No edit summary |
Adding AE tag |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} |
{{talk header}} |
||
{{2016 US Election AE}} |
|||
== Why this sub-article? == |
== Why this sub-article? == |
||
Revision as of 21:55, 22 January 2018
Why this sub-article?
The Contents now "Allegations" section is currently woefully lacking, so I decided to rectify the situation. I have tried to be careful about the following issues: BLP, copyright, OR, primary/secondary/tertiary, fair use, attribution, etc.
I have brought over pretty much everything that's already there, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, attribution is unnecessary.
My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them.
I welcome comments here. If you see any problems, let me know and we can work out improvements. Please ping me when you comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do I understand that you are not intending this to be a standalone article, or at least that wasn't necessarily your intention in creating it? But you put it into mainspace without any qualification or label as such. To prevent it from being immediately AfD'ed, might you want to add some kind of notice at the top that this is a subarticle for possible inclusion in the main article? Or else move it to draft space or user space? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I misunderstood your intentions. I see that you have linked to this article as "main" in the other article. So you intended to launch this immediately, and discuss it later? That wasn't what I understood from your bringing it up at the talk page of the other article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments
- I think the "Natasha Bertrand" material should not be in the lede. Who the hell is she, and why does she get to summarize things in the lede paragraph? If kept at all, it should be in the "Cultivation, conspiracy, and cooperation" and/or "Key roles of Manafort, Cohen, and Page" sections.
- As I said at the main article's talk page, I absolutely oppose including any detail about the prostitute allegations, for BLP reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)