Talk:Thomas More Society
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
NPOV edit
Even if the organization in conservative, statements like "But the stakes are as large at the lower courts as they ever were at higher altitudes, for each and every life saved by those valiant souls who patrol the sidewalks outside abortion facilities has a value that is infinite." don't belong in the article except as quotes to show the organization's beliefs (and those should be considered differently)Naraht (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Amistad Project and Phil Klein edit
Shouldn't you mention this here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4000:F910:1D79:20D9:C67A:265D (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Accusation of bias edit
In a recent edit, an IP editor stated that " Slate.com is not a trustworthy source. This article is biased. " I've reverted this addition as the text of the article is not a place for such discussion, but I've moved it here to reflect their concerns.
Having said that, Slate has been found to be a generally reliable source in Wikipedia sourcing discussions (per WP:RSNP); it is only used to source a single word in this article (that being describing the Society as "conservative" in the lede); and that one word is also sourced to another generally reliable source, the New York Times. As such, I have trouble seeing how our reliance on Slate as a source makes this article biased in any significant way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Dead link tag edit
@Snooganssnoogans: I'm not sure why you deleted the dead link tag I had placed; you gave no explanation, and the link no longer goes to the article cited, but is rerouted to the site's front page. As such, I am restoring the tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- NatGertler, I'm seeing the link when I click. Are you sure it's not your browser? Neutralitytalk 17:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: I have now tested it on two browsers on my Mac, one each on my Android-based tablet and phone, and all of them take me to the Tribune's front page rather than to the article. Is it possible that this is a recent deletion and you still have it cached? Or might this be a paywall thing and might you be a Tribune subscriber? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting - it works on two browsers on my PC, and I'm not a subscriber. Can you see the article if we use this Wayback Machine line? https://web.archive.org/web/20200809121309/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2013-10-06-ct-met-thomas-more-anniversary-20131007-story.html. Neutralitytalk 17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yup (checking just on tablet.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: I have now tested it on two browsers on my Mac, one each on my Android-based tablet and phone, and all of them take me to the Tribune's front page rather than to the article. Is it possible that this is a recent deletion and you still have it cached? Or might this be a paywall thing and might you be a Tribune subscriber? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Section heading claiming lawsuits are "Critical race theory lawsuits" edit
That's entirely from the pov of the society and other conservative/right wing sources. See [1] and [2]. This[3] may be relevant also.[4] I'll take this to NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- The heading certainly looks questionable. Without better third-party sourcing, actually describing the lawsuits as such, it needs revising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump thanks, see my NPOVN thread.[[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Section heading at Thomas More Society claiming lawsuits are "Critical race theory lawsuits"] Doug Weller talk 18:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Suggested change edit
The header "Abortion, contraception, and embryo cases" might be both more concise and more in line with the other headers if it were changed to "Reproduction issues". --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)