Talk:Lisa Graves
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lisa Graves article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
ACLU[edit]
There is no indication that the news organization watchdog.org is not RS, and it is certainly reliable to ref the minor and non-controversial fact that the subject once worked for the ACLU. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for engaging on talk. OMG, the ACLU? Anyway, yeah, it is a non-controversial fact, and supported by 3 refs, Watchdog.org is weakest and not necessary. Hugh (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Watchdog is RS. There has been no agreement that it is not, your assetion is unsupported opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- We are in agreement that the content is a non-controversial fact. We are in agreement that this non-controversial fact for some reason has 3 refs, two of which are actual newspapers with actual editorial boards, and one of which is a website with bias. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Watchdog.org is a non-profit national news organaization. It has professional staff and editing. "Franklin Center editors, reporters and staff are guided by Associated Press standards and the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics." Every human has bias, that doesn't negate RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't you feel just a little silly defending Watchdog as the 3rd of 3 refs for a non-controversial fact, a fact already support by two reliable 2ndary newspaper sources? I mean really? How about pick your battle? Hugh (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, because I can imagine an editor taking a personal theory or edit and inserting it into dozens of articles again and again. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do I understand your position is, you feel Watchdog content must be defended at every possible opportunity, no matter how silly, because if not it will be challenged and removed everywhere? You are an experience editor, you know we do not generally blackball sources except in very extreme cases, and sourcing depends on context, so I think your position is untenable. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- My position is that your edit summary was deceptive. Watchdog.org is a RS for this ref (and has never at wikipedia been found to not be a RS) and is in this case actually reliable. In fact at this page you acknowledge that it is reliable for this ref, which indicates that your acknowledge the deceptive nature of your previous edit summary. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do I understand your position is, you feel Watchdog content must be defended at every possible opportunity, no matter how silly, because if not it will be challenged and removed everywhere? You are an experience editor, you know we do not generally blackball sources except in very extreme cases, and sourcing depends on context, so I think your position is untenable. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, because I can imagine an editor taking a personal theory or edit and inserting it into dozens of articles again and again. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't you feel just a little silly defending Watchdog as the 3rd of 3 refs for a non-controversial fact, a fact already support by two reliable 2ndary newspaper sources? I mean really? How about pick your battle? Hugh (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Watchdog.org is a non-profit national news organaization. It has professional staff and editing. "Franklin Center editors, reporters and staff are guided by Associated Press standards and the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics." Every human has bias, that doesn't negate RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- We are in agreement that the content is a non-controversial fact. We are in agreement that this non-controversial fact for some reason has 3 refs, two of which are actual newspapers with actual editorial boards, and one of which is a website with bias. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Watchdog is RS. There has been no agreement that it is not, your assetion is unsupported opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"Graves has also worked for the American Civil Liberties Union."a
- MacEachern, Doug (March 3, 2013). "Vilified right-wing ALEC has its left-wing counterpart". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
- Moore, Richard (2014-02-20). "O'Keefe follows through, files lawsuit in John Doe probe". Lakeland Times. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
- Richards, Tori (December 4, 2013). "Liberal 'media' group gets $520k dark money donation for war on right". Watchdog.org. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
Content an uncontested, non-controversial fact. 1st 2 sources actual newspapers with actual editorial boards, 3rd a conservative funded website. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Repeating oneself does not add to the strength of one's arguments. I would note that it is not editorial boards which mater in journalism but editorial staff. Watchdog.org has ample professional editorial staff. Charitable funding (liberal or conservative) is not a decider of RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisa Graves. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714202055/http://www.wpr.org/liberal-research-group-may-settle-open-records-case to http://www.wpr.org/liberal-research-group-may-settle-open-records-case
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) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)