Wikipedia

Talk:Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sphilbrick in topic Several items requiring community input from editors
Learn more about this page

Reminder regarding use of LCCRUL text

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to leave a reminder here that even though Wikipedia has been given permission to use the text at the LCCRUL website, the text still needs to be checked for a WP:POV. In its pure form (verbatim from the website), it may be suitable for an encyclopedia but almost may not be. So far, it's cutting it close, in my opinion. I'll keep an eye on the text and make changes or more likely, discuss changes here on the talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The "Staff" section with its promotional bio of LCCRUL's executive director is completely unwarranted and I've removed it. Typically articles on organizations just list the key members in the infobox and maybe briefly describe in the text when they took their positions, which this already article does. If she's really notable, create a separate article on her and see if it survives AfD. The "Projects" section might be worthy of existing, but the content as added is too long, too promotional, and sourced only to LCCRUL itself. Unless suitably altered it should go too. In my view, an article like LatinoJustice PRLDEF (currently up for GA) is the right way to treat this kind of organization, and can be a model for what this article should look like. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've whittled the "Projects" section down somewhat. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 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) 20:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Several items requiring community input from editors

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reader wrote to Wikimedia ticket:2019040710000757 expressing a concern about this article. While looking at the article, I came across a number of items that I think deserve attention from the editing community.

Notable cases

edit

Editors often use the word "notable" in a casual sense, identifying something as important. However, it is often used in a subject heading (as here) or as an opening sentence leading to some form of list. Generally speaking, lists of things described as notable ought to use the term "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, viz. meaning that there is a blue link article about the entry.

I don't see any indication that any of these cases have standalone articles. These cases may well be important in the context of the article subject, but I think we should use a different term to avoid the confusion with the Wikipedia term. Perhaps "important cases", although that feels a little casual.

Case referencing

edit

In some of these cases, the citation is to a primary document rather than secondary documents discussing the case. There may well be valid reasons for including a link to a primary document nothing other than useful information for the reader, the primary documents should not be the sole citation. If these truly are important cases, there must be coverage, almost certainly substantial coverage, in published, secondary sources. I think we as a community need to search these out and add these and if they cannot be found, seriously question whether the specific case deserves inclusion.

Civil versus criminal

edit

The term "hate crime" has the word crime right in it so one might naturally think a hate crime is a criminal act. However, as explained in Hate crime, while the term "generally refers to criminal acts", the article goes on to identify "laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes..." This mean some of these acts can give rise to civil, not just criminal action. One of the items in the "notable cases" section is "Taylor Dumpson v. Brian Andrew Ade et al". The suggestion has been made that it would be helpful to clarify this as a civil action rather than a criminal action. This is an example of a case where the only citation is to a primary document so it would be especially helpful to track down secondary articles which might well make this point.

Notable Alumni

edit

The term "alumni" is often used in connection with attendance at an educational institution, but as noted at Alumnus, it can also "include a former employee of an organization". For that reason, I think it's fine that this section includes people who were employees of this organization. I'm happy to note that they are all blue links. Some editors feel that entries in such a list need their own citations. I've taken the view that if the linked article supports the claim with a citation that this is sufficient (although I appreciate the argument that perhaps those citations ought to be carried over to the list article). However, while John F. Kennedy played a role in the formation of the organization, I don't see anything in the article about him suggesting that he was an employee of the organization. I think he should be removed. Arguably, the section can be modified to be broader but he is already mentioned in the lead so I don't see the need to artificially expand the criteria simply to include him in the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawyers%27_Committee_for_Civil_Rights_Under_Law&oldid=1208114616"