Talk:Mike J. Rogers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mike J. Rogers is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Mike J. Rogers is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] News sources for citations

Bonafide news sources such as broadcast media and local newspapers are suitable for citations. Biased news sources such as NewsMax and blog entries are not good sources for citations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And as per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WorldNetDaily should never be considered a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions (which are considered fringe and extremist). The consensus on Newsmax is that, while not journalistic or reliable in itself, specific articles are sometimes acceptable if they are reprinted from more reliable sources but, whenever possible, the original source should be used. The opinion articles and original content of NewsMax should never be considered journalistic or reliable (basically if something is only reported in NewsMax or WorldNetDaily, then it cannot be considered reliably sourced). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any news source can be bias. As long as the source isn't opinionated it should be suitable. The NewsMax article is similar to the Detroit News article. Denying an article because it's from a certain publication can be bias itself. Many people believe Wikipedia is unreliable and bias so the best way to distinguish a good source is to make sure it's a fact and not worry which way the publication leans. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the biased news source is simply copying the news story (as in The Detroit News example), the original source (The Detroit News in this case) should be used. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true. A newspaper is always a better source than a mazazine. I think the magazine source was the only one or first one found at the time. I hunted down the newspaper source after realize parts were missing from the other one. Jjmillerhistorian 15:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Biased news sources tend to edit out key details they don't want their target audience to read. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)