Talk:Pappas v. Giuliani
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
NYCLU = RS?
[edit]As much as I support and appreciate the work of civil liberties-defending groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union, I'm not sure it should be considered a reliable source in the context of describing a court ruling. (I have no reason to believe the particular information cited here is skewed or untrustworthy; it is on general principle that I raise the question.)
I see nothing in WP:RS about advocacy organizations, but my understanding is that their work should be referenced only to illuminate the organization itself, or when no other information about a subject is available (and then accompanied by an indication that the reader is consuming the perspective of an advocacy organization). Thoughts, other folks? Scartol • Tok 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pappas v. Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090519162319/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)