Talk:Trump Institute

How plagiarism was discovered

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)

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)