Talk:Thomas More Law Center

message: 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)
replies: text: See .  More references can be provided, but I think this one summarizes it quite nicely.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent design advocate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits Lost in History 

message: 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.  75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Murray v. U.S. Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner, et al. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro too self-sourced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pledge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Case Updates and Outcomes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suit against California AG 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for third opinion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm actually talking about current Charity Navigator ratings as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The 2014 ratings are up and should be updated. 107.0.30.98 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity rating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified