Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:8800:7029:6100:6015:5900:bd4d:427c (talk) at 20:41, 20 February 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 6, 2021.

    Template:Vital article

    This whole article has a left leaning bias

    WP:NOTFORUM
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



    This article needs to be redone to remove all the political bias involved. The vast majority of people never entered the Capitol. Of those that did, a few broke windows or doors to get in, and most just walked in through open doors with the police right there not stopping them. The vast majority just walked around within the Capitol not destroying anything or injuring anyone. The way this is written you would think it was a mob that destroyed everything within the capitol and carried away all the stuff inside. Very, very few things were removed from the capitol. Very few things were vandalized, maybe a sign or two, and a few windows/doors. To say that people broke into the Capitol, vandalized and looted it is inflammatory and just feeding on the hype of the media. Also to make it sound like the rioters/protesters were there to overthrow the government is also inflammatory. Yes, maybe some thought they could stop/disrupt the electoral counting, but clearly it would just delay something that was going to happen, and by disrupting/delaying it, they would show their displeasure with it. This is not so different than people that attended Trump's 2017 inauguration and tried to disrupt it. Were they also trying to overthrow the government by preventing Trump from taking the oath of office? Most just wanted to show their displeasure with the election. A very small may have thought they could hold the Congress, but probably smaller than I can count on one hand.

    It is really simple. Trump was upset about losing. He made claims about the election being rigged. Some people really believed that. Trump said they need to fight for their country (something politicians on both sides of the isle have done many times before and after this event). Trump suggested that they let congress know that they do not like it, but clearly said to do it peacefully. Many people were at the capitol before his speech, and during the early parts of it. Those that started the breach either did not attend his speech or left during the early parts of it and went to the Capitol. By the time most people that attended the entire speech arrived, there were no police barricades, the doors to the Capitol were open, with police just standing there watching people go by. Some rioters attacked police and they should go to jail. Those that broke windows and doors should go to jail.

    So please rewrite this article with a neutral basis and not all the hype of the media/left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.125.38 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, it might be worth taking a peek at WP:NOTFORUM. It's generally a good idea to propose concrete changes to an article rather than more abstract critiques. If you'd like to draft a replacement article, I am sure people would be willing to give it a look, though no guarantees on inclusion or acceptance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Article title evidentiary standard

    What standard of evidence must be met to change this article title to 2021 United States coup d'état attempt? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A preponderance of WP:RS calling it such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s pretty obvious that this will be the eventual conclusion of the 1/6 commission investigation once they’ve published their final report. Will that suffice? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pure WP:CRYSTAL. I'm personally persuaded that if this event had occurred in Nigeria or in Sudan, RSes might refer to it more uniformly as a coup attempt, but that can't be the standard. Feoffer (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. I’ve been following the investigation pretty closely. It’s clear they are dealing with an attempted coup. Now, just to be clear, if the report describes it as an attempted coup, and RS report that, will that meet the evidentiary standard to change the title name? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking the wrong question; there's no correct answer. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, we don't know where the line is. It's up to people at New York Times, the BBC, Der Spiegel, NHK, etc. TBH, I think editing wikipedia would be very stressful if we were going around trying to make editorial decisions ourselves based on the perceived merits. We just summarize the reliable sources, which aren't [yet???] using the word coup as the common name. Feoffer (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you'd need to establish consensus for the change in title. The "standard of evidence" required is whatever is sufficient to convince editors that that title is better. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up question: what safeguards are in place to prevent consensus from overriding facts and reality? For example, I’m fairly certain that a controversial close might make use of multiple editors/admins that could conceivably sift and weigh the close beyond sheer supports and opposes, and put more weight on the strength of the detailed arguments instead of blanket supports and opposes with little argument. Would that be an accurate observation, such that a potential close would go beyond consensus by numbers alone? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationale are weighted not counted. Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Closers are instructed to give little weight to invalid rationales. When a preponderance of RSes call it a coup, we will too, even if that's unpopular with some. Feoffer (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the abstract, I agree with you, however, in practice, Wikipedia doesn’t do this. See our featured article on Ronald Reagan as only one of thousands of high-profile examples. That article is written not from the perspective of the preponderance of sources, but from a pro-conservative, pro-Republican POV, which intentionally, deliberately, and methodically downplays the negative qualities of the subject and their record, and cherry picks and promotes the positive aspects. I am seeing the same thing occurring here in many respects. To me, this reflects the systemic bias of Wikipedia, and shows there are few controls or preventative measures to contain or minimize it. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in spite of the left-wing bias, right-wing bias seems strongest when dealing with GOP presidents, especially TFG. Whitewashing is rampant. -- Valjean (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you should be raising your concerns at WP:VP, then. This is an article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as our featured article on Ronald Reagan refuses to account for the total, abject failure of the polices of Ronald Reagan, as shown by many sources, such as the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, which examined fifty years of Reagan-esque policymaking and proposals and their total failure to live up to their policy promises, so too does this article title fail to account for the consensus of relevant experts in their respective fields who classify this subject as a coup, in spite of the so-called "consensus" which refuses to accept this evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you have a bit of an axe to grind, but our actual naming policy is WP:TITLE. It lists the five criteria we use when determining an article title, none of which is "consensus of relevant experts in their respective fields". A discussion at an article talk page can't override policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You want WP:VP/P. We do in fact include the viewpoint that this was a coup attempt in the article, and discuss it in more detail at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. VQuakr (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very much aware of all of that. My concern is that the article title in this instance, not the content, diverges from the mainstream, established consensus on accurately describing the event. Your framing of my concern as "axe-grinding" perfectly illustrates the post-truth political framing at work here. On one side, we have the reality based community, a preponderance of expert sources who describe this event as an attempted coup. But on the other side, we have a personality cult of politicians and entertainers, who call this event an act of "legitimate political discourse". This is not just overt whitewashing, it is the blanket denial of facts, evidence, and data. The two "viewpoints" are not remotely equivalent. Facts matter. Reality exists. I am not grinding an axe when I repeatedly observe Wikipedia taking the side of a myth-making, fantasy-building, contingent of alternate fact-making editors in multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Viriditas, yah, it was a "soft" coup attempt, but the true gravity of that day never set in..... all we can report on/use are the sources available. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas: As I see it and as multiple media reports indicate, the coup attempt was larger than the January 6 event. It certainly appears that the events of January 6 as reported on this page were part of the coup attempt; but in that view, to label the events reported by this page as the coup attempt would be misleading as that would suggest that the January 6 capitol riot was the totality of the attempted coup. Friendogen (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking up the earlier description of WP featuring a "a pro-conservative, pro-Republican POV", who better to exemplify that POV than Mitch McConnell – "McConnell calls Jan. 6 a 'violent insurrection,' breaking with RNC". NBC News. 8 February 2022. Retrieved 12 February 2022. . . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an ongoing discussion regarding changing the name of the Ashli Babbitt article

    Since Babbitt is a notable person of the Capitol attack, I am posting the move request discussion link here [1]

    Not only do I disagree with the suggested name change, I also disagree with including it in a "bulk move" format. I posted my concerns at ANI earlier [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oldsmar man had explosive device near Jan. 6 anniversary rally in Pinellas, sheriff says

    This may be useful for the article:

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2022/01/07/oldsmar-man-had-explosive-devices-near-jan-6-anniversary-rally-in-pinellas-sheriff-says/

    Baxter329 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) == Death Count Why are individuals whom medical science has determined died of natural causes or causes outside of the incident being counted as deaths from the incident? At best, this should be a foot note stating that ("Early on, it was believed Brian Sicknick, Rosanne Boyland, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Philips, were considered casualties of the event, but later were determined to be from natural causes or causes outside of the events at the Capitol."). Because of this article, other sources are declaring that 5 people died because of the events, when in reality the count is only 1.[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1073060106"