Talk:Lisa Graves

ACLU
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)

"Graves has also worked for the American Civil Liberties Union."a

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
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)