Talk:Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Untitled
An organization embracing such organizations as the American Jewish Congress, the American Baptist Churches, the National Bar Association, and Catholic Charities is liberal? Civil rights is only supported by liberals? The designation liberal should be removed from the lede. If someone has actually called it liberal, there can be a sourced reference.  DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If all they did was civil rights, then there wouldn't be anything liberal about it, but their agenda is something more than mere insistence on civil rights. AJC and NBA are definitely liberal. So is ABC and Catholic Charities.  THF (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be your opinion and that opinion may be shared by others of a similar political slant, but it is hardly factual (or even neutral). Stating this as fact violates WP:NPOV. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The New York Times is hardly of my political slant. When a liberal news organization identifies a political group as liberal, it's hard to argue otherwise unless you're disruptively POV-pushing. THF (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the majority of organizations that make up the Conference, it is far and away made up of liberal organizations. That being said however there conservative groups within it, notably the Catholic Charities who told the DC city council they'd stop providing services if same-sex marriage were made legal. On the Conference website they do show support for more liberal causes including LGBT rights, affirmative action, and the employee free choice act and they often sign on to bills that are liberal in nature. However, I'm not sure they're a truly liberal organization since they steer clear of outright advocating of liberal causes and they never name themselves liberal or progressive so I'd say the word liberal in the lede needs to be removed since they seem quasi-liberal and don't state a political ideology. I think that if people who read the article look at its members then they can decide for themselves where the Conference falls.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Catholic Charities isn't "conservative." And the phrasing in the lede comes directly from the New York Times.  THF (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft replacement article
Hello! On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an expanded and updated Wikipedia entry about the coalition at the following link: User:Inkian Jason/Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The current Wikipedia entry is problematic for several reasons, which I've outlined below, and I am seeking editor review to improve the article appropriately. Some issues with the current entry:


 * the article quality is very low, as evidenced by the three warning banners present since 2009–2010
 * the article is poorly sourced: Organizational history is based on the coalition's website, and Leadership and organizational structure is entirely unsourced; additionally, Issues is based on the coalition's website, and Member organizations is unsourced and outdated
 * Member organizations is also not particularly helpful and includes many red links
 * the entry mentions a few of the coalition's areas of focus, but falls short of describing specific positions or the organization's impact on notable legislation and government personnel

I've worked to draft a neutral and up to date overview of the coalition's history and activities, based on independent and reliable secondary coverage. LCCHR has reviewed the proposed draft for accuracy. I've saved a draft in full here. I realize this is a lot of content for any single editor to review at once, so I'm happy to work paragraph by paragraph, if preferred. The draft provides a basic overview and a history of the coalition's establishment and evolution over the decades, focusing on the organization as a whole and its impact. Additionally, a leadership section gives an overview of the notable board members and executive leaders associated with the coalition and their areas of focus.

I'd like to think the draft is a significant improvement over the current entry, but I will avoid making changes to the article myself because of my conflict of interest (which I have disclosed above and on my profile page). Are any editors willing to review the proposed draft and copy over the live entry appropriately? I'm happy to make myself available for questions or concerns.

Thanks in advance for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Inkian Jason thank you for your work on the update which is comprehensive and well sourced, I have reviewed this and and substantially accepted the changes except for some minor items to simplify for clarity. Sargdub (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sargdub Thank you for taking time to review and implement the draft. I appreciate your assistance! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Related to this request, I have proposed a few updates to the Maya Wiley biography at Talk:Maya Wiley, if User:Sargdub or others are interested in taking a look. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)