Talk:Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Third hearing postponed

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/jan-6-house-committee-postpones-scheduled-wednesday-hearing

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• If interested, a bit more detail => The third hearing, originally scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, has been postponed due to "technical issues" - the next scheduled hearing is on Thursday, June 16 at 10 A.M. (ET) - see "January 6 Hearings" for schedule of hearings. - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 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)

I changed the language to clear up the apparent inconsistency. Hopefully this is okay.

But we still don't know about which future hearing this postponed hearing correlates to. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of C-SPAN links instead of or in addition to YouTube links

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)

(A) Good question, thanks for asking it. For starters, I have no clue about Wiki P&G about "potentially disturbing" content, but if such P&G exists, we should follow it.

(B) If we're allowed to do easy viewing of this content (without age verification) I'm in favor of it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:@KConWiki:On June 16, 2022, the New York Times reported YouTube deleted Jan. 6 Committee’s video of excerpts included in the televised hearings, saying the committee was advancing election misinformation on its official YouTube channel because it included a clip of Trump sharing election misinformation about the election on the Fox Business channel. "The excerpt, which was uploaded June 14, included recorded testimony from former Attorney General William P. Barr. But the problem for YouTube was that the video also included a clip of former President Donald J. Trump sharing lies about the election on the Fox Business channel." In the clip, Trump said, "we had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden’s account." YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi defended the company's action.

I would think if YouTube is doing this, than alternative video sites should be used. 1--P37307 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(OMG) Thanks for telling us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OMG is right. I was surprised they did it on the official Jan 6th's account. P37307 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

So I just added C-SPAN video links to the table for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd hearings. They may not be elegant, but they are functional. If anyone wants to present them in a different way, then feel free, but at least they are there now. Any concerns, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Just calling attention again to this convo, since it seems like there is ambiguity about what YouTube has blocked. Looks like they just blocked some of the shorter clips, and not any of the hearings in their entirety, correct? Or did they actually blank out segments of the longer videos that we've linked to here? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of this discussion and it's not that important to me, so if someone has a good reason to include the C-SPAN videos they can go ahead and restore them.[1] soibangla (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Previously disclosed text messages between Hannity and McEnany

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)

You might be right, but that's textbook WP:Original research. Please delete the sentence. Note that the two references that support it both pre-date the hearing, so they have nothing to do, verifiability-wise with Fox' decision to not air the hearing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What do others think? soibangla (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The best place to ask that is at the WP:Original research noticeboard NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you can find RSs after the hearing that says these documents were part of the reason Fox didn't air the hearing, then just substitute the irrelevant sources that now follow that sentence. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

1) The best place to ask that is right here.

2) regardless of what I described here, the edit does not say 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."

What do others think? soibangla (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

re 2, the only reason it doesn't say that is because you left it out and left out anything to answer "So what?". How is this relevant to the "coverage" section as you claim? Implied OR is still OR. So instead of dragging this out, how about finding applicable sources? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You and I have had our say, and it appears this might be becoming a drama, so I suggest we pause and you refrain from responding to my twice-requested "what do others think?" soibangla (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I invited ORN members to comment here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I find that an unnecessary escalation seeing as no other editor on this article has yet responded. soibangla (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Best way to not escalate is to not discuss other's behavior outside of usertalk and ANI, but in article talk stick to content issues and P&G as they apply to content.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Best way to avoid an escalation into totally unwarranted drama and conflict is to exhibit just a modicum of patience for other editors active on the article to respond, rather than immediately summoning others who may not be familiar with this topic at all. soibangla (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I confess, I am a big fan of noticeboards because I am impatient (also I came because of the notice). Perhaps we could use some form of the sentence and perhaps attribute it to this article? Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Dumuzid. Soibangla, subject familiarity is one thing, P*G knowledge is another. Consensus policy explicitly policy encourages reaching out to WP:NOTICEBOARDS which are "administration pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The best approach is to demonstrate just a minimum of patience and courtesy to allow responses from editors who know both the content and the policy. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely OR to say Fox didn't show the Jan 6 hearings due to Hannity's involvement. Only Fix News can say definitively why they opted not to run it. The source Dunyzid has above could be used but it would have to be claimed attribution. --Masem (t) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely OR to say Fox didn't show the Jan 6 hearings due to Hannity's involvement but the edit does not say that. soibangla (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I moved it from the "coverage" section to the section where we present the content of the hearing and you moved it back to the "coverage" section with edit summary (link at top of thread) "{{tq}this belongs here}}" Fine, the sentence does not explicitly say those things. But it also doesn't say why it belogns in the coverage section. So why do you think it does? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I already explained it to you, right up top. It's one thing to provice analysis on Talk, but the content in the article itself is not OR. It is a flat statement of fact consistent with a reliable source. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, the potential RS you suggested is predicting what Fox will do. I could be wrong, but I don't think we knew the Fox stuff would be featured at the first hearing. So its still hard to use it to support the text of the existing sentence, at least as it is being used to comment on what Fox actually did do. IMO NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I think it is easily resolved by pointing to the Fox News announcement; something like

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.

As ever, reasonable minds may differ! Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a fine formulation, but the question remains whether this really matters for reporting coverage or reporting Fox' involvement in trying to overturn the election. The Hannity-Meadows stuff should go where it is actually relevant... as part of the evidence to show a coordinated effort by Trump and allies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that it belongs in both places, with different emphases, but that's one I will have to mull over a bit. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have a point there. We already say Fox had been helping with the Big Lie. Wouldn't hurt to add that they were communicating with the WH while doing it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Dumuzid that this information belongs in both places, with different emphasis. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed text change

Now...

During the weeks following the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity promoted Trump's election fraud narrative.[45][46] Previously disclosed text messages between Hannity and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany were presented during the hearing.[47][48]

Proposed...

During the weeks following the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity promoted Trump's election fraud narrative. At the same time, multiple Fox Hosts remained in close touch with Whitehouse staff,[3], including an exchange of at least 82 texts offering input and seeking direction that Hannity sent Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.[4]

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 quite like this proposed text, although I still think it bears mentioning in coverage as well. perhaps in an even briefer sort of way (my proposal above may serve as a general idea). soibangla, I would be interested to hear what you think? Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was proposing this for coverage to resolve the weird "out of the blue" sentence in the middle of the paragraph, that lacks obvious connection to the rest of the paragraph. I'm also interested to hear what you think, Soibangla? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

technical question re semicolons

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)

Both colons and semicolons seem to work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Another sucker for empirical evidence! Too funny. (Third parties, if you have to ask...see version history.)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

clear and present danger wikilink

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)

Well I first wikilinked it and another ed reverted. We talked some and I was convinced that wikilinking in the quote at least gives the idea that a particular meaning was intended by the judge. As this is a technical turn of phrase, and of a former legal standard, I'm persuaded the far better approach is to let the judge's words get parsed by observers and we can report what they say about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am the reverter mentioned, and while I understand the argument for including it, I think it is sub-optimal. The test is no longer good law, and it seems self-evident (to me, at least!) that the judge was using the phrase in a non-specific way. By adding the wikilink, we're implying that he meant there was some connection to the free speech line of cases--and I think that's misleading. As ever, if consensus is against me, no worries. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Cinematic version of the phrase tied to "All enemies, foreign and domestic" [5] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay yeah, makes sense to rely on sources for the interpretation of what that phrase may or may not mean, and to reference from that. Thanks for clarifying! I think Luttig was being very careful with his words, so there should be some media analysis at some point that will extrapolate more on the importance of his statement. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:49, 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)

That's what it meant to me, too, but we can't rely on such opinions due to WP:OR/WP:NPOV In the course of this discussion, as I've read and thought, it is possible the judge meant both. He might be teeing up future court action to muzzle the Big Lie, because of the bad tendency / clear and present danger he believes it presents to the Republic and her citizens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I don't believe the judge would be doing that by citing a test that is no longer the state of the law. Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that "clear and present danger" is not a living breathing element of US law. Some sources I've seen say it is still alive, and what has changed are the elements that go into establishing it. Our discussion has been useful to start mapping out the scope of confusion but we're still at the starting line, waiting for some persuasive RSs to roll inNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC) BTW, check my most recent contribs. I've already found one "Failed verification" in our articles on those doctrines, so I'd be slow to hang your hat on our articles, at least before they get high quality review from relevant wikiprojects. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am relying on the words of the Supreme Court. While the majority does not explicitly say it is doing away with the test, the concurrences certainly see it that way. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ETA: the fact that the court has neither cited nor revisited Schenck in the fifty years since Brandenburg is telling in and of itself. Judge Luttig would know that under current first amendment jurisprudence, "clear and president danger" is simply not enough.

By chance are you a lawyer and did you read the actual opinions, or summaries about them? I'm not a lawyer, but have done loads of research and ghost legal writing and don't have time to jump in the rabbit hole with you, I was just wondering so I can better weigh your opinion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

PS I'm not going to amass research to argue the point, but I'll share one RS on which I'm raising these thoughts. From the "tease" to an article I have not read we find this "Under American free speech law, in sharp contrast, an important contemporary test for the regulation of speech involves “clear and present danger.” This is from the Cornell Law Review, and one would think they know if it is alive as well as the judge, and I can't imagine the judge using an important phrase that's relevant to history's dustbin. So, your analysis may be spot on. But I'm still waiting on outside RSs to shine light on our path forward. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm actually happy to discuss who I am with you, but I would rather this be decided on the arguments rather than perceived authority (or lack thereof). I would encourage you to read the text of Brandenburg v. Ohio; it is neither too long nor overly complicated. You'll see, as I said, that the majority kind of hedges its bets, but the concurrences are explicit about doing away with clear and present danger. The test is still sometimes said to be part of the law (as in the Sunstein article you reference), but Brandenburg means the showing alone is not sufficient--there must be intent to cause lawless action and a likelihood of imminent lawless action. This is well-known in legal circles. It might serve as sort of a predicate for speech issues, as you say, but I think Judge Luttig meant it in a far wider sense than that. And if it was speech he meant, he fell fall short of a compelling case that anything fell outside the protections of the First Amendment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't resist pointing out that Sunstein's use of the phrase seems to be rhetorically pointed; he thinks we should return to jurisprudence something like that, so: 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)

edit conflict

If as you say its not in the controlling majority opinion... its not in the controlling majority opinion and I'm baffled why we're arguing as though it were. Supplemental views in concurring opinions are about as important as opposing views in dissenting ones.... very important for the future evolution of legal thought but...well..... still not in the controlling majority ruling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Right -- and sorry to belabor the point, but even under the per curiam opinion in Brandenburg, "clear and present" is not enough. They are necessary but not sufficient conditions. Dumuzid (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, that sounds very close to the few RSs I saw that suggested "clear and present" is alive but with somewhat changing elements necessary to establish it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is just to say I am well and truly stopping now, and despite my logorrhea, if the consensus is that it should be wikilinked, you will hear no caterwauling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:31, 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)

Raw Whitehouse footage

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)

Hearing Schedule info

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)

What's up with the complicated wikimarkup in the lead?

<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)

It lets United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 2022 public hearings transclude just those two sentences. Seems like overkill to me, especially since it the bolded self-link looks jarring there. —Cryptic 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Visual editing should work again within the lead section, due to the changes mentioned below. Jim Grisham (talk) 23:47, 21 July 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)

I just fixed that (on both pages), since that other page was still transcluding this entire page into their section. The new tags should (hopefully) be easier to understand and less intrusive.

(also, by not having multiple paragraphs enclosed in a template, the potential for inadvertent errors should be much smaller)

Everything between the <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)

articles that mention Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger" phrase w/ analysis

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)

Trump was not in the Beast

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)

Okay, thanks for clarification. It was confusing because of the repeated mentions and talk of "The Beast." I guess within the White House, they may also call the SUV version "The Beast" as well? Or maybe there was just confusion in the moment, during all the chaos that day and White House folks got their terminology wrong. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, it would be good if we can find a source that clarifies this discrepancy and cite that in the article. Especially with the claims that Hutchinson was being dishonest. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A good example of the dangers of WP:RECENTISM; give it a few days and the RSs will sort themselves out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

So, complete and utter WP:OR on my part, but I get the sense that "the Beast" has come to be used as something more of a designation than an absolute title--the way any plane that carries the President is "Air Force One," I think the jargon has evolved such that any of the President's armored vehicles is referred to as "the Beast." Again, not proposing inclusion in any way and very much agree with NewsAndEventsGuy -- it will sort itself out. But thought I would throw out my solution to the cognitive dissonance. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Same thought occurred to me. Perhaps if POTUS climbed in an Amish buggy secret service radio calls would report movement of that buggy as "Beast in route..." and being horse-drawn, it would be unclear if beast meant the vehicle, engine, or passenger.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 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)

Yeah, I just re-watched the clip.

Ornato waved Hutchinson into his office, closed the door. She saw Engel sitting in a chair looking "somewhat discombobulated and a little lost" and she then looked at Tony Ornato, who relayed the story to her. Engel (who was sitting there the whole time) apparently did not disagree or offer any corrections to the events, as presented to Hutchinson. No corrections to this story were ever made by Ornato or Engel after the fact, according to Hutchinson. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the material about witness tampering

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." 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." 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. 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.

Sources

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)

Yes, the Politico report conflicts with what CNN and others previously reported. I was scratching my head about how to reconcile this when I added the Politico report last night; maybe CNN will issue a clarification, but we need to fix it somehow. I'll need to circle back to this later, thanks for bringing it up. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine. I do think we should keep it to one paragraph and not get into a lot of back and forth about who reported what. This should be an afterthought - and not take away from the thrust of her testimony. Anybody else want to chime in here? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your version is very good. I say go! soibangla (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Good job Melanie! It resolves the likely-mistaken assumption that the "he" in "he is thinking about you" refers to Meadows himself. It is Trump, not Meadows, who is the beneficiary of any "loyalty" and lying about these events, so the "he" is likely Trump, but without clear sourcing, we can't say it. We can just keep your wording that the "message came from an intermediary for Mark Meadows," who was likely referring to Trump. Your version is a Solomonic solution, and this isn't the first time you've provided such a wise solution. Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

new subsection listing participants / recorded testimonies / etc.

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)

Listing participants who speak is useful so researchers quickly know which transcript to look up. I may or may not have input on your other questions later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it just seems too dominant & takes up a lot of space (and sort of supersedes content about each hearing's details).

I wonder if it could go into a sidebar/infobox or something? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:47, 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)

I like the table idea. When our articles get echoed on other platforms, do tables and infoboxes...uh.... "show up", for lack of a better word? Anyone know? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 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)

@98.155.8.5 It may be possible to reduce vertical space taken up by using tables instead of bullet lists.

I disagree that the participants list at the top is harmful. What most people want in this kind of article is a score card / synopsis, with citations for truly in-depth coverage. Evackost (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it is significant information. Just takes up a lot of screen real-estate in its current format. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

...which is why I suggest using tables instead of bullet lists. Tables, unlike bullet lists, compress on the Android app (and IIRC, do so by default). Evackost (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• How about making this a discussion before an actual move request? This is premature without such a discussion. A change might be good, but too much brevity can lead to an uninformative title. I'd suggest a bit more info, such as Congressional hearings about January 6 attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A discussion before an RM is unnecessary and time-consuming. This RM is already the discussion. As for your suggestion, that title is still way too long in my opinion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lean oppose for a few reasons. First, this was spun off of another article, which underwent a similar (but unsuccessful) move proposal, see Talk:United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_the_January_6_Attack#Requested_move_11_June_2022. The reasoning there seems applicable here too. Also, I believe the two should march together, so one should not change without the other. Also, I bet a nickel that if the US house flips to GOP this fall, there will be some new GOP led stuff calling itself "january 6 hearings" and if that happens and its WP:notable enough for an article, they should have distinct names. Finally, the "rules" are useful, but I'm not seeing any real problem being caused by using the committee's formal name. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A lot of sense here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with the outcome of that other discussion, because it would be WP:CONSISTENT with other House Committees. This one, however, is not bound by that (it's not a committee), and instead should be consistent with January 6 commission, as noted in the nomination. The part about GOP-led hearings after the Midterms is pure WP:SPECULATION and not grounds for blocking a move; future RMs can address any issues with disambiguation. Finally, the current title is too long and clumsy, I highly doubt readers will take the time to type 11 words into the search bar. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Our redirects means lazy readers at the search bar is a non-issue NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We should make it consistent with the other House committee, where it was recently decided to keep the full formal name of the committee as the article's title, with a redirect from January 6 committee. It should NOT be consistent with January 6 commission, which never existed and did not have any hearings. The proposed title January 6 hearings is already a redirect to this article, so it is not necessary to "type 11 words into the search bar". And if future January 6 committees are set up in a new Congress, we can figure out how to title the various entities at that time. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Brevity has its place. But not here IMO. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Flip it around for readability, to become Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Flip it around to Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack per BarrelProof. Graham (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Flip it! although I said "lean oppose" above, this is even better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Flip it around per BarrelProof. Yes, this flows better and still comports with MelanieN's concerns. The current title is awkward. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• I could live with this "flipped" suggestion - which is already a redirect to this article. It will be a bit of an outlier - I don't find any other "Hearings of" or "Public hearings of" articles - but there are many "Report of" articles and this would be analogous. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Agnostic about flipping it, but opposing "January 6 hearings" for the same reason I opposed moving the committee article to "January 6 committee". [9] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose changing it to "January 6 hearings" as I think it's best to stick with naming conventions and consistency. Agree the title is incredibly long, but we can add redirects to correct the problem of folks having a hard time finding the page. Indifferent about "flipping it" around. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• COMMENT I already not-voted above. Since this was just relisted I'd like to observe that there is zero support for the proposal and it could be easily closed as a failed proposal. Then we could do a separate one on the idea of "flipping it around", just so the closing ed(s) can have an easy time of it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Flip it around per BarrelProof. While that's still a long title, with the words "Public hearings of ..." at the beginning of the article name, the article name becomes more clear as to what is the subject of the article. If we need to abbreviate for length, we could shorten to "Public hearings of the January 6 committee", but I don't think that would be advisable. While in today's world the words "January 6 committee" is clear, this would likely not be the case 3 or 4 decades from now. Banana Republic (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All-important first full paragraph

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)

Great idea!! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

YW, I tried to say that just by clicking "thanks" but I guess that button is bestowed on IPs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that this transcludes with the rest of the lead to the parent article about the committee itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

when to capitalize Republican or Democrat etc

Republican is capitalixed whenever it refers to the Republican Party. Robert.Allen (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you, I needed to hear this. I tweaked the heading for the sake of researchers later going through talkpage archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

And I have fixed the capitalization in the first paragraph. "Republican", "Democrat", and "Democratic" are capitalized whenever they are referring to the American political parties (as opposed to something like "a republican form of government" or "a democratic election" where the word is used in a general sense). Words like "chairman" or "president" are only capitalized when they directly precede the person's name: we say "Chairman Bennie Thompson" but "Bennie Thompson, who serves as chairman". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What about capitalization for "congressman / congresswoman" such as "Congressman Cruz" or whatever?

And is "congressional aide" or "congressional hearing" capitalized? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If its part of a formal name, like the "P" in President Trump then cap it. Otherwise, until I hear otherwise I'll use small case. (In practice I am Probably inconsistent.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What NewsAndEventsGuy said. A title immediately before the name gets capitalized, such as Representative Cheney or Congresswoman Cheney. A title that is not before the name, such as "he was elected president", is lowercase. And while "Congress" is capitalized, "congressional" as an adjective, such as "congressional hearing" or "congressional committee", is not capitalized. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

First Hearing (on June 9, 2022) really the Second?

Seems the First Hearing (on June 9, 2022) is really the Second? After all, according to a recent NYT news report, 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]".

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." Drbogdan (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Possible (temporary?) fix for the concern was added to the current main "United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack public hearings" article as "this edit" (and more, including a modest related article restructuring) - should be ok (at least for the time being) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:58, 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)

The June 9, 2022 hearing was the first to actually be held on the House floor itself rather than in just a committee chamber, like what was featured in the video you sourced. Video showed a small committee room, and not the far larger House of Representatives chamber which has hosted the recent hearings.2601:447:4000:220:10D9:20AC:876D:1CC2 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank You *very much* for this information - new to me - nonetheless - seems public hearing numberings of the committee, regardless of location, may be preferable - and more consistent with the "NYT News link" described above - the main article now seems pretty much stable with the new Hearing numberings at the moment - Comments Welcome on this concern from other editors of course - additionally - further edits by editors to help improve the article even more so are also always welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 hearings should really be the focus of this article; the 2021 hearing is separate from its work in 2022. The renumbering has also made the article out of sync with the numbering presented by NPR/CQ and other news outlets. Evackost (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: - Seems this current Re-Numbered Hearing version (more consistent with recent NYT News, and includes the earlier "very first" related 2021 Hearing in the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, previously omitted in this main article for some reason) (at => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)

Proposal on sensibly going back to former count

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)

FWIW - For my part - seems there are THREE possible article Hearing systems being considered: 1. "Former Count" (that omitted the very first July 27, 2021 Hearing for some reason), 2. "Former Count + Plus" (but now including the very first July 27, 2021 Hearing) and 3. "Current Newly Updated Count" (seems consistent with NYT News and Congress) - please understand that I'm flexible with this issue at the moment, and would support whatever WP:CONSENSUS (or related) is finally determined of course - Comments Welcome from other Editors - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

We are silly to use any counting words that differ from what the committee itself uses and millions of people hear when they tune in. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know which counting method seems more "mainstream" and widely accepted, but if we had to change from the version we are using now, then we could possibly refer to the 2021 panel as a "preliminary hearing" or something, basically making it "hearing 0" on the chart. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hearing schedule

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	NPR; PDFs
First	June 9, 2022	Thursday	8 P.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 117:03) house.gov	NPR
Second	June 13, 2022	Monday	10 A.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 114:39) house.gov	NPR
Third	June 16, 2022	Thursday	1 P.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 166:21) house.gov	NPR
Fourth	June 21, 2022	Tuesday	1 P.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 163:17) house.gov	NPR
Fifth	June 23, 2022	Thursday	3 P.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 155:18) house.gov	NPR
Sixth	June 28, 2022	Tuesday	1 P.M. (ET)	(C-SPAN; 117:47) house.gov	NPR
Seventh	July 12, 2022	Tuesday	10 A.M. (ET)	house.gov	–
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)

Looks good to me!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks UPDATE... better to wikilink "Eastern Time" in the header and delete the redundant ET links (If ET hasn't called home yet, just repeating his name over and over probably isn't going to help) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok by me as well - Thanks for your help with this - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Let's hear it for teamwork!.......ok, I'll go for itNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

please look for my goofs

 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)

transcript for the hearing last year on July 27, 2021

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)

FWIW - seems a partial NPR transcript (with highlights and related "soundbites") of the July 27, 2021 Hearing may be at the following link => https://www.npr.org/2021/07/27/1021051613/police-are-the-first-to-testify-at-jan-6-house-select-committee-hearing - suggests there may be a more complete transcript - but not found, so far - iac - hope this helps - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Several of the witnesses submitted written testimony. PDFs (one for each witness) are here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone shorten that lede!

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)

Part of the issue is that the lede is being transcluded here: United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#2022 public hearings Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the OP. I'll be back with a proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 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)

That content could still be moved to a ‘Summary’-type section immediately below the introduction.

1. It could remain above the table of contents, if desired (e.g. using the __TOC__ magic word)
2. That new section could just as easily be transcluded into the other article

Best of both worlds? Jim Grisham (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok I have had a go at shortening it now. Mebden (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If the intention was to hide some of the detail from the lead section, I believe those tags should be <includeonly></includeonly>, and not <onlyinclude></onlyinclude>

(see Help:Transclusion § Selective transclusion, WP:Selective transclusion, and the parser functions {{#section-h:}} / {{#lst:}} ).

That former set of tags is also usually used alongside <noinclude></noinclude> tags, unless it is desired that the entire article be transcluded elsewhere. Jim Grisham (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(oh, just saw the other comments above - I guess that wasn’t actually a recent change) Jim Grisham (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed tables

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)

Could these tables be converted to infoboxes that float to the right of the synopsis text about each hearing? Then they wouldn't be collapsed like that. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

sure it could but would that be better? I work on a fullsized desktop. Recently (see my talk page) I learned that nearly 3/4 of our readers read on mobile devices. Plus more readers read our articles as repackaged and republished on scads of other platforms. Whatever we do, should be well-thought out to maximize relaxed comprehension by all those readers. I don't know how infoboxes work either on (A) mobile devices or (B) news aggregators that republish our stuff. Does anyone know? Does anyone have ideas who to recruit to guide us on these technical questions? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I'm on a desktop also. I just clicked the "mobile view" link at the bottom of the article, and noticed that it displays the June 9 viewership table as floating left as opposed to right, and without any text wrapping around it.  : /  Not optimal. So I'm not sure how other infoboxes or tables would be presented in the mobile view. Would be good to have an expert on board to offer technical advice. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

major reorganization proposal

I'd like to suggest that we cut and chop and mend and elaborate so that.....

• A. We have a section for each hearing date, in which we list witnesses, describe notable logistics, and do a super-summary.... the view-from-the-moon summary of the topcis covered and
• B. Create a brand new section containing seven parts.... one part for each of the 7 points in the 7 point plan. Remember that the 7-part plan text was crafted to match up with various legal criteria necessary to establish criminal conduct. We should report on the LOGISTICS of the hearings by date (section A above) but we should report on the CONTENT of the hearings organized according to the 7 points the committee is trying to establish. The problem this would solve is that any given hearing might touch on more than one aspect of the 7 part plan. Doing it this way will best consolidate the evidence that supports each point of the committee's alleged 7 part plan.

Whaddya think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea in theory, but in practice it sounds really hard haha (maybe I'm just being lazy!). For example, I'm sure certain witness testimonies (e.g. specific impactful & notable quotes) will fall under multiple sections of the seven-part plan obviously, so there will be some tough decisions to make about placement. Also, what about super important info that doesn't quite seem to have a perfect fit within the seven-part plan structure?

I'd really hate to see any of the pivotal findings (or more subtle but important details) that have been revealed in hearings just deleted from the article because they "don't seem to fit" well into this new seven-part plan structure. I think that's my main concern. Anyway, if enough folks are into it then I'm sure we can figure it out. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:25, 11 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 is a cool concept and would be very helpful for readers to have a section in the article that lays out the key pieces of evidence for each of the different parts of the seven-point plan (like a Cliff's Notes version). Finding an article that has already done this (perhaps in the coming weeks once the hearings are finished?) would be optimal, or piecing it together from multiple articles that have touched on different elements of the seven-part plan etc. Just a thought! To have a condensed section similar to the original proposal, but without a total reorganization of the existing article. Maybe something like that?

Let's hope that the final hearing provides this framework, and that they make the case for each part of the coup attempt plan explicit by stating the key facts and supporting evidences for each claim! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the 7 part plan should be a template for 7 stand alone articles, and the leads of those articles should be transcluded elsewhere. I'm presently working on a draft for the first one in my userspace, and anyone is welcome to message me or use the userspace talk page. See any userspace file with prefix 111. But you're right, it IS a huge task and I'm not in any big hurry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This idea will especially have more relevance as any legal proceedings or DOJ investigations move forward. Then the allegations presented with the seven-part plan will begin to be measured up against the committee's evidence & other findings etc. Will check out the userspace once I figure out how hehe. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

click on my contribs; at the bottom is a link for my userspace pages. See you there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

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?" 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."

Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? A right-wing former militia member wearing the t-shirt of a leftist punk band during a hearing about Trump's coup attempt, and the band's response is undue? Hmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If the second sentence was removed would it be any less of a promo? It seems like the band is correct to want to distance themselves from this dude and it should be noted, as he appears to be misrepresenting them. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:30, 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? Anyway.. this is enough

Van Tatenhove wore a shirt promoting an album from the pop-punk band Descendents, which prompted the band to issue a statement disavowing the "groups like the Oath Keepers" and their "hateful ideology."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Good info, but added with slightly different wording. Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. --Banana Republic (talk) 13:39, 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)

While the band's reaction can certainly go on the band's Wikipedia article, the band's reaction is certainly a reaction to something that happened at the hearing, and belongs in this article. --Banana Republic (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's not dissolve the importance of this topic in an ocean of WP:UNDUE verbiage. That's a rhetorical tactic to defeat a message when it can't be rebutted with evidence. I'm not suggesting this is your intent. I'm assuming you are acting in good faith. However, a lot of Trump operatives are working overtime with every imaginable rhetorical gimmick to bury the work of the committee. Let's not unwittingly help them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no Wikipedia policy WP:USEFULIDIOT. Just because Trump operatives are working overtime with every imaginable rhetorical gimmick to bury the work of the committee does 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)

With WP:Verifyability being satisficed, WP:Notability is the only criteria for inclusion. --Banana Republic (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You're confused..... the notability policy is relevant for one-and-only-one thing, i.e., does the topic merit an article or not? And that is the only thing WP:NOTABILITY tells us. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE (for the point that just because it's verifiable in RSs doesn't mean it merits inclusion). As you say the matter is reported in an RS. So the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE. We agree it merits inclusion at the band's article. We disagree about it belonging here. So far it's really just you and me discussing this and there is no WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. You are welcome to RFC the matter and get more input. There is little reason to try WP:DR because I think we have already fully explained our different points of view but if DR makes you happy, I'll go along. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry everyone!! I didn't intend to turn this into a big thing!! A sentence about this can be added or not, it doesn't matter a lot to me. I just figured it was one tiny reaction about a thing related to the hearing in a sea of other reactions! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also apologies for my hastily written comment above, I wasn't trying to demean Van Totenhove, and agree with what you said NewsAndEventsGuy: "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)

Reaction to choice of wardrobe

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)

It is not just UNDUE here, it is OFF TOPIC here. The band didn't respond to the hearing and the band didn't respond to their shirt at the hearing either. I said that earlier but I was wrong. The band merely responded to other people talking about their shirt at the hearing. In other words, the band was doing public relations specifically damage control. It belongs on their article, not here. And I have a question.... that original source who you tried to mention? What did they say about the HEARING? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Location of Hearings

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)

From january6th.house.gov:

390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

According to Wikipedia, it appears that this office building is connected to the Capitol via underground pedestrian tunnel. Dunno about any media sources that specify the location, but I'm sure we can find something. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to fork?

@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)

What might that look like? A new separate article for each of the hearings? If that were the case, then I'd think that most of these hearing summaries would need some serious work and lots of expansion/additions to fill them out. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)