This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The given citation does not suggest the 3rd hearing was postponed until the next day. Bloomberg notes that the postponed hearing "was to focus on alleged pressure placed on Justice Department officials by former President Donald Trump to convince state election officials to reconsider and recalibrate results of the 2020 presidential election.", whereas the next day's hearing was all about pressure on Pence. The Hill notes "The delay in the third hearing could disrupt the story line arc the committee planned to lay out over seven hearings." Clearly this would not be an issue if Wednesday's hearing was postponed to Thursday's.
Can someone clear this up. Was the Wednesday 15th June hearing postponed to June 23rd? This seems to be the obvious conclusion given the bloomberg quote. Epideme12 ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians - The video link for the first hearing uses the House official site, which refers users to YouTube, which requires an age verification. What do we think about using the C-SPAN link instead of or in addition to the House link? KConWiki ( talk) 03:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This thread relates to this sentence in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I put this in the description of why Fox News didn't cover the hearing live because they knew these text messages showing Hannity was an active participant were already out there and could be featured by the committee at any time, and they sure didn't want to be covering it live during Hannity's normal time slot, when his audience might tune in to discover it. This alone was a good enough reason for them to embargo the whole hearing. soibangla ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The best place to ask that isright here.
these documents were part of the reason Fox didn't air the hearing, but CNN and NYT previously explained that Hannity and McEnany exchanged texts, and post-hearing NPR focuses specifically on "Only one major cable news channel did not carry the Jan. 6 hearing live: Fox News" [2] and reports:
Hannity similarly minimized the harm done, even as Cheney was reading aloud the Fox host and frequent Trump adviser's texts to Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany."
FYI, I invited ORN members to comment here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It is definitely OR to say Fox didn't show the Jan 6 hearings due to Hannity's involvementbut the edit does not say that. soibangla ( talk) 17:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
After Fox announced it would not air the hearings /SO AND SO or SOURCES/ pointed out that text messages had been exchanged between Fox News hosts and Meadows &c.
Now...
Proposed...
Seems like that would bridge the prior and subsequent sentences in this paragraph and tie it all together. Will that work? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind about a recent section heading getting a semicolon to join to clauses.... but will semicolons in section headings break anything in the wikicode (anchors, piped links, TOC) etc? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk)
Judge Luttig chose his words very carefully. He spoke slowly, and precisely.
The wiki page about clear and present danger says this:
"The primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech could be criminalized was the bad tendency test. Rooted in English common law, the test permitted speech to be outlawed if it had a tendency to harm public welfare ..." and the article closes with this: "In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that 'the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action'. Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence."
So even if Judge Luttig was speaking in a historical/cultural context (and not strictly a legal one), I think it would still be helpful to add the wikilink. What do others think? 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
To me, the context indicates a national security/treason/sedition meaning, and definitely not a free speech meaning. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
References
As a matter of current understandings, however, this point is moot. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court read “clear” to mean “likely.” That interpretation has been unchallenged for decades. What I am suggesting thus far is that the unchallenged interpretation seems very hard to defend, because cost benefit balancing is better.(From pp. 1788-1789). Dumuzid ( talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should not wikilink it without a clear understanding of the meaning. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI a new subpoena is coming and the target has already said they'll comply. At issue apparently is a truckload of raw documentary footage from the inner WH. (Talk about the proverbial rock in the pond....) [6] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Here is a link from docs.house.gov that shows a month by month view of events scheduled with this Jan. 6 Committee.
Also a week by week view of events from this congress.gov link, but you need to click through "View this committee schedule" under the Committee Meetings heading to see the calendar.
Because apparently the press & media don't always update their articles to reflect schedule changes, haha.
So can verify this way.
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 20:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|publichearingslede}}}|publichearingslede| A series of five scheduled hearings by the [[United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack]] began on June 9, 2022. The first hearing was scheduled in the evening so it could be broadcast on [[prime time]] television.<ref name=":63">{{Cite news |last=Phillips |first=Amber |date=June 7, 2022 |title=How to watch the Jan. 6 committee hearings and what to watch for |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/january-6-committee-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch/ |access-date=June 7, 2022 |archive-date=June 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606223428/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/january-6-committee-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch/ |url-status=live }}</ref> }}</onlyinclude>
It thwarts visual editing (and hurts my brain in source mode). What's the point? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, so we need to be careful with this!
Someone accidentally deleted the closing tag, and this in turn caused the entire contents of this current page to be pushed & copied over to
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 2022 public hearings
Another issue, is that the page we are pushing this content to is *locked* while the page we are editing here is not locked. So there is an *ahem* loophole in the event a bad actor wanted to exploit such a thing and troll both pages at the same time. Just a heads up! Something to keep an eye on, thanks!
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
<section begin=... />
and <section end=... />
tags can now be moved anywhere else in this article (e.g. into a new ‘Summary’ section - see comments at
§ Someone shorten that lede! below) without affecting the other article, as long as those enclosing tags ‘come along for the ride’.
Jim Grisham (
talk) 23:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Here's what I found so far:
Op-Ed: The insurrection won’t end until Trump is prosecuted and disqualified from future office - Los Angeles Times, 20 June 2022
"In a powerful warning Thursday, the patron saint of the conservative legal movement, former federal appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, testified before the Jan. 6 Committee and pronounced former President Trump and his allies a 'clear and present danger' to American constitutional democracy. As Luttig knows better than most, this historic phrase generates an extraordinary constitutional power of government to act — and a duty to do so.
"Luttig’s verdict should be understood as a plea for Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to proceed toward charging Trump with federal crimes that the public record now amply establishes. Only then will this nation be able to move forward from the ongoing insurrection."
- - -
About the authors of this op-ed: "Laurence H. Tribe is professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard. Phillip Allen Lacovara was deputy solicitor general of the United States, counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, and argued the case of United States vs. Nixon. Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy."
- - -
Please add your own findings, let's compile media analysis here! Thanks! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
this is a screen cap of a short video clip the committee played yesterday:
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1541865092580610048
Hutchinson: "I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast... [7]
People are insisting it was The Beast to assert it was impossible for Trump to reach the steering wheel, and so therefore Hutchinson lied. [8] Not so hard in an SUV.
soibangla ( talk) 18:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
On a related point, I'd like to check my understanding of Hutchinson's testimony against what ya'll think you heard. I think she said Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel was in the office of WH Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Assistant Director, Office of Training United States Secret Service, Tony Ornato. At that time, Ornato "waved" Hutchinson into his office and closed the door. Then Ornato told Hutchinson a tale about Trump in the vehicle transporting Trump from the elipse after Trump's Jan 6 speech. Supposedly, Ornato did not see what happened firsthand. He was allegedly told this store by Engel, who allegedly was in the vehicle. This means that Hutchinson's testimony was a third-hand account (because Engel told Onato who told Hutchinson who told the committee (and due to the TV cameras the world). So when it comes to Hutchinson's veracity and integrity, it does not matter if this really happened in the vehicle. It only matters if Onato spun this story in his office, in front of Engel, and if Engel made no move to contradict Onato. IS that how you all understand this? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I did a partial rewrite of the final two paragraphs of the "Sixth Hearing" section,combining them into a single paragraph and trimming a little of the excess quoting. User:Soibangla reverted my changes. I am OK with that, but I still think the current material is confusing, with references in the wrong place, and the difference between "unnamed witnesses" and the Politico report not clear. I also think the paragraph should start by saying what it is about: Cheney's concern about witness tampering. Not wanting to violate 1RR I am proposing a new version of a rewrite here. It does not remove any material or any references.
In closing remarks, Cheney expressed concern that some witnesses may have been given messages intended to influence their testimony. She said a witness, whom she did not name, told the committee they had received multiple such messages prior to giving testimony to the committee: "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I'm on the team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world." [1] She quoted another unnamed witness being told that "he is thinking about you", that "he knows you're loyal" and "will do the right thing." [1] Two days after the hearing, Politico reported that Hutchinson was the recipient of the quoted communications, prior to her March 7 deposition, and that the "he is thinking about you" message came from an intermediary for Mark Meadows. [2] Cheney stated that the committee was taking allegations of witness tampering seriously and that they would consider the "next steps" necessary to address the issue. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ a b Marshall Cohen; Zachary Cohen; Alex Rogers; CNN (June 28, 2022). "7 takeaways from Tuesday's shocking January 6 hearing". CNN.
{{ cite news}}
:|author4=
has generic name ( help)- ^ Betsy Woodruff Swan; Kyle Cheney (June 30, 2022). "New details of Jan. 6 panel's mystery messages emerge". Politico.
- ^ Glenn Thrush; Luke Broadwater; Michael S. Schmidt (June 29, 2022). "Hutchinson Testimony Exposes Tensions Between Parallel Jan. 6 Inquiries". The New York Times.
- ^ Kasie Hunt; Ryan Nobles; Zachary Cohen; CNN (June 30, 2022). "Hutchinson was 1 of the witnesses Trump world sought to influence, sources say". CNN.
{{ cite news}}
:|author4=
has generic name ( help)
Soibangla, would you be all right with this version? Or can we rewrite it here on the talk page? MelanieN ( talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The listing of participants may be useful, but will all of this info need to be sourced?
And is there a more minimal way to visually present this? Any ideas? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 05:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It's really problematic in the current format. How about a section at the bottom using a table? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Evackost ( talk · contribs): I see that you're working on cleaning up the presentation & layout of the article, wanna help with this part in any way? Ideas for making the lists of hearing participants accessible but less "up front and center" in the main content/body? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 16:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. There is clearly consensus against shortening the title to "January 6 hearings", but we do have consensus for BarrelProof's unopposed suggestion of flipping the title around. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings →
January 6 hearings – The current title is too long and wordy to satisfy
WP:CONCISE. January 6 hearings
is the
WP:COMMONNAME of the event, and would be
WP:CONSISTENT with
January 6 commission.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 17:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I recently learned (from user:Moxy) that an estimated 70% of readers are on mobile devices, and mobile devices only show the first paragraph before the rest of the screen is filled with the infobox and users have to scroll past the info box to read more. For this reason, I've tried to punch up the important high points in the first paragraph, to try to keep readers engaged before moving on. My bold edit is here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Republican is capitalixed whenever it refers to the Republican Party. Robert.Allen ( talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems the First Hearing (on June 9, 2022) is really the Second? After all, according to a recent
NYT news report,
[1] describing the upcoming July 12th, 2022 (Eighth?) Hearing:
The select committee has held seven public hearings to date, beginning with one last year (2021) in which it highlighted the testimonials of four police officers who battled the mob and helped secure the Capitol.
- perhaps an updated numbering of Hearings in the main article (and elsewhere) is in order? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
RELATED ADDITION (
Drbogdan (
talk) 12:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)):
"
2021 public hearings" (at "
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#2021 public hearings"):
A public House Hearing occurred on Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:30 am/et/usa entitled, "
The Law Enforcement Experience on January 6th [2021]".
[2]
[3]
According to C-SPAN, "January 6 Committee Meeting with Capitol and D.C. Police: Capitol and District of Columbia police testified at the first hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Witnesses described their experiences on that day and efforts to protect the Capitol and elected officials. Throughout the hearing, graphic video footage captured during the attack was shown." [4] Drbogdan ( talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - just now noticed - Seems my " good faith efforts" to update the hearing numbering in the main article may not be ok for some reason with some editors (see => " User talk:2601:447:4000:220:10D9:20AC:876D:1CC2") - seems we may need an agreement to work this together in some better way - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - Seems this current Re-Numbered Hearing version (more consistent with recent NYT News, [1] and includes the earlier "very first" related 2021 Hearing in the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, [2] previously omitted in this main article for some reason) (at => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack_public_hearings&oldid=1096947703 ) can easily be reverted back to the Originally Numbered Hearing version (ie, before the Re-Numbered Hearing version updated edits) => simply, copy/paste the last relevant stable " Original version" (at => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack_public_hearings&oldid=1096673168 ) - however - perhaps we should wait for Comments from other Editors first - in order to form a " WP:CONSENSUS" (or related) on this Hearing Numbering issue - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - Seems usual editing is now continuing - using the newly updated Re-Numbered Hearing Version as described in detail above - Further editing of the article is Welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
In the sixth hearing of 2022, Cheney's opening statement [10] referred to the "first five hearings", which from context obviously start with the one when she introduced the 7-part plan. In other words "first five 2022 televised ones". The committee only started organizing their story with counting words starting in 2022 and now we are out of sync with them. AGH GACK CHAOS
It's a very simple problem to solve. Let's just add the appropriate explanatory note that the counting numbers were only started in 2022, so the single hearing in 2021 although technically was the "first" (as in first in time), its not the one the committee labeled "first" (as in first in televised hearing push). That way we can get back in sync with almost every other source that is still using the committee's own self-published counting words. And anyone who hears "Seventh hearing" on the radio when they get home and look up our page will go to the one they expect with minimal confusion.
Ordinarily I'd just do this, but given the context on this page figured I should run it by everyone first. What say you? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
I suggest we replace the table with this short intro paragraph and simpler table
In 2021, early in the investigation, the committee held one hearing that was carried by C-Span but not widely carried by broadcast television. In June 2022, the committee started holding highly-publicized hearings intended for live broadcast. As used by the committee, labels such as "first hearing", "second hearing", et cetera refer to the series of televised hearings. (remember insert cite NYT article)
TV Series Number | Date | Day | Eastern Time | Video | Transcript |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not televised | July 27, 2021 | Tuesday | 9:30 A.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 222:03) house.gov [4] |
NPR;
[5] PDFs [6] |
First | June 9, 2022 | Thursday | 8 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 117:03) house.gov [7] | NPR [8] |
Second | June 13, 2022 | Monday | 10 A.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 114:39) house.gov [9] | NPR [10] |
Third | June 16, 2022 | Thursday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 166:21) house.gov [11] | NPR [12] |
Fourth | June 21, 2022 | Tuesday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 163:17) house.gov [13] | NPR [14] |
Fifth | June 23, 2022 | Thursday | 3 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 155:18) house.gov [15] | NPR [16] |
Sixth | June 28, 2022 | Tuesday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 117:47) house.gov [17] | NPR [18] |
Seventh | July 12, 2022 | Tuesday | 10 A.M. ( ET) | house.gov [19] | – |
Eighth | July 14, 2022 | Thursday | TBA ( ET) | – | – |
If ya'll like and wanna help great, but I'm willing to execute the change. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Done.... at least I think it's done.... please poke around looking for my mistakes! you can fix them, or ping me, whatever... but let's make sure it works for our readers. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that NPR may not have made a transcript available for the July 27, 2021 hearing. I didn't do a super comprehensive search, but couldn't find anything.
The only thing I've found so far is this:
January 6 House Select Committee Hearing Investigation Day 1 Full Transcript
Unfortunately it's hosted at rev.com which is a for-profit transcription service, and I feel super weird about linking to them in the article. They're also not a media outlet.
Can anyone find another source with transcript from the July 27, 2021 hearing? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The lede is ridiculous! Do we really need a paragraph there for every meeting? No. No, we don't. I'm not changing it because it's going to just start an editing/b*tching war that's typical regarding anything to do with politics. Talk it out, folks. 47.12.161.150 ( talk) 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with shortening it, for the reason given by 98.155 above: the lead section of this article is transcluded to the main committee article. That way there is a brief, one-paragraph summary of each public hearing in the main article. I think that is valuable. So even though it may violate WP guidelines about how to structure a lead section, I favor IAR and keep the lead structure the way it is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
__TOC__
magic word)Ok I have had a go at shortening it now. Mebden ( talk) 12:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
<includeonly></includeonly>
, and not <onlyinclude></onlyinclude>
{{#section-h:}}
/
{{#lst:}}
).<noinclude></noinclude>
tags, unless it is desired that the entire article be
transcluded elsewhere.
Jim Grisham (
talk) 21:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)My attention has been elsewhere and I only just noticed the collapsed tables. The MOS invites collapse of tables but only if the table has "consolidated" info that is also in the prose. Remember that our pages are reprinted on many different sites. Its unclear if those sites just have "show" for the table, but without any wikimarkup super wizard software whatever...... readers on other sites might never see what is in the tables here at Wiki. I assume that's why we let tables be collapsed but only if the info is otherwise in the prose, but that's a guess. The problem could be remedied, maybe, by just adding a sentence listing witness names who are not otherwise mentioned in prose. For example, "Withnesses included 1,2,3..." or "Other witnesses who also testified included 4,5,6..." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we cut and chop and mend and elaborate so that.....
Whaddya think? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with 98.155 above. Listing the hearings individually, and summarizing what happens in those hearings, makes historical and encyclopedic sense. For us to try to reorganize the material into what we think belongs under each of the "seven points" sounds worrisomely like Original Research. Has any Reliable Source attempted to organize the material in this way? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please create and add the "reactions" section for the seventh hearing. I was working on the following addition, but then the page became protected before I could submit this edit:
==== Reactions to seventh hearing ====
Immediately following Jason Van Tatenhove's live appearance, author and podcast host
Chris Gethard tweeted, "Am I hallucinating that this
Oath Keeper testifying before congress is wearing a
Descendents t-shirt?"
[1] This was in reference to the black shirt Van Tatenhove wore under his jean jacket during the hearing, which featured cover art from the
pop-punk band's fifth album
Everything Sucks. After images circulated on social media, the band quickly distanced themselves from the far-right militia, stating: "We completely disavow groups like the Oath Keepers and in no way condone their hateful ideology."
[2]
Thank you!
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 07:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverted addition because on further reflection, the band did not react to the hearing. The band reacted to their shirt at the hearing and the band's statement isn't about presidential power and potential collapse of US democracy but protecting their trade name's good repuation. So put it on the band's wiki article sure, but not here. Instead lets start looking for RSs specifically with reactions to the hearing's evidence on point six of Trump's 7-part plan, i.e., that President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump operatives are working overtime with every imaginable rhetorical gimmick to bury the work of the committeedoes not mean that the band's reaction to a witness wearing their shirt to testimony at the committee is not notable. With the story being reported in the Los Angeles Times, there is sufficient WP:notability for inclusion. Banana Republic ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
"Van Totenhove and band members and are all welcome at my family dinner table anytime.... who do you trust more, someone who always believed in (whatever) or someone who looked deep in their soul and then went in the opposite direction?"This is so true, and even more, I fully realize that this guy is quite possibly risking his life by testifying and speaking out very publicly like this, which takes a lot of courage. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the reaction was for the wardrobe choice of one of the witnesses, and not a reaction to the content spoken during the hearing. The witness could have obviously made statements with the choice of wardrobe (
see Melania Trump), but it's not clear that the wardrobe choice had an intended message. This has nothing to do with
WP:UNDUE.
WP:UNDUE only says that the coverage on Wikipedia has to be in proportion to the coverage in
WP:RS. It's a little tough to argue that 2 sentences violates the [[WP:NPOV]|policy of neutrality]] under which
WP:UNDUE falls.
It's an editorial decision whether or not to include this reaction. In my humble opinion, any reaction that has something to do with the hearing which gets picked up by
WP:RS is worthy of inclusion. At the moment, however, that's not the consensus. If a consensus can b
I honestly don't know why the band chose to respond to the wardrobe choice of a witness that has not been affiliated with the Oath Keepers for half a decade, but that's not a factor for inclusion nor exclusion of the two sentences. --
Banana Republic (
talk) 20:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Does anyone know exactly where these hearings are taking place? I'll assume it's in the Capitol, but haven't seen it specifically listed anywhere. We should add it to this article. Thanks in advance. Mtjaws ( talk) 04:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Another Believer: and others. The hearings are not yet finished, but this article has gotten so large that when I pull up the page, I have to wait several seconds before I am able to click on anything. Perhaps consider appropriate forking to something workable for viewers or participants with smaller capacity devices. — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The given citation does not suggest the 3rd hearing was postponed until the next day. Bloomberg notes that the postponed hearing "was to focus on alleged pressure placed on Justice Department officials by former President Donald Trump to convince state election officials to reconsider and recalibrate results of the 2020 presidential election.", whereas the next day's hearing was all about pressure on Pence. The Hill notes "The delay in the third hearing could disrupt the story line arc the committee planned to lay out over seven hearings." Clearly this would not be an issue if Wednesday's hearing was postponed to Thursday's.
Can someone clear this up. Was the Wednesday 15th June hearing postponed to June 23rd? This seems to be the obvious conclusion given the bloomberg quote. Epideme12 ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians - The video link for the first hearing uses the House official site, which refers users to YouTube, which requires an age verification. What do we think about using the C-SPAN link instead of or in addition to the House link? KConWiki ( talk) 03:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This thread relates to this sentence in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I put this in the description of why Fox News didn't cover the hearing live because they knew these text messages showing Hannity was an active participant were already out there and could be featured by the committee at any time, and they sure didn't want to be covering it live during Hannity's normal time slot, when his audience might tune in to discover it. This alone was a good enough reason for them to embargo the whole hearing. soibangla ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The best place to ask that isright here.
these documents were part of the reason Fox didn't air the hearing, but CNN and NYT previously explained that Hannity and McEnany exchanged texts, and post-hearing NPR focuses specifically on "Only one major cable news channel did not carry the Jan. 6 hearing live: Fox News" [2] and reports:
Hannity similarly minimized the harm done, even as Cheney was reading aloud the Fox host and frequent Trump adviser's texts to Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany."
FYI, I invited ORN members to comment here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It is definitely OR to say Fox didn't show the Jan 6 hearings due to Hannity's involvementbut the edit does not say that. soibangla ( talk) 17:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
After Fox announced it would not air the hearings /SO AND SO or SOURCES/ pointed out that text messages had been exchanged between Fox News hosts and Meadows &c.
Now...
Proposed...
Seems like that would bridge the prior and subsequent sentences in this paragraph and tie it all together. Will that work? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind about a recent section heading getting a semicolon to join to clauses.... but will semicolons in section headings break anything in the wikicode (anchors, piped links, TOC) etc? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk)
Judge Luttig chose his words very carefully. He spoke slowly, and precisely.
The wiki page about clear and present danger says this:
"The primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech could be criminalized was the bad tendency test. Rooted in English common law, the test permitted speech to be outlawed if it had a tendency to harm public welfare ..." and the article closes with this: "In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that 'the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action'. Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence."
So even if Judge Luttig was speaking in a historical/cultural context (and not strictly a legal one), I think it would still be helpful to add the wikilink. What do others think? 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
To me, the context indicates a national security/treason/sedition meaning, and definitely not a free speech meaning. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
References
As a matter of current understandings, however, this point is moot. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court read “clear” to mean “likely.” That interpretation has been unchallenged for decades. What I am suggesting thus far is that the unchallenged interpretation seems very hard to defend, because cost benefit balancing is better.(From pp. 1788-1789). Dumuzid ( talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should not wikilink it without a clear understanding of the meaning. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI a new subpoena is coming and the target has already said they'll comply. At issue apparently is a truckload of raw documentary footage from the inner WH. (Talk about the proverbial rock in the pond....) [6] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Here is a link from docs.house.gov that shows a month by month view of events scheduled with this Jan. 6 Committee.
Also a week by week view of events from this congress.gov link, but you need to click through "View this committee schedule" under the Committee Meetings heading to see the calendar.
Because apparently the press & media don't always update their articles to reflect schedule changes, haha.
So can verify this way.
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 20:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|publichearingslede}}}|publichearingslede| A series of five scheduled hearings by the [[United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack]] began on June 9, 2022. The first hearing was scheduled in the evening so it could be broadcast on [[prime time]] television.<ref name=":63">{{Cite news |last=Phillips |first=Amber |date=June 7, 2022 |title=How to watch the Jan. 6 committee hearings and what to watch for |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/january-6-committee-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch/ |access-date=June 7, 2022 |archive-date=June 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606223428/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/january-6-committee-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch/ |url-status=live }}</ref> }}</onlyinclude>
It thwarts visual editing (and hurts my brain in source mode). What's the point? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, so we need to be careful with this!
Someone accidentally deleted the closing tag, and this in turn caused the entire contents of this current page to be pushed & copied over to
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 2022 public hearings
Another issue, is that the page we are pushing this content to is *locked* while the page we are editing here is not locked. So there is an *ahem* loophole in the event a bad actor wanted to exploit such a thing and troll both pages at the same time. Just a heads up! Something to keep an eye on, thanks!
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
<section begin=... />
and <section end=... />
tags can now be moved anywhere else in this article (e.g. into a new ‘Summary’ section - see comments at
§ Someone shorten that lede! below) without affecting the other article, as long as those enclosing tags ‘come along for the ride’.
Jim Grisham (
talk) 23:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Here's what I found so far:
Op-Ed: The insurrection won’t end until Trump is prosecuted and disqualified from future office - Los Angeles Times, 20 June 2022
"In a powerful warning Thursday, the patron saint of the conservative legal movement, former federal appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, testified before the Jan. 6 Committee and pronounced former President Trump and his allies a 'clear and present danger' to American constitutional democracy. As Luttig knows better than most, this historic phrase generates an extraordinary constitutional power of government to act — and a duty to do so.
"Luttig’s verdict should be understood as a plea for Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to proceed toward charging Trump with federal crimes that the public record now amply establishes. Only then will this nation be able to move forward from the ongoing insurrection."
- - -
About the authors of this op-ed: "Laurence H. Tribe is professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard. Phillip Allen Lacovara was deputy solicitor general of the United States, counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, and argued the case of United States vs. Nixon. Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy."
- - -
Please add your own findings, let's compile media analysis here! Thanks! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
this is a screen cap of a short video clip the committee played yesterday:
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1541865092580610048
Hutchinson: "I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast... [7]
People are insisting it was The Beast to assert it was impossible for Trump to reach the steering wheel, and so therefore Hutchinson lied. [8] Not so hard in an SUV.
soibangla ( talk) 18:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
On a related point, I'd like to check my understanding of Hutchinson's testimony against what ya'll think you heard. I think she said Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel was in the office of WH Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Assistant Director, Office of Training United States Secret Service, Tony Ornato. At that time, Ornato "waved" Hutchinson into his office and closed the door. Then Ornato told Hutchinson a tale about Trump in the vehicle transporting Trump from the elipse after Trump's Jan 6 speech. Supposedly, Ornato did not see what happened firsthand. He was allegedly told this store by Engel, who allegedly was in the vehicle. This means that Hutchinson's testimony was a third-hand account (because Engel told Onato who told Hutchinson who told the committee (and due to the TV cameras the world). So when it comes to Hutchinson's veracity and integrity, it does not matter if this really happened in the vehicle. It only matters if Onato spun this story in his office, in front of Engel, and if Engel made no move to contradict Onato. IS that how you all understand this? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I did a partial rewrite of the final two paragraphs of the "Sixth Hearing" section,combining them into a single paragraph and trimming a little of the excess quoting. User:Soibangla reverted my changes. I am OK with that, but I still think the current material is confusing, with references in the wrong place, and the difference between "unnamed witnesses" and the Politico report not clear. I also think the paragraph should start by saying what it is about: Cheney's concern about witness tampering. Not wanting to violate 1RR I am proposing a new version of a rewrite here. It does not remove any material or any references.
In closing remarks, Cheney expressed concern that some witnesses may have been given messages intended to influence their testimony. She said a witness, whom she did not name, told the committee they had received multiple such messages prior to giving testimony to the committee: "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I'm on the team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world." [1] She quoted another unnamed witness being told that "he is thinking about you", that "he knows you're loyal" and "will do the right thing." [1] Two days after the hearing, Politico reported that Hutchinson was the recipient of the quoted communications, prior to her March 7 deposition, and that the "he is thinking about you" message came from an intermediary for Mark Meadows. [2] Cheney stated that the committee was taking allegations of witness tampering seriously and that they would consider the "next steps" necessary to address the issue. [3] [4]
Sources
- ^ a b Marshall Cohen; Zachary Cohen; Alex Rogers; CNN (June 28, 2022). "7 takeaways from Tuesday's shocking January 6 hearing". CNN.
{{ cite news}}
:|author4=
has generic name ( help)- ^ Betsy Woodruff Swan; Kyle Cheney (June 30, 2022). "New details of Jan. 6 panel's mystery messages emerge". Politico.
- ^ Glenn Thrush; Luke Broadwater; Michael S. Schmidt (June 29, 2022). "Hutchinson Testimony Exposes Tensions Between Parallel Jan. 6 Inquiries". The New York Times.
- ^ Kasie Hunt; Ryan Nobles; Zachary Cohen; CNN (June 30, 2022). "Hutchinson was 1 of the witnesses Trump world sought to influence, sources say". CNN.
{{ cite news}}
:|author4=
has generic name ( help)
Soibangla, would you be all right with this version? Or can we rewrite it here on the talk page? MelanieN ( talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The listing of participants may be useful, but will all of this info need to be sourced?
And is there a more minimal way to visually present this? Any ideas? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 05:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It's really problematic in the current format. How about a section at the bottom using a table? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Evackost ( talk · contribs): I see that you're working on cleaning up the presentation & layout of the article, wanna help with this part in any way? Ideas for making the lists of hearing participants accessible but less "up front and center" in the main content/body? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 16:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. There is clearly consensus against shortening the title to "January 6 hearings", but we do have consensus for BarrelProof's unopposed suggestion of flipping the title around. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings →
January 6 hearings – The current title is too long and wordy to satisfy
WP:CONCISE. January 6 hearings
is the
WP:COMMONNAME of the event, and would be
WP:CONSISTENT with
January 6 commission.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 17:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I recently learned (from user:Moxy) that an estimated 70% of readers are on mobile devices, and mobile devices only show the first paragraph before the rest of the screen is filled with the infobox and users have to scroll past the info box to read more. For this reason, I've tried to punch up the important high points in the first paragraph, to try to keep readers engaged before moving on. My bold edit is here NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Republican is capitalixed whenever it refers to the Republican Party. Robert.Allen ( talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems the First Hearing (on June 9, 2022) is really the Second? After all, according to a recent
NYT news report,
[1] describing the upcoming July 12th, 2022 (Eighth?) Hearing:
The select committee has held seven public hearings to date, beginning with one last year (2021) in which it highlighted the testimonials of four police officers who battled the mob and helped secure the Capitol.
- perhaps an updated numbering of Hearings in the main article (and elsewhere) is in order? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
RELATED ADDITION (
Drbogdan (
talk) 12:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)):
"
2021 public hearings" (at "
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#2021 public hearings"):
A public House Hearing occurred on Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:30 am/et/usa entitled, "
The Law Enforcement Experience on January 6th [2021]".
[2]
[3]
According to C-SPAN, "January 6 Committee Meeting with Capitol and D.C. Police: Capitol and District of Columbia police testified at the first hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Witnesses described their experiences on that day and efforts to protect the Capitol and elected officials. Throughout the hearing, graphic video footage captured during the attack was shown." [4] Drbogdan ( talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - just now noticed - Seems my " good faith efforts" to update the hearing numbering in the main article may not be ok for some reason with some editors (see => " User talk:2601:447:4000:220:10D9:20AC:876D:1CC2") - seems we may need an agreement to work this together in some better way - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - Seems this current Re-Numbered Hearing version (more consistent with recent NYT News, [1] and includes the earlier "very first" related 2021 Hearing in the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, [2] previously omitted in this main article for some reason) (at => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack_public_hearings&oldid=1096947703 ) can easily be reverted back to the Originally Numbered Hearing version (ie, before the Re-Numbered Hearing version updated edits) => simply, copy/paste the last relevant stable " Original version" (at => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack_public_hearings&oldid=1096673168 ) - however - perhaps we should wait for Comments from other Editors first - in order to form a " WP:CONSENSUS" (or related) on this Hearing Numbering issue - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: - Seems usual editing is now continuing - using the newly updated Re-Numbered Hearing Version as described in detail above - Further editing of the article is Welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
In the sixth hearing of 2022, Cheney's opening statement [10] referred to the "first five hearings", which from context obviously start with the one when she introduced the 7-part plan. In other words "first five 2022 televised ones". The committee only started organizing their story with counting words starting in 2022 and now we are out of sync with them. AGH GACK CHAOS
It's a very simple problem to solve. Let's just add the appropriate explanatory note that the counting numbers were only started in 2022, so the single hearing in 2021 although technically was the "first" (as in first in time), its not the one the committee labeled "first" (as in first in televised hearing push). That way we can get back in sync with almost every other source that is still using the committee's own self-published counting words. And anyone who hears "Seventh hearing" on the radio when they get home and look up our page will go to the one they expect with minimal confusion.
Ordinarily I'd just do this, but given the context on this page figured I should run it by everyone first. What say you? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
I suggest we replace the table with this short intro paragraph and simpler table
In 2021, early in the investigation, the committee held one hearing that was carried by C-Span but not widely carried by broadcast television. In June 2022, the committee started holding highly-publicized hearings intended for live broadcast. As used by the committee, labels such as "first hearing", "second hearing", et cetera refer to the series of televised hearings. (remember insert cite NYT article)
TV Series Number | Date | Day | Eastern Time | Video | Transcript |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not televised | July 27, 2021 | Tuesday | 9:30 A.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 222:03) house.gov [4] |
NPR;
[5] PDFs [6] |
First | June 9, 2022 | Thursday | 8 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 117:03) house.gov [7] | NPR [8] |
Second | June 13, 2022 | Monday | 10 A.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 114:39) house.gov [9] | NPR [10] |
Third | June 16, 2022 | Thursday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 166:21) house.gov [11] | NPR [12] |
Fourth | June 21, 2022 | Tuesday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 163:17) house.gov [13] | NPR [14] |
Fifth | June 23, 2022 | Thursday | 3 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 155:18) house.gov [15] | NPR [16] |
Sixth | June 28, 2022 | Tuesday | 1 P.M. ( ET) | (C-SPAN; 117:47) house.gov [17] | NPR [18] |
Seventh | July 12, 2022 | Tuesday | 10 A.M. ( ET) | house.gov [19] | – |
Eighth | July 14, 2022 | Thursday | TBA ( ET) | – | – |
If ya'll like and wanna help great, but I'm willing to execute the change. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Done.... at least I think it's done.... please poke around looking for my mistakes! you can fix them, or ping me, whatever... but let's make sure it works for our readers. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that NPR may not have made a transcript available for the July 27, 2021 hearing. I didn't do a super comprehensive search, but couldn't find anything.
The only thing I've found so far is this:
January 6 House Select Committee Hearing Investigation Day 1 Full Transcript
Unfortunately it's hosted at rev.com which is a for-profit transcription service, and I feel super weird about linking to them in the article. They're also not a media outlet.
Can anyone find another source with transcript from the July 27, 2021 hearing? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The lede is ridiculous! Do we really need a paragraph there for every meeting? No. No, we don't. I'm not changing it because it's going to just start an editing/b*tching war that's typical regarding anything to do with politics. Talk it out, folks. 47.12.161.150 ( talk) 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with shortening it, for the reason given by 98.155 above: the lead section of this article is transcluded to the main committee article. That way there is a brief, one-paragraph summary of each public hearing in the main article. I think that is valuable. So even though it may violate WP guidelines about how to structure a lead section, I favor IAR and keep the lead structure the way it is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
__TOC__
magic word)Ok I have had a go at shortening it now. Mebden ( talk) 12:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
<includeonly></includeonly>
, and not <onlyinclude></onlyinclude>
{{#section-h:}}
/
{{#lst:}}
).<noinclude></noinclude>
tags, unless it is desired that the entire article be
transcluded elsewhere.
Jim Grisham (
talk) 21:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)My attention has been elsewhere and I only just noticed the collapsed tables. The MOS invites collapse of tables but only if the table has "consolidated" info that is also in the prose. Remember that our pages are reprinted on many different sites. Its unclear if those sites just have "show" for the table, but without any wikimarkup super wizard software whatever...... readers on other sites might never see what is in the tables here at Wiki. I assume that's why we let tables be collapsed but only if the info is otherwise in the prose, but that's a guess. The problem could be remedied, maybe, by just adding a sentence listing witness names who are not otherwise mentioned in prose. For example, "Withnesses included 1,2,3..." or "Other witnesses who also testified included 4,5,6..." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we cut and chop and mend and elaborate so that.....
Whaddya think? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with 98.155 above. Listing the hearings individually, and summarizing what happens in those hearings, makes historical and encyclopedic sense. For us to try to reorganize the material into what we think belongs under each of the "seven points" sounds worrisomely like Original Research. Has any Reliable Source attempted to organize the material in this way? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please create and add the "reactions" section for the seventh hearing. I was working on the following addition, but then the page became protected before I could submit this edit:
==== Reactions to seventh hearing ====
Immediately following Jason Van Tatenhove's live appearance, author and podcast host
Chris Gethard tweeted, "Am I hallucinating that this
Oath Keeper testifying before congress is wearing a
Descendents t-shirt?"
[1] This was in reference to the black shirt Van Tatenhove wore under his jean jacket during the hearing, which featured cover art from the
pop-punk band's fifth album
Everything Sucks. After images circulated on social media, the band quickly distanced themselves from the far-right militia, stating: "We completely disavow groups like the Oath Keepers and in no way condone their hateful ideology."
[2]
Thank you!
98.155.8.5 (
talk) 07:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverted addition because on further reflection, the band did not react to the hearing. The band reacted to their shirt at the hearing and the band's statement isn't about presidential power and potential collapse of US democracy but protecting their trade name's good repuation. So put it on the band's wiki article sure, but not here. Instead lets start looking for RSs specifically with reactions to the hearing's evidence on point six of Trump's 7-part plan, i.e., that President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Trump operatives are working overtime with every imaginable rhetorical gimmick to bury the work of the committeedoes not mean that the band's reaction to a witness wearing their shirt to testimony at the committee is not notable. With the story being reported in the Los Angeles Times, there is sufficient WP:notability for inclusion. Banana Republic ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
"Van Totenhove and band members and are all welcome at my family dinner table anytime.... who do you trust more, someone who always believed in (whatever) or someone who looked deep in their soul and then went in the opposite direction?"This is so true, and even more, I fully realize that this guy is quite possibly risking his life by testifying and speaking out very publicly like this, which takes a lot of courage. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the reaction was for the wardrobe choice of one of the witnesses, and not a reaction to the content spoken during the hearing. The witness could have obviously made statements with the choice of wardrobe (
see Melania Trump), but it's not clear that the wardrobe choice had an intended message. This has nothing to do with
WP:UNDUE.
WP:UNDUE only says that the coverage on Wikipedia has to be in proportion to the coverage in
WP:RS. It's a little tough to argue that 2 sentences violates the [[WP:NPOV]|policy of neutrality]] under which
WP:UNDUE falls.
It's an editorial decision whether or not to include this reaction. In my humble opinion, any reaction that has something to do with the hearing which gets picked up by
WP:RS is worthy of inclusion. At the moment, however, that's not the consensus. If a consensus can b
I honestly don't know why the band chose to respond to the wardrobe choice of a witness that has not been affiliated with the Oath Keepers for half a decade, but that's not a factor for inclusion nor exclusion of the two sentences. --
Banana Republic (
talk) 20:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Does anyone know exactly where these hearings are taking place? I'll assume it's in the Capitol, but haven't seen it specifically listed anywhere. We should add it to this article. Thanks in advance. Mtjaws ( talk) 04:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Another Believer: and others. The hearings are not yet finished, but this article has gotten so large that when I pull up the page, I have to wait several seconds before I am able to click on anything. Perhaps consider appropriate forking to something workable for viewers or participants with smaller capacity devices. — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)