Jump to content

Talk:Thomas More Law Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suit against California AG

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Charity rating

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Updates

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_More_Law_Center&oldid=1250464962"