Talk:Michigan prosecution of fake electors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 19:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that initial plans called for the Michigan fake electors to hide overnight in the Michigan State Capitol? Source: "Cox described how some Michigan Republicans considered hiding Trump electors overnight in the state capitol to make sure they could gain access to the building when it came time to meet. She testified that she thought the idea was 'insane and inappropriate' and helped make sure it did not happen." [1]

Moved to mainspace by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Michigan prosecution of fake electors; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment Seriously, have we sunk to the level of where we present statements made by prosecutors in ongoing investigations as facts? Dahn (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was made by Michigan Republican Party chair Laura Cox to House investigators and reported by the Washington Post. It doesn't come from prosecutors and appears to not even be included in the indictment. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a claim, not a fact; it is made in the context of an ongoing investigation; and, what is more, it is made about living persons. We don't abandon those standards just because it is about a case involving Trump. In fact, the entire article needs to be reworded to distinguish verified facts from claims made by this and that alleged participant. Dahn (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an "according to" phrase could be added to the hook. But everything in the article itself is cited to a reliable news source; the indictment itself is not used as a source at all. There is no controversy that most of these events happened, though the judicial process will decide whether or not they are crimes. If you have specific sentences in the article that could benefit from an "according to" clarification, please let me know. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dahn: I've made some edits to qualify or remove some statements where it seemed appropriate. Also, here are alternate hooks. Let me know if you find anything else. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22: part of the problem, as I see it, is that you are relying on the secondary sources to report this information accurately. As is often the case, the media tends to shorten, paraphrase, and rewrite the original story to make it more palatable for general readers and viewers. In this case, I think it would be instructive to go back to the Jan 6 final report and see how the story was altered for presentation. When you do this, you find the following on p. 354:
"Former Michigan GOP Chair Laura Cox told the Select Committee that an attorney who "said he was working with the President’s Campaign" informed her that the Michigan slate for President Trump was "planning to meet in the capit[o]l and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote in, per law, in the Michigan chambers." She said that she "told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate," and that she warned Michigan’s senate majority leader as a precaution.(106-107: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Laura Cox, [May 3, 2022], pp. 53–54.) Instead, the group of fake electors in Michigan signed their paperwork in the State GOP headquarters, where staff told them not to bring phones inside.(108: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Deposition of Mayra Rodriguez, [Feb. 22, 2022], pp. 14–18.)
Although there isn't much difference, you can see there's a bit more to it than Laura Cox making the claim. It turns out, she got it secondhand from an unnamed attorney. While I have no reason to believe it isn't true, it's odd that the attorney isn't named in the report. And if Cox is repeating something she heard from an unnamed source, one has to be a bit more skeptical simply because it can't be verified. Check the rest of your article to make sure this isn't a problem elsewhere. For me personally, as long as it clarified that Cox got the information from elsewhere and this material is found in the Jan 6 report, I don't have a problem with it, but others likely might, and you might want to strike that hook for this reason and focus on more solid aspects of the case. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the hook, because I can't defend it as a classically defined "fact", and since it is not important or relevant to the overall case that you are writing about, another hook should be created. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck all of the hooks based on my assessment above. Please find other hooks that are based on facts that are unlikely to change. Laura Cox's claim is based on an unnamed source (at least in the Jan. 6 report) and I can't see how a secondhand account based on an unnamed source on a controversial topic could be used as a hook. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Thanks for pointing this out; I've revised the article text to include this. How about this hook? Or do you have ideas for anything more interesting?
ALT3: ... that some of the Michigan fake electors attempted to enter the State Capitol, but were turned away by the state police? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22: I'm reading through the article now. The planning section could use some copyediting and refocus on the narrative. If you read it as someone who knows nothing about the topic (beginner's mind), it can be a touch confusing. For example, you don't connect the dots between Biden's victory and the plan to produce false electoral vote documents. Lots of sources do this, so I'm sure you can find one. For readers unfamiliar with this topic, you really need to explain this. You may be able to gleam some ideas from Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case), but this CBS News report gives an example of how to do it: According to the indictment, "when Trump could not persuade state officials to illegally swing the election in his favor, he and his Republican allies began recruiting a slate of fake electors in seven battleground states". You're missing the "when Trump could not persuade state officials to illegally swing the election in his favor" part that connects Biden's win with the false elector scheme. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I'm not really sure that this article needs an extended narrative about the interactions with the state legislature, as only the would-be electors themselves are defendants. The beginning of the second paragraph of that section already succinctly makes the connection you mentioned. That being said, this sort of copyediting is outside the DYK criteria, it's more more something I'd expect to see at a GA review. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread what I wrote. Read it again. I’m not asking you to expand the narrative, I’m asking you to connect the dots, because as someone who knows this topic, I found the background confusing. It sounds like you are in favor of reverse chronology? That’s not a style I find helpful for the reader. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New review needed. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Okay, I think I see what you mean, I rewrote the section a bit. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long enough, new enough. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. ALT3 short enough, interesting, and sourced (initially to two sources, though WP:NEWSWEEK is no longer a reliable source and I so took it out myself). Every paragraph has a citation. Good to go.--Launchballer 16:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michigan_prosecution_of_fake_electors&oldid=1204183153"