Talk:Alternative facts (law)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Issues

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]

Upon review of the principal sources, the alleged statements are also not supported by the linked material, though the mistake is possibly due to the writer's unfamiliarity with legal jargon. The statements made are similar to statements made in the source material, but the claims made here would be like taking a physics paper on the speed of light and using it to argue that the letter c is numerically equal to 2.998X10^8 when it appeared in a integral calculus problem

47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason to say that this article "relies extensively on quotations that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group"? I have no idea of any reference to such thing. I'm a bit confused. Z22 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm kinda new to wikipedia. What I meant by that tag is that the sources have clearly been chosen to support a particular idea for political reasons (namely that 'alternative facts' is a term used in law, when as far as I can tell from the sources it is not, and currently there are good political reasons to want to make it seem like that is a real term. 47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For, "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards", please specify which standards we are talking about. For, "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information", please specify which part of the article that is not objective so that we can improve the article. For, "This article contains a list of miscellaneous information", this article does not even contain a list. If it means something else, please clarify. Thank you for working together to improve the article. Z22 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: It needs: better encyclopedic tone/spelling/grammar; sources that support the claims that they are supposedly sources for; sources that are relevant and credible, ideally at least one source establishing that the use of these words in conjunction has some sort of special meaning; a point of view that focuses on encyclopedically explaining the topic at hand in the title rather than arguing for or against its existence as this seems to be doing. 47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective: The article is written to promote the idea of 'alternative facts' as a common legal term. I'm not convinced that it is in fact common or a term. The text has to jump across a number of seemingly unconnected (i.e. they are from vastly different legal subsystems and dealing with vastly different topics) legal sources, which also seems to have skimmed rather than read (I am not convinced that a well-intentioned and expert reader would make the sorts of basic mistakes in reading the source proceedings), in order to purport its viewpoint. It seems forced, and hence the tag. The information given is also not 'real' in that the claims made on the page are largely false, by which I mean that they are unsubstantiated by their sources and also I believe them to be objectively untrue. 47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List: The article is a list of misc. information. It's just a collection of random sources that happen to put the word 'alternative' which occasionally has a special legal meaning next to the word 'facts' which does not. They don't even bother to only use sources that are using the special legal version of the term 'alternative'-- they use sources using the regular English meaning of the term instead, and interchangeably.47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the page has been significantly re-decorated since I first complained. The redecoration is much better, but I still am dubious as to the quality/value of this page on several counts. The style has notably improved, so that's much less of an issue though "In the courts of England and Wales, it used to have rules for statements of case which expressly allow alternative facts[no citation]" is still particularly annoying both as an uncited thing (I realize the citation is at the end of the section, this objection is about style) and as a grammatically bothersome sentence. I need to go through the new source list to see if those are actually an all new set of sources or not. The listiness is also less bad with the style change, probably that can be de-tagged.47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review the citation at the end of the section says nothing about England and Wales47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there are several users in 4chan and /pol/ who are making significant efforts in an attempt to bury or invalidate this article. Be wary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.123.130 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 does not support its supposed claim. Source one is titled 'alternative facts' and deals with sets of inconsistent facts, such as by indicating that in some cases one can 'plead the inconsistent facts in the alternative' but does not make extensive use of 'alternative facts' as a term in the rest of the source-- in fact it never uses that term at all. It is particularly telling that the writer chose to use the version of the source which is behind a paywall and at first glance looks potentially relevant rather than linking to the source in a freely available form such as http://www.mondaq.com/x/21461/Statements+of+Truth+Alternative+Facts 47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 does support its first claim and is legit. Also establishes the term as potentially notable47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 is legit47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 cannot be used to support its second current use: That statement is nowhere contained nor implied in the source47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4 does indirectly support its claim, but the blurb for 'alternative pleading' could be significantly rewritten. Of note is the quality of the 'alternative pleading' article which clearly substantiates and defines the scope of its topic and addresses in a neutral and encyclopedic way. This article would do well to be written similarly.47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 can be used to support its third claim only inasmuch as that claim is limited to the final sentence of the paragraph it features in and not the rest of the paragraph, which is uncited and currently unsupported47.208.76.120 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to add some thoughts to address some points. First, the idea that somehow this article is an attempt to promote the "alternative facts" term so as to show that it is common in order to make a particular support on the other use of the same term in a completely different context (like in politics) is highly speculative. There is nothing here mentioned at all about the linkage of this legal term to that political event (except one WP:DAB link so that people who seek specific subject with the same name can go to the right place). I'm also not quite sure why it is assumed that editors on this article don't have WP:NPOV. I don't think there is such incident to demonstrate as such. The fundamental principla of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Assume good faith, therefore we should not pre-judge any editors here. Having said that, I hope we all can focus on article improvements.

Some other points are as follows:

It being common? I don't think the term is common. Therefore, the argument that it is so common that it is just like putting two words together as a way to normally communicate is not viable. If this is common and has no special legal meaning, when you hear "alternative facts" you would completely understand to mean one thing without prior knowledge in law. It is not that case such that one source highlight that the term sounds contradictory. Now, not being common doesn't mean it is not notable to have its own article.
Alternative facts vs. inconsistent facts: The terms are not completely interchangeable in law. The alternative facts really means inconsistent facts in the alternative which is allowed in many courts, but inconsistent facts themselves (without being in the alternative) is not allowed.
Source 1 & 2: now given that the term has special meaning in legal systems, these sources use the term as the name in titles and have the entire section / article to discuss about it. There is no requirements that the sources have to repeatedly use the same term / subject name within the article as long as it is the discussions in the sources have it as the main subject. In this case, both sources discuss the subject and put the subject name (alternative facts) in the titles.
English law: the discussion in some of the sources were specific to the statement of case which are part of the Civil Procedure Rules. For example the book titled "Drafting" is in that legal framework. Therefore, attributing to specific legal framework may reduce readers' confusion on the scope of the law. Additionally, by incorporating different legal framework, it may make the article looks fragmented. However, it helps reducing the problems of Template:Globalize/US to enhance the more worldwide view of the subject.

Some editors have helped editing to make this more useful to readers. If there are specific parts that we should change, we can discuss here. It will be great if you and more editors can help improving. Z22 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now restructured. History added with additional source that explicitly uses the term and discusses the reasons for allowing alternative facts in the courts. Things are now better organized. After reviewing the article again, we should remove those warning tags. Z22 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

I fail to see the notability of this page. The term is used in the two sources (for two different meanings) but I cannot see where it is used again in a law context. Perhaps a move to Inconsistent facts (law) would be better? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competing facts (law) ? -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All 18 sources are in law context. According to those sources, It is used to mean another set of facts in a given case. It is not strictly just for inconsistent facts. It depends on whether the stated set of facts are from the same party or from the other party. Therefore, it can mean inconsistent facts in the alternative or competing facts. Z22 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm going to set up a move request. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article will this be moved to? Z22 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think a deletion would be better - none of the meanings are really defined anywhere, nor is there is any evidence that they are specific legal terms rather than simply being a phrased which crops up in lots of legal cases. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are explanations of the term in some of the references in this articles with the explanations from sentences, a paragraph, a section to an entire article. Z22 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]