Talk:Opposition research

Current format not acceptable for 2013

Since the primary contributor is no longer active, I'm posting this message in the hopes that someone will take the initiative and fix the poorly formatted article and turn it into a modern encyclopedia article acceptable for Wikipedia. Right now, it looks like a horrible monstrosity from 2006. We don't generally use numbered lists or dictionary definitions in the lead and we don't repeat the title in section headings. There needs to be a singular narrative reflecting an encyclopedic focus on the topic, not a heterogeneous mixture of whatever floats your boat. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Think the most basic charge was that Rachel was an adulterer, which was why Andrew was so enraged, and blamed his political opponents for her death...

Also, there seems to be a little confusion between the 1858 Illinois senate election (Lincoln vs. Douglas) and the 1860 presidential election (when Lincoln and Douglas were only two of four main candidates). In any case, Lincoln and Douglas had both been maneuvering in Springfield, Illinois politics for decades (when it was a small town), so they would have already known any gossip about each other, without any particular need for research... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight to USA

I put the {Globalize/US} tag there, as most is discussing US internal politics. Zezen (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes, votes, and anecdotes

A '360 review' of anyone trying or willing to be public, if they get neighborly with you. Uh! MaynardClark (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Firms

Who is DOING opposition research (other than America Rising, a Political Action Committee (PAC) that produces opposition research)? MaynardClark (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if serious. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Bounds

What parameters are widely accepted in opposition research? MaynardClark (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)