This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I included the source of the org that researched the plagiarism because it is notable. The PAC is a notable organization and it's a nontrivial amount of effort. Keeping the "liberal" label is certainly up for debate- I thought it was an obvious thing to include in a political article. Swiftboating, Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Initial_awareness, and Watergate are extreme examples of how the source, while not being the most important item, is important. tedder (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sources are sometimes noteworthy or important. Huge scoops make journalists famous. But this isn't a huge scoop, and I could be mistaken but I see no evidence that the scoop itself has become noteworthy. If we included the organization that first reported any particular fact, then our current events articles would be a total clutter. --04:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but it's different than "citizen Alice called the police to report [significant event]" and "[notable organization] uncovers [notable event]". Let's see what others have to say. tedder (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
