User talk:Grimeball

December 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Anderson v. Griswold have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to understand what wasn't constructive. I added a direct quote from Trump an example of several from the transcript of his speech that seemed to acknowledge an inevitable Biden administration.  Additionally, the text text you reverted back to uses the word "incite" preceding a quote from Trump.    The direct quote from Trump before the current version starts quoting is omitting the words "We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country".  The current version is biased. Grimeball (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For a start, nothing you added was sourced. To suggest that Trump appeared to be acknowledging that Biden was going to take office is an incredibly controversial claim that requires reliable sourcing (which might be difficult, given the mountain of evidence against it). Your own interpretation of the implication of his words would constitute original research, which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * The changing of the word "incite" was probably fine; incite is indeed a fine word there, since people who are inciting things rarely use the word "incite", so the fact that they didn't use it isn't proof they didn't do it. But if all you had done was change that to "stir up" or "create" or "imbue", that would be fairly uncontroversial I think.
 * The change of "provoke" to "allegedly provoke" made the article less neutral; that Trump provoked the crowd is an issue beyond serious dispute at this point. Whether he actually directed them to do anything specific remains of course a matter of debate, but as it says on the January 6 United States Capitol attack article:
 * "Called to action by Trump, thousands of his supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to support his false claim that the 2020 election had been "stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats" and to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory. Starting at noon on January 6, at a "Save America" rally on the Ellipse, Trump gave a speech in which he repeated false claims of election irregularities, and though he encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to peacefully make their voices heard, he said, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."


 * "His speech contained many falsehoods and misrepresentations that inflamed the crowd."

etc
 * "Trump did not overtly call on his supporters to use violence or enter the Capitol, but his speech was filled with violent imagery and Trump suggested that his supporters had the power to prevent Biden from taking office."
 * If you have concerns about the overall tenor of the article, I would suggest taking them to the talk page. I would also suggest familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's various policies, particularly:
 * Consensus
 * No Original Research
 * Reliable Sources, including Burden
 * Contentious Topics
 * The specifics of the Neutral Point of View policy, including Undue Weight and False Balance.
 * AntiDionysius (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful response. I mistakenly thought the citation of the quote was from the transcript of Trump's speech before the riot.  I see now it is from the New York Times that didn't include the full quote.
 * I will correct this on my next submission and include the quote from the direct source.
 * Regarding original research - I don't believe it is. Trump talks in future tense regarding a Biden administration that is pending.  I agree reporting of the events of January 6th don't include this.  I will look for secondary sources that support that as well.
 * I do have a question on your response that "provoke" vs. "allegedly provoke" is appropriate and the comment that the issue is beyond dispute at this point. The case in Georgia, for example, does not charge Trump with sedition, nor insurrection.  If Trump provoked the crowd, that would be a crime.  And that crime would be tried in a court of law.  And journalistic standards would indicate "alleged" is appropriate until a conviction regarding a person thought to commit a crime.  Even the guy in Iowa who killed the college students is called "alleged murderer".  It isn't clear to me how it is more neutral to make a declarative statement that Trump provoked the crowd.  From the citation you provided from the capitol attack article - that is more neutral.  Trump did call to action to come on Jan 6.  The citation you reference correctly states he made false claims about election interference.  But also makes a specific point to say Trump did not overtly call on supporters to use violence or enter the capitol.
 * This article made the claim Trump provoked the crowd to storm the capitol. So where the Jan 6 article maintains neutrality, this one did not but somehow saying he allegedly provoked the crowd is more neutral.
 * Also - from the transcipt - https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27 - I'm also curious in the Jan 6 article the citations of "violent imagery". I'll look into how that is supported by the transcript. Grimeball (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)