Jump to content

User:TachyonJack/brainstorming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  • opening and closing
    • independant of systems of orginization
    • included with whatever other system I come up with
  • how to organize
    • chronologically
      • week one
        • text
      • week two
        • text
      • week three
        • text
    • by part of trial
      • organized by witness
        • evans
          • direct examination
          • cross examination
        • Pelt
          • direct examination
          • cross examination
        • etc.
      • organized by part
        • direct examination
          • Evans
          • Pelt
        • cross examination
          • Evans (by irving)
          • Pelt (by irving)
          • Irving (by rampton)
      • organized by side
        • claimant
          • opening
          • cross examination of witnesses
            • pelt
            • evans
          • cross examination by rampton
          • direct examination of witnesses
            • Watt
            • Keegan
            • that evolutionary historian (forgot his name)
          • closing
        • defense
          • opening
          • direct of witnesses
            • Evans
            • Pelt
          • cross of witnesses
            • Irving
            • other claimant witnesses (watt keegan, etc.)
          • closing
      • organized by general routine
        • openings?
        • define routine
          • defense direct of witness
          • irving cross of witness
          • rampton cross of irving
        • routine applied to each witness
          • Evans
          • Pelt
        • closings?
    • by subject (note that these divisions could substitute for any division by witness)
      • divided in half (the trial itself was divided along these half's)
        • Aushwitz
        • Everything Else (basically all about irving)
      • divided in three (according to the defense strategy)
        • Aushwitz (showing that no reasonable historian would have cause for doubt, implying irving is not a reasonable historian) (done by Pelt Browning and Longerich)
        • Irving's political associations (done by funke)
        • Evidence of Irving deilberately manipulating the historical record (done by evans)
      • divided in 5 (according to the distinct defamatory claims that Lipstadt's statements were divided into by the judge)
        • what to do with ruling section?
          • get rid of the ruling section, and append the findings the judge made about each of these claims onto its particular section
          • keep the ruling section
        • how this division would look
          • defamatory claim
            • evidence provided by defense
            • evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
            • judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
          • next defamatory claim
            • evidence provided by defense
            • evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
            • judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
          • etc.
  • how much stuff should be included
    • how much evidence should I include
    • how much of the proceedings should I report
    • how much of the atmosphere (for instance the reporters and spectators) should I describe
    • do i even need a section on the trial?
    • what about the reports? should i include some of their contents?
      • is this ultimately about the trial itself or about presenting evidence for the holocaust
    • to what extent should i model,say, other featured articles about law cases
      • they all seem to be, shall i say, less detailed, less involved
        • is that just because of the cases they are describing
        • should I myself be modelling those articles?