Talk:Courtney Ryan

TheKnot
So on what planet is a website that anybody can roll up and publish anything on considered a reliable source ? I've just rustled up a wedding invite on The Knot for Donald Duck to marry Minnie Mouse but could easily have faked a wedding invitation for one or two less well known but notable figures and easily passed it off as genuine with a bit of Photoshop and some Instagram or Twitter image grabs. Will you be adding my fake invite to Donald Duck's article or are you going to accept that a website with user created content (that we can't authenticate as genuine), which is lacking in any editorial control and which is open to widespread abuse, is in no way a reliable source ? Nick (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, , and , this ended up on my (rather large) watchlist awhile back, not sure why but I see there's been some concerns here about the wedding announcement. The simple fact is that the source (reliable or not) Hawkeye7 keeps putting back does not support the content. The primary source (assuming it's really them), is only an invitation to a wedding, not a post-event announcement. I shouldn't need to point out that weddings are called off quite often, aside from the fact that we can make no assumptions or draw any non-obvious conclusions on Wikipedia based on the sources, else run afoul of WP:OR. In addition to these concerns, I do not believe it to be a reliable source and it is not necessary for every single website in the world to go to RSN to be deemed reliable or not when it's obvious that TheKnot isn't secondary, fact-checked or editorially controlled (thus not meeting the guidelines for a reliable source). In addition, I performed some cursory Google searching to attempt to find a more reliable source to support this content, and found nothing. That's my two cents. Waggie (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Primary sources can be used for facts. I have added an additional source confirming that the wedding did take place. I've never seen a post-wedding announcement. I honestly don't see what the problem you have with such an innocuous sentence is.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am mobile so it’s a bit hard for me to respond but theknot isn’t even just primary. It’s a wedding registry and invite site. We wouldn’t link to an evite, what makes you think this is appropriate? Also see WP:BLPPRIVACY. The others two sources do not confirm the date at all, which makes it WP:OR  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  10:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added full protection to the article while this dispute is ongoing. Hawkeye7, Chrissymad - Please work things out here and let me know when a consensus is reached so I can remove the protection. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note also that while it's entirely likely this is true and there isn't a reason to believe it's fake, it sets a bad precedent to allow such a ridiculous source on a BLP - for anything. It also goes against WP:BLPPRIVACY but I did a little digging myself and can't find anything that is reasonably reliable or significant to support including this at this time. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur here. Let's leave out the original research. The added source still isn't journalistic or secondary, nor does it directly confirm the content and fails WP:V. Waggie (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)