This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.208.76.120(talk) at 07:53, 31 January 2017(added cherry picking tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:53, 31 January 2017 by 47.208.76.120(talk)(added cherry picking tag)
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The citations are diverse and unconnected and give no indication that the term 'alternative facts' is, in fact, a noteworthy legal term rather than the words 'alternative' and 'facts' occuring next to eachother as a function of specific communication. Coupled with the convienient timing of the page's creation and source gathering I dispute the neutrality of this article on the basis that the method in which it is written is an attempt to impart a sense of support for certain current American political events rather than to educate the public in a neutral and authoritative nature on the purported subject of the page. If the term 'Alternative facts' is, in actuality, deserving of a separate legal page from the one dealing with the American political event it should be written in a manner that explains the uses and history of the concept, it's origin, etc (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_custody, etc) rather than reading like an apologetic for the idea that the term in fact exists without disclaiming itself as such. 47.208.76.120 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
