Talk:Logan Act

message: FYI check out the Washington Post on the Logan Act.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's definitely more consistent with the style found in legal scholarship to positively identify student-authored works. I think the way you addressed the block quote is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Why isn't Nixon's alleged violation of the Logan Act during the 1968 election mentioned in the article?  Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The president LBJ knew what he did but did not bring it to the attention of the Justice dept. No charges were ever officially made by anyone.  --LBJ also called Nixon a traitor at the time. Obviously LBJ was angry but he was not a lawyer. A Nixon supporter passed along Nixon's opposition to LBJ's plans with North Vietnam to South Vietnam government, but neither she nor Nixon negotiated any diplomatic deals with anyone. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Nixon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Candidate Reagan and the Logan Act 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable published secondary sources are essential when we deal with this week's intense political name-calling