Talk:Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Article is POV
This article is a glorified puff piece for CLCCRUL, badly in need of editing to remove POV references. There are multiple POVs about the merits of many of the cases that this organzation has brought, yet all of them are presented in the same glowing terms that the organization itself sees them. --68.23.96.248 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would challenge those who think that this is a "puff piece" to cite specifically what is not factual in nature about the entry. Both of the challenges in the discussion and history tabs have no specifics. All of the cases in the timeline factually did happen, they were filed, and they were resolved in the ways described. The program, mission, and structure of the organization are all factual. If people have a complaint about the craigslist case, which I am presuming what this is about, please re-read the section - all of the statements there are factual in nature. This comment, "Majority of article is a cut/paste from extremely pro-CLCCRUL literature. In most cases it appears the authors have gone out of their way to NOT present cases in a neutral, balanced manner" needs to be justified with some type of actual evidence from the entry. Please contact me at jmassa@clccrul.org if there are any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.248.86 (talk) 13:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Page Update
I've updated the page to conform to wikipedia style guidelines and such. I know it's still not perfect, so I expect it will be receiving many more edits soon. Regarding the section providing a sampling of the complaints from the legal brief, I was considering including only the text of the ad to make the section more concise. As is, the craigslist controversy takes up a disproportionately large part of the article. Astarf 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone felt the need to, without any sort of comment or explanation at all, delete certain portions of the article I added. I'm not overly attached to anything I've added, but deleting something from an article, in the very least, warrants a single line edit explanation. Astarf 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was me who deleted the passage - new to creating wikis and didn't know I should also post a reason here. I work for CLCCRUL and manage www.clccrul.org. We feel that craigslist is more than entitled to an opinion, but our wikipedia entry is not the place for it. Their statements about the lawsuit should go on the entry about craigslist. If you would like to include comments on the lawsuit, we have a FAQ page (which includes court documents) that all are welcome to review - http://clccrul.org/projects/the_fair_housing_project/craigslist_lawsuit.html. I tried to edit the page to refelct just facts (we filed the lawsuit, here are the complaints alleged). A ruling on craigslist's motion to dismiss is expected soon, and I will update the page when we receive such a ruling. (Justin Massa - CLCCRUL)

Significant Cases Timeline

 * The timeline under Significant Cases appears to have been coppied and pasted from the four projects under |The CLCCRUL website. I'm assuming that this was done by someone from CLCCRUL; it should be verified that the person has the right to waive the copyright on that information, as the CLCCRUL website is marked as copyrighted.  --Astarf 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the timeline from our homepage, and have permission to do so. If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact me at j m a s s a [at] c l c c r u l . o r g.