This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Becket Fund has been cited by opponents of the presidential candidate Mitt Romney as an anti-gay organization that promotes discrimination against gay people. ~~-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.124.46 ( talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Becket Fund is not an ant-gay organization in any fashion. [1] It's sole purpose is to protect the religious liberties of people of all faiths. Religious liberty is a constitutional right that is protected under the First Amendment. The Becket Fund "exists to vindicate a simple but frequently neglected principle: that because the religious impulse is natural to human beings, religious expression is natural to human culture. We advance that principle in three arenas—the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the academy—both in the United States and abroad." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcolby1023 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This reads more as an organizational document put out by the Becket Fund rather than an encyclopedia article about them. One major question that is not addressed is how they relate to organizations with other views of "religious liberty", e.g., the ACLU, the ACLJ, and so on. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides the fact that there aren't any nonbiased sources (as has been noted), except for the bit about how the founder defended Catholic University after they fired a professor for his beliefs, it comes across like an advertisement about how wonderful they are and all the good and charitable work they do defending the religious liberty of people of all different beliefs. It never questions their rather dubious claim to be non-partisan and non-sectarian. I can't help noticing that they post FOX News articles (notoriously partisan) and others with a similar, er, tone on their site, and that while they proudly proclaim that they've provided legal assistance to people and organisations of a variety of religions, they don't seem to keen on the religious freedom of nonbelievers (atheist/agnostic/secular humanist/etc.), nor could I find a single article on their site discussing a case of discrimination against nonbelievers without framing it as an attack on religion by one of their favourite bogeymen, the evil atheists.
The dispute between Henry II and Thomas Becket is also portrayed in a rather one-sided manner. I don't think it makes sense to say it was the king wanted to "interfere in the internal affairs of the Church;" if I recall my history correctly, it was just the opposite: he wanted to stop the church from interfering in civil matters. The dispute between Henry and Becket involved a privilege traditionally granted to the church which Henry II wanted to change: people in religious orders (monks, priests, etc.) were allowed to be tried by an ecclesiastical court, even when they were accused of a civil offence -- this effectively meant they got a free pass: even if they were found guilty, the punishments - even for murder and the like - were extremely light. Henry wanted to make this situation, which he viewed as unjust, more equitable, so that everyone would be punished the same for the same crime, regardless of whether they were laypeople or clergy. 74.177.152.210 ( talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy, this reads like an advert for a non-notable organization. Also, the creator of this article created his account SOLELY to make this one and only article. NPOV, COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.152.246 ( talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this is a notable entity which can be established by more than adequate third party coverage. The article is undersourced and the tone could be improved, but it can be improved (particularly, killing the "Current" section). This article is the work of multiple editors.-- Novangelis ( talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has been extensively edited by an apparently well-meaning user ( Rgcolby1023 ) who declared a conflict of interest after the edits. As the tag says, cleanup may be neded to bring those edits in line with WP:NPOV. See this page for their disclosure. COI tag added in the meantime. New Media Theorist ( talk) 00:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to New Media Theorist for helping edit this page. The page still needs more edits to make it even better and more neutral. I would love to get the issues boxes off the article as soon as possible and make the article accurate and up-to-date with our cases!— Preceding RgColby1023 comment added by 192.95.77.242 ( talk • contribs)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Kristina Arriaga is no longer the Executive Director. Montse Alvarado [1] has been the Executive Director since February of 2017.
We have also have undergone a logo and branding change. The new logo is here [2]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
I think this is how you properly make edit requests. I am simply looking for an editor to make this article more neutral. The article has already been edited over the last couple weeks.
Sources to start with:
1. Spirit and the law 2. Rottweilers 3. law firm behind the Hobby Lobby win 4. Meet the Lawyers Fighting for Religious Freedom Today Before the Supreme Court 5. come all ye faithful: New York’s most diverse dinner 6. Regulators of a Feather
Rgcolby1023 (
talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replace "Foo" with "Bar"or Foo replaces Bar. — crh 23 ( Talk) 08:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
While I've seen more promotional advocacy organization articles, this article relies on its own website to echo its mission (discouraged per WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:MISSION). The first secondary independent source I read ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/becket-fund-law-firm-gaining-a-reputation-as-powerhouse-after-hobby-lobby-win/2014/07/20/c28931a4-104c-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html ) already makes it clear this is a religious advocacy organization (and claims that it's mostly concerned about Christian conservatism). Wikipedia articles are expected to be summaries of independent sources. — Paleo Neonate – 02:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This entry fails to include any of the criticism included in the articles that it cites as main sources. I wouldn't even call them "criticism." They merely point out that Becket Law is taking one legitimate point of view, but there are other equally legitimate points of view. For example, the Washington Post piece:
Or in the Politico article:
And since WP:RS allows us to use advocacy publications as WP:RS for opinions, we can use:
Nbauman ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Becket Fund has been cited by opponents of the presidential candidate Mitt Romney as an anti-gay organization that promotes discrimination against gay people. ~~-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.124.46 ( talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Becket Fund is not an ant-gay organization in any fashion. [1] It's sole purpose is to protect the religious liberties of people of all faiths. Religious liberty is a constitutional right that is protected under the First Amendment. The Becket Fund "exists to vindicate a simple but frequently neglected principle: that because the religious impulse is natural to human beings, religious expression is natural to human culture. We advance that principle in three arenas—the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the academy—both in the United States and abroad." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcolby1023 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This reads more as an organizational document put out by the Becket Fund rather than an encyclopedia article about them. One major question that is not addressed is how they relate to organizations with other views of "religious liberty", e.g., the ACLU, the ACLJ, and so on. -- Lquilter ( talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides the fact that there aren't any nonbiased sources (as has been noted), except for the bit about how the founder defended Catholic University after they fired a professor for his beliefs, it comes across like an advertisement about how wonderful they are and all the good and charitable work they do defending the religious liberty of people of all different beliefs. It never questions their rather dubious claim to be non-partisan and non-sectarian. I can't help noticing that they post FOX News articles (notoriously partisan) and others with a similar, er, tone on their site, and that while they proudly proclaim that they've provided legal assistance to people and organisations of a variety of religions, they don't seem to keen on the religious freedom of nonbelievers (atheist/agnostic/secular humanist/etc.), nor could I find a single article on their site discussing a case of discrimination against nonbelievers without framing it as an attack on religion by one of their favourite bogeymen, the evil atheists.
The dispute between Henry II and Thomas Becket is also portrayed in a rather one-sided manner. I don't think it makes sense to say it was the king wanted to "interfere in the internal affairs of the Church;" if I recall my history correctly, it was just the opposite: he wanted to stop the church from interfering in civil matters. The dispute between Henry and Becket involved a privilege traditionally granted to the church which Henry II wanted to change: people in religious orders (monks, priests, etc.) were allowed to be tried by an ecclesiastical court, even when they were accused of a civil offence -- this effectively meant they got a free pass: even if they were found guilty, the punishments - even for murder and the like - were extremely light. Henry wanted to make this situation, which he viewed as unjust, more equitable, so that everyone would be punished the same for the same crime, regardless of whether they were laypeople or clergy. 74.177.152.210 ( talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy, this reads like an advert for a non-notable organization. Also, the creator of this article created his account SOLELY to make this one and only article. NPOV, COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.152.246 ( talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this is a notable entity which can be established by more than adequate third party coverage. The article is undersourced and the tone could be improved, but it can be improved (particularly, killing the "Current" section). This article is the work of multiple editors.-- Novangelis ( talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has been extensively edited by an apparently well-meaning user ( Rgcolby1023 ) who declared a conflict of interest after the edits. As the tag says, cleanup may be neded to bring those edits in line with WP:NPOV. See this page for their disclosure. COI tag added in the meantime. New Media Theorist ( talk) 00:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to New Media Theorist for helping edit this page. The page still needs more edits to make it even better and more neutral. I would love to get the issues boxes off the article as soon as possible and make the article accurate and up-to-date with our cases!— Preceding RgColby1023 comment added by 192.95.77.242 ( talk • contribs)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Kristina Arriaga is no longer the Executive Director. Montse Alvarado [1] has been the Executive Director since February of 2017.
We have also have undergone a logo and branding change. The new logo is here [2]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
I think this is how you properly make edit requests. I am simply looking for an editor to make this article more neutral. The article has already been edited over the last couple weeks.
Sources to start with:
1. Spirit and the law 2. Rottweilers 3. law firm behind the Hobby Lobby win 4. Meet the Lawyers Fighting for Religious Freedom Today Before the Supreme Court 5. come all ye faithful: New York’s most diverse dinner 6. Regulators of a Feather
Rgcolby1023 (
talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replace "Foo" with "Bar"or Foo replaces Bar. — crh 23 ( Talk) 08:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
While I've seen more promotional advocacy organization articles, this article relies on its own website to echo its mission (discouraged per WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:MISSION). The first secondary independent source I read ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/becket-fund-law-firm-gaining-a-reputation-as-powerhouse-after-hobby-lobby-win/2014/07/20/c28931a4-104c-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html ) already makes it clear this is a religious advocacy organization (and claims that it's mostly concerned about Christian conservatism). Wikipedia articles are expected to be summaries of independent sources. — Paleo Neonate – 02:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This entry fails to include any of the criticism included in the articles that it cites as main sources. I wouldn't even call them "criticism." They merely point out that Becket Law is taking one legitimate point of view, but there are other equally legitimate points of view. For example, the Washington Post piece:
Or in the Politico article:
And since WP:RS allows us to use advocacy publications as WP:RS for opinions, we can use:
Nbauman ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)