Talk:Foreign electoral intervention: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
GreenMeansGo (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Also why does the overview section need to be split up into each separate academic study you are sourcing, why is it not just an overview and then split up into each specific example election?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
Also why does the overview section need to be split up into each separate academic study you are sourcing, why is it not just an overview and then split up into each specific example election?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:The Lebanese election wasn't actually compromised AFAIK, but the study was done in conjunction with it. Both studies use particular examples and evidence to generalize about the subject as a whole, and the subject as a whole is what the section is about. If it helps conceptually, I can simplify the explanation and separate the issues about the individual elections. |
|||
:There is no particular reason why it is divided by study, other than to attempt to enhance readability, rather than having one long section. Whether it is or not isn't particularly important. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;font-family:Impact;">Timothy</span><span style="color:#6f3800;font-family:Impact;">Joseph</span><span style="color:#422501;font-family:Impact;">Wood</span>]] |
Revision as of 16:58, 12 January 2017
Shulman and Bloum
Why is this not in the Ukrainian elections section?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, the portions of the paper that deal with interference in general as far as principles go, is included in the overview section. These are drawn from the Ukrainian election, but are about elections overall. The portions of the paper that are about the Ukrainian election in particular are cited in that section as well. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be duplicating material, and if they only really studies one election why not use them for just that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Also why does the overview section need to be split up into each separate academic study you are sourcing, why is it not just an overview and then split up into each specific example election?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Lebanese election wasn't actually compromised AFAIK, but the study was done in conjunction with it. Both studies use particular examples and evidence to generalize about the subject as a whole, and the subject as a whole is what the section is about. If it helps conceptually, I can simplify the explanation and separate the issues about the individual elections.
- There is no particular reason why it is divided by study, other than to attempt to enhance readability, rather than having one long section. Whether it is or not isn't particularly important. TimothyJosephWood