Talk:Foreign electoral intervention

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

I am not sure it does aid readability, I am jumping form one section to another with no flow of text., it just reads like a series of rather long bullet points.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Better? TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, still a bit wordy (especially for an overview) but then I suspect there is more to be added elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 US election

You might want to add this, and not make it about the one nation.

[1].Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire article seems to be about how they in fact weren't and didn't intend to interfere, it barely mentions any allegations that they in fact may have done so. TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Which means there was an accusation, and it's not the only source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[2] [3]

Do I really have to dig for you?Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes? Right now I'm reading about Chile. TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)