Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox template. |
|
 | This template was considered for deletion on 2021 January 9. The result of the discussion was "Keep for now". |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | Law Enforcement | |||
| ||||
 | Politics: American | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Sociology: Social Movements | ||||||
| |||||||
 | United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Government / History | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | U.S. Congress | ||||||
| |||||||
I'm still on the fence about this, but I wonder if maybe we should reduce the size of this navbox to cover only events directly related to the storming of the US Capitol? That would be the following articles:
- 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
- Jake Angeli
- International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
- Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
- any additional articles that get spun out of the main article
- the article on the commission that investigates the storming, once that gets created
Right now I worry that the navbox has too many links that are only loosely related to the topic. And I also worry that this navbox could get placed in articles of people that just attended the protests outside, and serve as a bit of a badge of shame and
- Having a section "Background" seems useful (although individual links within that section might be argued against). Having a "Related" section also seems useful, and its label clearly indicates that the links in it don't necessarily have a strong relationship to the topic --Distelfinck (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Participants
Are we limiting "Participants" to people who actually entered the Capitol building? I added
See also this related discussion. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've commented there, mostly to clarify someone else who was mistaken. But it'd still be nice to have some kind of guidance here, particularly if that category is deleted or renamed and this still just says "participants". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, Before reading this discussion, I changed "Notable participants" to simply "Participants" because I think "notable" is implied. I, too, came here to ask how "participants" was being defined. There were many other notable people involved, obviously all the politicians on site, but that's too general. Is "Insurgents" too biased? Something along that line.. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good question. I would be in support of limiting it to people that just went inside the building. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Noting that Category:Participants_in_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol has just been speedy-deleted after a brief discussion at CfD, so I'm not sure that BLPN discussion will give much guidance for this template given the primary subject of discussion is moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is there an "Alt-tech" section?
This seems kind of strange: the links are simply to social media providers' Wikipedia pages. They may be linked in the articles (due to relevance of organisation on them, etc), but their presence in the template is hard to justify, I'd have thought. Is there a particular reason they're there? Perhaps Parler under "see also" due to the public fallout, but the articles linked under this section don't have a direct relation to the focus of the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.56.226 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. I removed Telegram for now, "capitol" is not even found in that article. We may be able to remove more if we get consensus from other editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Can be removed. What social media were used for planning the attacks is covered in the
Timeline and aftermath links are hiding a bit
I don't like how the
- Re Timeline link at the top: Agreed, I actually missed it myself the first time I looked at the box. You see links in this place quite often though (e.g. in Template:Martial arts, Template:Jimmy Carter and Template:Barack Obama). Maybe we can bring this up somewhere where more people will see it, WikiProject Navigation templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility seem to be a good places.
- Re Aftermath link in left column: Pretty much standard, link color quite different from non-linked text in the left column, seems hard to overlook?
- --Distelfinck (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the rest of this navbox is looking pretty good. I'm a little worried about the "Related" section though. I am worried that the items in that section are not strongly enough connected to the storming. Any interest in deleting the section? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed Latinos for Trump, which did not mention the storming. All the other articles had significant coverage of the storming, and should probably be left in. Elizium23 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Sedition Caucus
Regarding the addition of
Duplication
{{
- I absolutely agree with this. These templates have exactly the same info. Choose one or another, like at talk) 07:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)]
- I agree that we should pick one. I personally prefer navboxes, but I am happy to go with the consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Platforms used in planning
I'm concerned about recent edits to the section "Platforms used in planning".
- Agree. At this point, saying something was planned over Twitter or Facebook is like saying it was planned on Planet Earth. Undue weight. talk) 12:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)]
Section removed. --Distelfinck (talk)
- I've reverted this removal, as there was no consensus for it and a talk page discussion is ongoing. talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)]
- AllegedlyHuman, just to clarify, my post also advocates possibly removing the problem section. I think that would be an acceptable solution. This idea of giving tech companies scarlet letters (giant navboxes of controversial issues) in their articles is not particularly appetizing to me. Any more than we should give television networks scarlet letters for covering wars or controversies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies talk) 00:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)]
- My apologies
- AllegedlyHuman, just to clarify, my post also advocates possibly removing the problem section. I think that would be an acceptable solution. This idea of giving tech companies scarlet letters (giant navboxes of controversial issues) in their articles is not particularly appetizing to me. Any more than we should give television networks scarlet letters for covering wars or controversies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My concern, and reason for adding the mainstream platforms, is that it seems to imply that only alt-tech platforms were used to plan the storming. It has been shown that mainstream platforms played a significant role also, for example:
Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg has sought to deflect blame, noting the role of smaller, right-leaning services such as Parler and Gab.
... A growing body of evidence shows Facebook played a much larger role than Sandberg suggested.
The #StopTheSteal hashtag was widely used on the service until Monday, when a search on Facebook reported that 128,000 people were talking about it and in many cases using it to coordinate for the rally, according to Eric Feinberg, a vice president with the Coalition for a Safer Web.
And two dozen Republican Party officials and organizations in at least 12 states posted on Facebook to coordinate bus trips to the rally, according to research by the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America, which published screenshots of the fliers and memes.
Washington Post GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah also "Some pro-Trump extremists used Facebook to plan Capitol attack, report finds". The platforms are interchangable and if they were no Facebook, the extremists would have just used whatever was the major platform then or used telephones. The section needs to go, it's not interesting --Distelfinck (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be removed, as navboxes should follow a (rough) principle of
]Recent move
Y2kcrazyjoker4. Just an FYI, moving this may have been premature. The main article's recent move is currently at move review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)