User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/111 Coup label research notes and comments

Great stuff!

This is good. Keep me up to date with your plans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO the most important work that needs doing is not compiling these RSs (which I do when my brain is tired) but rather working on our hearing article(s) doing this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Trump's seven part plan

That plan would be an excellent outline for a Trump's "rigged election" conspiracy theory article. That is a redirect that currently points to Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, and that content could be used in the article. It could be a very large article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all..... never rebut a lie by repeating it. Examples

Me to Bob, I talked to Valjean on Facebook.

You to Bob, We did not talk on Facebook.

Result, Bob hears "not" zero times but Bob hears the lie "Facebook" not once but twice.

This point is hammered again and again by linguist George Lakoff in his public service efforts to teach us how to combat disinformation

Second, all main Jan6 committee related "evidence" needs to be kept together in the most efficient laser focused way possible, so I've got zero interest packing details under the Big Lie article, and think Trumps section there should just be transclusions and excerpts from the laser focused articles/sections related to Jan 6 committee.

Third, I'm not ready to propose this yet, and maybe never, but I can see eventually super condensing the hearings article and letting that pretty much float along via transclusions and excerpts and instead, make seven detailed articles. Instead of matching those to the hearing numbers, match them to the seven point plan as follows

• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 1 of 7 Trump knowledge that he lost)
• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 2 of 7 Trump efforts to pressure Pence)
• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 4 of 7 etc
• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 5 of 7 etc
• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 6 of 7 etc
• Jan 6 committee evidence (Part 7 of 7 etc

But that's far off in the future. I'm only just starting to try to flesh out and add appropriate subheadings to hearing #2.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been at it so long so much this week, I'm running on Wiki empty and falling behind on other responsibilities, so expect my work product to slow for awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's understandable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Timeline sequence

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, is this sequence true?:

"following Vice-President Mike Pence’s refusal to reject the election’s results, Trump urged his supporters to march upon the Capitol Building."

That's an important detail that should be included at Timeline of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I captured that pull quote. But I haven't gotten back to researching it yet. Just on its face its ambiguous because the time of "Pence's refusal" could mean any number of times Pence was pressured and in some way said "no". But it would be very interesting to have a time stamped transcript of Pence's words inside the capitol building on Jan 6, and compare that to the overall timeline. User:NewsAndEventsGuy 19:57, July 2, 2022 (UTC)

IF that sequence is really solid, then it's very significant, but you're right that it might be hard to pin down as Pence uttered various types of "refusal" at different times. The one time that's significant would be a very public one around that time. Trump would likely then respond to that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

With your current added content and revisions (looks good), I think it's safe to add this and readers can make of it what they want. I'll give it a shot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it. It still looks like WP:SYNTH or WP:OR unless the text explicity says Trump's move was a direct response. All this text says is one thing happened and later something else happened. Or another thing to consider.... Law School 101.... "if the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If neither are one your side, pound the table." When I've done a good job on chronology analysis (usually for litigation prep) I spend 20% of the time on the rough draft. But the facts are mooshygooshywooshy so I spend 80% of the time chopping all the noise I injected in the draft and then the facts just leap off the page by themselves User:NewsAndEventsGuy 18:16, July 3, 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's already done. Let's see if anyone contests it. It's a simple statement of the factual sequence without any absolute cause and effect statement. Even if there were any synthesis, it's done by the source, which is not only allowed, we prefer such content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References