Talk:Leonard Leo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 14 November 2020

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 of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

CREW: a RS? Let's be consistent!

Hi Tchouppy (talk · contribs), I'm really very intrigued to see you claim just now that CREW is not a reliable source! It is the single most cited source (by number of articles cited) on the page of Arabella Advisors, where I observe you have been very active indeed. (In fact, I see that the precise question of removing a CREW-cited claim was raised there, and you passed it over as apparently unmeritorious.)

So, let's decide and then we can both behave consistently: is CREW a reliable source, in which case it should stay here, or an unreliable source, in which case I am sure a fair, diligent, and vigilant editor such as yourself would also consent to having it removed on the Arabella Advisors page and elsewhere. For my part, I find it exceedingly reliable and am very happy to keep it on both pages, but I was curious to hear what you thought, and how you'd make your case in terms of the RS criteria. Thanks for your time! --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publius In The 21st Century Are you talking about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (CRP) as the same thing? I don't see CREW as a source on Arabella at all. Tchouppy (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tchouppy How preposterously foolish of me! But now that we are both here and I have your attention, and with apologies for my slow response, I'd be most grateful to get you on record in specifying what makes CREW (or the Daily Beast) unreliable and the CRP (or The Washington Free Beacon) reliable? Perhaps your chum User:Marquardtika might also care to comment? While we are at it, is 'dark money' a legitimate phrase (Arabella) or not (Leonard Leo/Judicial Crisis Network)? I don't have clear preferences here and am happy to go either way on this - the important thing seems to be clear about principles and consistent in applying them. With best wishesPublius In The 21st Century (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:25, 2 November 2020 edit Tchouppy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,442 edits →‎CREW: a RS? Let's be consistent! ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:30, 14 November 2020 edit undo Publius In The 21st Century (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 948 edits →‎CREW: a RS? Let's be consistent!: Reply to Tchouppy Next edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	: [[User:Publius In The 21st Century\|Publius In The 21st Century]] Are you talking about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (CRP) as the same thing? I don't see CREW as a source on Arabella at all. [[User:Tchouppy\|Tchouppy]] ([[User talk:Tchouppy\|talk]]) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)		: [[User:Publius In The 21st Century\|Publius In The 21st Century]] Are you talking about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (CRP) as the same thing? I don't see CREW as a source on Arabella at all. [[User:Tchouppy\|Tchouppy]] ([[User talk:Tchouppy\|talk]]) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

			::[[User:Tchouppy]] How preposterously foolish of me! But now that we are both here and I have your attention, and with apologies for my slow response, I'd be most grateful to get you on record in specifying what makes CREW (or the Daily Beast) unreliable and the CRP (or The Washington Free Beacon) reliable? Perhaps your chum [[User:Marquardtika]] might also care to comment? While we are at it, is 'dark money' a legitimate phrase (Arabella) or not (Leonard Leo/Judicial Crisis Network)? I don't have clear preferences here and am happy to go either way on this - the important thing seems to be clear about principles and consistent in applying them. With best wishes[[User:Publius In The 21st Century\|Publius In The 21st Century]] ([[User talk:Publius In The 21st Century\|talk]]) 01:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)