Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theJanuary 6 United States Capitol attack navbox template. |
|
 | This template was considered fordeletion on2021 January 9. The result ofthe discussion was "Keep for now". |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
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 andWP:UNDUE in their articles, even though they didn't go inside. –Novem Linguae(talk)08:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we limiting "Participants" to people who actually entered the Capitol building? I addedAli Alexander because he helped to plan one of the rallies that led to the event and has been implicated by RS in inciting the storming. Given that the entire day's events, including the rallies, are described at2021 storming of the United States Capitol I figured that was appropriate. However if we are limiting this only to people who entered the building, I believe it's correct to exclude him.GorillaWarfare (talk)23:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See alsothis related discussion. --Distelfinck (talk)23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting thatCategory: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)[reply]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by1.157.56.226 (talk)23:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can be removed. What social media were used for planning the attacks is covered in the2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, and that Parler got removed from app stores after the attack is covered inAftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol --Distelfinck (talk)17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like how theAftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol andTimeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol links are hiding in the blue areas of the navbox. They are easy for readers to miss. Is there a way to fix this, or is this standard practice for Wikipedia navboxes and I just need to get used to it? Thanks. –Novem Linguae(talk)19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Regarding the addition ofSedition Caucus: I do feel the term is directly related to the subject, since without the storming, the term would not have come to relevance. The point that makes the group of legislators' actions constitute sedition (to some) is that the Capitol was stormed, which these same critics have described as insurrection, coup d'etat, terrorism, rebellion, overthrow, etc., and also implied that the Sedition Caucus had a hand in inciting the events. While the term was used by press to some small extent beforehand, it was with the knowledge that something would happen on Jan. 6, and the term was used to criticize these select Republicans in Congress for facilitating it. Thus, the term is directly tied to the event. To be clear, I am NOT asserting that these legislators were engaged in the storming, which is why I placed the item in "Related" rather than "Notable participants." I am open to other views, and I am initiating this discussion perWP:BRD.AllegedlyHuman (talk)04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{2021 storming of the United States Capitol}} now exists as a sidebar. Why do we need both a navbox and a sidebar with the same information? Certainly not both in the same article. Is there a distinction and a guideline for when to use which one?Elizium23 (talk)04:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about recent edits to the section "Platforms used in planning".WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says we should include this Navbox in the mentioned articles, and vice versa. But it is really a stretch to include it in an article like Facebook. That navbox would be huge undue weight in the Facebook Inc. article. As such, I would be in favor of only including alt tech companies (these are much more relevant/related to the storming of the US capitol), or removing "Platforms used in planning" entirely. Thoughts? Thanks. –Novem Linguae(talk)11:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sectionremoved. --Distelfinck (talk)
(edit conflict) My concern, and reason for adding the mainstream platforms, is that it seems to imply thatonly 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 PostGorillaWarfare (talk)20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section should be removed, as navboxes should follow a (rough) principle ofWP:BIDIRECTIONALality. —Goszei (talk)03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y2kcrazyjoker4. Just an FYI, moving this may have been premature. The main article's recent move is currently atmove review. –Novem Linguae(talk)22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
