Talk:Leonard Leo

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)

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)

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 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)

I don't determine what makes something an RS or not. But CRP/Opensecrets is pretty widely regarded as reliable. As for 'dark money,' I detest the phrase and would gladly remove it from all articles, but that's not my call. If the RS uses the term 'dark money' then it gets to stay. Is it possible I removed it from an article when it was backed by a RS, maybe. I am human after all and not perfect.Tchouppy (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Opus Dei

Has Leo ever been affiliated with Opus Dei? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a question and answer page, it's for the purpose of improving the article. Feel free to do the research, and if you find reliable sources saying that he was, then you can add that to the article. -- Jibal (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Catholic Information Center, operated by Opus Dei since 1993, currently reports him to be a board member. Jetpower (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See the long edit summary I added when taking out Jetpower's edit to the introduction about Leo being a member of Opus Dei. For all I know, he is. It seems to be pretty certain that he is on the board of the Catholic Information Center. Is that operated by Opus Dei? I tried to figure that one out, to no avail. But even if it is operated by Opus Dei, that doesn't establish that because someone sits on the board of the CIC that means they are necessarily from Opus Dei. Beyond this, there are notability questions/undue questions about putting all of this in the intro, even it it all plans out. Novellasyes (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't look reliably sourced to me. Marquardtika (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer:  Yes; Opus Dei operates the Catholic Information Center (CIC), and has done so since 1993.

1) The CIC site reports that Mr. Leo is a board member. It makes no reference to membership in Opus Dei (a worldwide organization which does not publish names of supernumeraries), nor does any other part of the entry.

2) The google map reports CIC's location by address.

3) The opusdeitoday.org site corroborates the address as the CIC's location and includes a note about 1993 as the year that Opus Dei, a worldwide hub for some 95,000 Catholics and non-Catholics alike, took over operations of the CIC.

Q.E.D, the entry is reliably sourced and appropriate for inclusion in the intro.

I hope this clarifies the issues for you. Please feel free to request further clarification, or to suggest including additional reliable sources. I'll wait 24 hours or so for your response before reverting the excision. Jetpower (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)