This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Logan Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FYI check out the Washington Post on the Logan Act.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The block-paragraph discussing Kevin Kearney's analysis of the Logan Act was written by a student editor of the journal. Unless the citation is otherwise amended to reflect this status, the entire section conveys an unmerited degree of scholarly credibility ordinarily awarded to Law Professors. The original reference may have been appropriate ten years ago when the section was first added, but I'm afraid it's in serious need of attention given the heightened role it plays in understanding the Trump administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantnelson ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Because Kerry's behavior would suggest a violation a whole lot more than Flynn's (they apparently had the transcript on Flynn and knew all along he had not violated it), the article should be rewritten to make it politically neutral. As written, the article suggests a Republican violated it but the Democrat politician has no such implication associated with him. This is typical of the pro-Left bias in Wikipedia, but it is nonetheless wrong if WIkipedia purports to be neutral and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Since an indictment begins a prosecution, it doesn't make sense to say that two people have been indicted but no-one has been prosecuted. If it's supposed to mean no one has been tried, then it needs to say so, but the source cited isn't clear. Richard75 ( talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't Nixon's alleged violation of the Logan Act during the 1968 election mentioned in the article? [3] Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised that Ronald Reagan before he was elected is not seen as having activated the Logan Act when negotiating in the sidelines with Iran for hostage release in conjunction with sabotaging the efforts of the sitting POTUS ( Carter ).
The Iran Contra Affair is follow up fallout. ZwergAlw ( talk) 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Two points: Point 1) suggesting specific living people are engaged in criminal activity is a serious violation of an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:BLP is a Wikipedia governing rule that requires "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Point 2) Poorly sourced material includes heavy reliance on primary sources. Wiki guidelines warn against using primary sources --especially when Wiki editors draw conclusions like this statement (which I just deleted): " Logan Act would have been significantly revamped in the proposed legislation". We need reliable published secondary sources such as law journal articles--not one-sentence excerpts from a verbal interview from a politician. See WP:RSPRIMARY stating: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Rjensen ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Logan Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FYI check out the Washington Post on the Logan Act.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The block-paragraph discussing Kevin Kearney's analysis of the Logan Act was written by a student editor of the journal. Unless the citation is otherwise amended to reflect this status, the entire section conveys an unmerited degree of scholarly credibility ordinarily awarded to Law Professors. The original reference may have been appropriate ten years ago when the section was first added, but I'm afraid it's in serious need of attention given the heightened role it plays in understanding the Trump administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantnelson ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Because Kerry's behavior would suggest a violation a whole lot more than Flynn's (they apparently had the transcript on Flynn and knew all along he had not violated it), the article should be rewritten to make it politically neutral. As written, the article suggests a Republican violated it but the Democrat politician has no such implication associated with him. This is typical of the pro-Left bias in Wikipedia, but it is nonetheless wrong if WIkipedia purports to be neutral and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 17:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Since an indictment begins a prosecution, it doesn't make sense to say that two people have been indicted but no-one has been prosecuted. If it's supposed to mean no one has been tried, then it needs to say so, but the source cited isn't clear. Richard75 ( talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't Nixon's alleged violation of the Logan Act during the 1968 election mentioned in the article? [3] Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised that Ronald Reagan before he was elected is not seen as having activated the Logan Act when negotiating in the sidelines with Iran for hostage release in conjunction with sabotaging the efforts of the sitting POTUS ( Carter ).
The Iran Contra Affair is follow up fallout. ZwergAlw ( talk) 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Two points: Point 1) suggesting specific living people are engaged in criminal activity is a serious violation of an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:BLP is a Wikipedia governing rule that requires "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Point 2) Poorly sourced material includes heavy reliance on primary sources. Wiki guidelines warn against using primary sources --especially when Wiki editors draw conclusions like this statement (which I just deleted): " Logan Act would have been significantly revamped in the proposed legislation". We need reliable published secondary sources such as law journal articles--not one-sentence excerpts from a verbal interview from a politician. See WP:RSPRIMARY stating: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Rjensen ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)