← Previous revision | Revision as of 23:14, 6 May 2024 |
| Line 14: | Line 14: |
| [https://midwestoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/04win.pdf Can a leopard change its spots?] | [https://midwestoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/04win.pdf Can a leopard change its spots?] |
| Thanks for the clarifying note. | |
 | Thanks for the clarifying note. My view of [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)]] is somewhat different than yours. First off, it's a [[Wikipedia:Essays]], not one of [[Wikipedia olicies and guidelines]]. If it's helpful, great, if not, then we are not bound by it. |
| [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)]] is a [[Wikipedia:Essays]], not a [[Wikipediaolicies and guidelines]]. If it's helpful, great, if not, then we are not bound by it. |
| More to the point, however, the essay is suggestions to help editors evaluate "books about ''laws'' and articles about ''laws''" (emphasis added). If we had an article about a law or its interpretation, then this essay would be helpful in identifying RS. |
| The essay has suggestions to help editors evaluate "books about laws and articles about laws" that might be suitable RS for a Wikipedia article that talked about a law. |
| But the current article isn't interpreting any laws. It is simply summarizing what RS newspapers says about the status of particular cases. Citing RS news sources about the status of ongoing cases is common practice in Wikipedia. Take a look at an article about any ongoing case and you will see what I mean. |
| But the current article isn't about a law. It is simply summarizing what RS newspapers say about the status of particular cases. Citing RS news sources about the status of particular cases is common practice in Wikipedia. Take a look at any article about an ongoing case and you will see how other editors are doing this. |
Okumaya devam et...