track record can be seen. In the case of a law center such as this, one can reasonably presume that their goal is to win cases that will have impact, and they choose the cases they enter into; whether their result in a case is due to the quality of their efforts on that case, or whether it is due to the strength of the case that they chose to take on, it nonetheless is some indication of the efficacy of the organization, with each one case being a small indicator in a much bigger picture. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Historically speaking, that's not necessarily the intent of public interest law firms. Often with these specific types of organizations the purpose can be to create cases that will prompt public debate, pressure, education or other efforts what can cause action and public consciousness about an issue. A lot of public interest law firms will lose cases only to see their intent come to fruition anyway due to the issue being raised in the public consciousness. The goal isn't necessarily to win, but rather to shine a light on a situation because it is unjust. Cghake (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring

Currently the case section is a mess with erratic, at best, structure. I'm working on a design to group cases already listed according to the law center's groupings. It may be probative to see which cases actually fall under their stated "mission". Cghake (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be good, but we should say that they go with the law center's groupings only if they so group them. But certainly, having at least some logical organization, rather than a batch organized by dates and then ones just named for the cases, would be an improvement. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Suit against California AG

This may well be worthy of inclusion (and, oddly, we are already using it as a ref without covering its central topic.) However, I don't want to add a new case if someone is in the midst of restructering the cases. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There isn't enough info the the California AG case as of yet, especially since the companion cases are still in open litigation at various stages. Other than receiving a TRO and a PI, which is in the court record, there hasn't even been a real hearing or meeting on it yet according to the court. Also, restructuring is an ongoing process to clean this mess up. Cghake (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is now enough information on this case including a 9th circuit opinion and various secondary sources to include this case. 107.0.30.98 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: 17:06, 28 May 2015‎ NatGertler (→‎1999 - 2005: rm material seeming to try to re-argue the breast cancer case, using references which do not mention the case.)

It's relevant to the outcome of the case as it's still an ongoing public and legal debate. As this is, again, about a public interest law firm which plays a specific role in our society, it relevance is heightened because it is an ongoing issue in which they are involved. Additionally, I'm sure you would agree that a discussion of Plessy v Ferguson requires mention of Brown v Board of Education and mention of the ongoing public discourse on defacto school segregation. The continued debate about the Abortion-Breast Cancer link is analogous especially since the decision in the case was based on a procedural issue not a factual issue. As such it is important to include the additional information in order to make it clear that the issue is not decided and is in fact open to continued litigation. I ask that this information not be removed in the same manner without first addressing these issues. Cghake (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the ongoing issue, or even the article on that specific case. Unless you have good references that link that study to this material, it seems off-topic and WP:SYNTH to put it there. We do have an article on the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis that citing that study might be relevant in. however. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Additionally, the claim of lack of clarity is unsourced editorializing. The ACA link that was there actually makes clear that the link is a "false alarm". I have re-removed it. --(talk) 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's about the outcome of the case. As the case pertains to the the issue and the issue is ongoing, as demonstrated by continued study and the continued public debate, which you can't pretend does not exist, it should stay. It is pertinent to the outcome of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghake (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not about the outcome of the case. Your sources have no mention of the outcome of the case. And the source you just tried to add, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is a clear WP:FRINGE source. The major medical groups are all in agreement that no link has been found, and it does not serve clarity nor truth to pretend that that isn't the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that you would consider a list of peer reviewed articles from major journals a "fringe" source is indicative of your bias and should disqualify you as a monitor. Additionally, the simple fact that this debate exists and that there are multiple sources that say both yes and no is indicative of the fact that there is still debate about whether or not there is a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghake (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because it's not worth continuing to argue about. Also, based on the fact that the case was not decided on the merits of the presence of any link, after further discussion with other legal scholars, I realized it although pertinent, it was not necessary. However, I do think the fact that it remains a studied phenomena and the fact that there are so many sources and studies that say both yes and no is probative in itself that the link remains open to discussion. Those that believe in the science behind the link are not fringe nor should they be compared to Holocaust deniers. Science is an interesting thing that tends to be flexible. I'm sure you're old enough to remember "global cooling." This is not settled. The case will come back and then it will just be added again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghake (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

This request focus on the last three sentences of the first paragraph of this section. The questions are: are these three sentences appropriate for inclusion in this article, and if yes 1) is the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute an appropriate source for the material that they are used as reference for, and does the material cited to the American Cancer Society appropriately reflect the piece that it is citing? --03:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Thomas More Law Center and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."

Opinion: The material is inappropriate for this article and is, indeed, prohibited by the Synthesis section of the No Original Research (NOR) Policy which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis added.) In this case the three sentences in question are being used to imply that the case in question was erroneous or questionable. Moreover, if the sentence just preceding the three sentences in question is correct and non-misleading, the case was resolved on grounds having nothing to do with a decision on the merits of the breast cancer claim, which makes this attempt to argue the breast cancer issue even less relevant and NOR'ish-through-implication. If reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia can be found which, in fact, make that link (that is, which expressly and specifically discuss the specific legal results of that case in comparison with the assertions about breast cancer currently made in those three sentences), then the material might be included. Even then, however, I'd have to question whether this article, which is about the Law Center, is the right place for an extended discussion of this particular case unless some connection can be made between what the Law Center did in that case and the questions raised in those three sentences. Without that connection, to include it seems very coatrack-y and UNDUE for this article. But that bridge need not be crossed until the NOR problem is corrected. Until then, the sentences should be removed from the article as being in violation of policy.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sectioning

I'm hectic and have not had time to review all the changes being done here, but as I've discussed elsewhere, the section groupings and headers are very problematic. When we list a group of cases under "Defending the sanctity of human life" or "Restoring family values" are we saying

1. the TMLC is describing these cases as falling under that category? If so, we need sources showing that they describe these specific cases as belonging to that category and an introduction to that section describing it as such.
2. that we describing the cases as such? In that case, the headers are horribly outside our neutral point of view guidelines. Something much less florid like "Abortion issues" and "Homosexuality issues" would be far more appropriate... and even then, there would seem to be judgment calls being made on where they fall (i.e., is a case about protesters at family planning clinics an abortion issue or a free speech issue? And is Curley v. NAMBLA actually a free speech case?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The language for the sectioning is taken from them, which is evident. The breakdown is based on the issues discussed and decided in the case according to the court documents. If you'd like for one or more to be moved, show me a court document that says it belongs somewhere else and I'll move it. The court documentation discussing what the issue is and what it was decided on is clearly the best and most honest way to separate them. It keeps opinions about out. According to the courts, anything involving FACE or buffer zones have deal with both the right to an abortion and free speech, typically however as the standard for review is based on the right to an abortion, I believe the scale favors listing them as such especially since it is conceivable that the abortion is at the crux of the matter. As for Curley, according to the courts, NAMBLA the case was a free speech case in which the court determined that NAMBLA could provide info about how to proceed in a man-boy relationship on their website. It was considered to be a major free speech case at the dawn of the powers of the internet and could have severely influenced what type of info the web could be used for. AGAIN, the court documents should be the deciding factor. If you'd like something moved bring proof it should be. Until then, they should remain where they were categorized by a review of the documentation. Cghake (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So in other words, these headers are neither TMLC's descriptors of the specific cases nor how a neutral Wikipedia voice would describe these cases, but Cghake's guess of how the TMLC would sort them based on the court's decision after TMLC's involvement? That has problems both with neutrality (WP:NPOV) and original research (WP:OR). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they are based on the court documents as I stated. Cghake (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Court documents should not be a deciding factor on how cases are described, for two reasons. First, court documents are primary sources and do not necessarily accurately reflect how a neutral observer would describe a case. Second, court documents typically use legal jargon that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that targets lay readers. All content should use nonjudgmental language that, ideally, reflects mainstream independent reliable secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes on further case additions

I have not had time to review in detail all the recent additions. However, quickly looking over the article as it is now, I note a few things:

• We now have some cases where the only references are court documents or the law center itself. This creates concerns not just over accuracy (the center can be considered a reliable source for dry and unboastful facts about itself, but whether a court victory qualifies is another question) but about import. For Wikipeedia standards, our goal should not be to include every case they've involved themselves in. If we cannot find reliable, third-party, secondary sources that discuss the Center's involvement in a case (and to be clear, a court document is a WP:PRIMARY source, not a secondary one), then we probably shouldn't either. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that there aren't such third-party sources to be found on the entries of concern here; I haven't checked. But it would be best to include them from the outset.)
• There seems to be a tendency that TNLC victories are announced in the opening sentence of an entry, while the failure of a case is left to the end of the paragraph. That makes the presentation seem biased. Also, some of the word choose seems unbalanced; if they "successfully defended" someone's rights in one case, then can we say that they "unsuccessfully attacked" the rights of the city of Honolulu to control messages in the air? Blaance may be tricky in this sort of matter, but an eye should be kept on it.
• We don't need to put the same reference after each sentence of a paragraph; a reference is presumed to cover all the information since the previous reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Per point number one, the court documents seem to be the only thing which I can ensure you can't attack. In terms of explaining why TMLC was involved in the case, they seem to be the best source. They do tend to present what TMLC alleges the facts of the case to be. Also, many of the court documents are opinions of the court. As in many cases, the facts are not always the facts, per se, the court record is generally the most likely place one can find information that explains the events. If you have another suggestion for what is likely more accurate than the court record, please share with the class. Additionally, not every case from TMLC is listed. Although, the only way to explain what this entity is, would be to expand on the types of cases it involves itself in. It appears the only way to do that is by writing about their cases. There are plenty of reliable second and third-party sources for each of these cases, although I'm not particularly interested in going around in circles with you over which you consider appropriate. I've read the documentation on quite a few sources and have noted the degree to which each is openly discussed as being unreliable due to known bias. Additionally, as many tend to refer to to the complaint or court documents in their own "reporting," why bother attributing it to them in the first place?

Per your second point, if you have an interest in making such amendments you are welcome to. My style finds it easier to keep a sort of sameness between the various sections. You are of course more than welcome to contribute more than criticism of those who deign to walk into the realm of Wikipedia editing where you seem to have made a point of expressing how unwelcome they may be.

Per your third point, excuse me if you have made me overly wary (and yes, weary) of this game where I fear your obviously biased censorship over every word unless it has an explicit citation. You've already shown your hand as such a person who allows their feelings, biases and personal vendettas to show through.

I understand that you believe you have a commitment to Wikipedia standards, but I too can read and comprehend as well as understand the purpose. The only way to improve this article is for someone to keep plodding along doing the hard work of expanding it. I hope that someone else will also take up the cause and help with its expansion rather than just heaping criticisms (some of which is flatly incorrect or dripping with unnecessary venom) on those of us whom seek to improve.

You may keep an eye on whatever you'd like and do as you please, but at least have the decency to do the research. Cghake (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler that cases should only be mentioned if there are independent reliable secondary sources mentioning them. Court documents are primary sources, not secondary sources. (Note that the section these cases are being included in is called "Notable cases.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And again, there are secondary sources, and they can be added in.Cghake (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to the party late. If there are indeed reliable independent secondary sources for these cases, then they should be added along with the content. That way the content can be verified and confirmed for noteworthiness as it's added. Simply saying on the talk page there are secondary sources out there isn't sufficient. Content that relies too heavily on primary sources may be considered original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I have tagged the article for WP:COI, as there have been extensive edits by an editor with apparent conflict of interest, with problems of both phrasing and reliability of sourcing described above. I don't have time at the moment to give the article the thorough scrub it could use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Charity rating

Does anyone here have a Charity Navigator subscription; it looks as though they have changed the subjects rating for Fiscal Year Ending December 2013, as previously we had stated "For fiscal year 2013, their rating was one star, with a two-star financial rating and one-star accountability and transparency rating", but as an IP editor has now updated it, that's not the rating for that year listed currently on their website. I don't have access to the Navigator's "history" tab, as I'm not currently a subscriber. Anyone else have it? (Perhaps the new rating is actually supposed to be FYE 2014?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including this info in the article body. It's supported only by a primary source, not indicative of any noteworthiness. We don't include information indiscriminately just because it's out there. What's worse, the article refers to various star ratings without explaining what they mean. I could certainly see including a link in the external links section, but that's all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree. In no other non-profit article do we list stale Charity Navigator ratings. What justification is there for including such dated info? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually talking about current Charity Navigator ratings as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Current? Yes, well the ratings are apparently used frequently at non-profit articles. Charity Navigator is reliable for its own opinions (the ratings) and I would think they are notable, the equivilent of corporate bond ratings from a rating house. Do you think we should look for secondary sources discussing the ratings vis a vis TMLC before including? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 ratings are up and should be updated. 107.0.30.98 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates

Common Core section should be updated to reflect cases in North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia challenging the Common Core Consortia. These cases were all widely discussed in the media.

Their recent case involving Islam in schools, RE: John Kevin and Melissa Wood, should also be added given it's prevalence in the media and the fact that the school district and school wikipages have already been updated to include the lawsuit. This is similar to Byron Union.

Under prolife, they are representing Brian Ingalls. He was sued by the Maine Attorney General for violating the Maine Civil Rights Act. That case is the first time that a Civil Rights legislation has been used in the context of abortion and women's health and as such is a groundbreaking case. 107.0.30.98 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas More Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702110254/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/18461890/jones-released-from-jail-after-paying-peace-bond to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/18461890/jones-released-from-jail-after-paying-peace-bond
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604204831/http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12812615 to http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12812615

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)