Jump to content

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

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

    What?

    Was this written by the DNC, MSNBC? Who? Not up to standards of neutrality. Who reviews that? I wouldn't know where to start other than all over again. Venqax (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could list it at the neutral point of view noticeboard. There's nothing wrong with making small improvements yourself, either—correcting a few sentences at a time, or adding inline cleanup tags such as {{POV statement}}. Remember to keep your edits constructive and factual, of course. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 18:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Venqax: Where you start is by identifying specific portions of the article you believe are non-neutral. You not liking the facts of what happened on that day doesn't make it non-neutral. Wikipedia does not give fringe theories or conspiracies "equal weight" to the actual facts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conservapedia is → thataway. I'm sure they'll have an article more to the liking of those who view actual neutrality as left-wing bias. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this isn't conservapedia Nohorizonss (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeff'd
    The fact you perceive to know exactly what true neutrality is already demonstrates that you don't. MutedL (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What a farcical response. I could say "the fact that you perceive to know exactly what your true gender is already demonstrates you don't." You couldn't be bothered to read the policies on reliable sources and neutrality, eh? You didn't bother to look at the communities list of sources considered reliable and unreliabe before spouting off. "It's better stay silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". You just removed all doubt. As I said, the Conservapedia article on this subject may be more to your liking. Go there. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice strawman, but I'm not the one who was begging the question. QQ harder that people have a problem with the obvious left-wing slant of this trash article, I don't care. MutedL (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deeper and deeper. Still haven't read any of the policies, have you? You still can't recognize a reliable source, can you? You still haven't pointed out anything specific that is a problem, either with a source or with the prose. This isn't a forum for complaints, it's for discussing article improvements. Are you going to suggest anything specific, or not? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the policies actually, enough to know that this article includes The Daily Beast as a source, which according to wikipedia guidelines, is not reliable. How about that for something specific, numb-nuts? MutedL (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, something specific. Had you actually read WP:DAILYBEAST, you'd see that there is no consensus about the reliability about Daily Beast. All would agree it's an opinionated source, but that doesn't equate to partisan. They do tabloid journalism that attacks both the left and the right.
    So let's have a look.
    • The first citation (#35 at this time) is apparently the only one we have reporting on the number of protesters (five) who were hospitalized, and it's cited only in the infobox. That could be removed, but there is no reason to doubt that some were hospitalized. However, I think this should be removed because it's WP:Original research, which isn't allowed. The article actually says "At least six people were hospitalized on Wednesday, including one law enforcement officer. Three others died due to medical emergencies during the riot, police said." One could conclude that 5 of those 6 were protesters, but the source doesn't actually say that. We could remove it with no consequence.
    • The second citation to the Daily Beast (#106) is corroborated by multiple other sources: The Intercept, CNN, and Arizona Republic. Removing it would not weaken the statement that cites it.
    • The third citation to the Daily Beast (#144) is there only because the Daily Beast made news reporting a comment posted on "The Donald" forum: "I'm thinking it will be literal war on that day. Where we'll storm offices and physically remove and even kill all the D.C. traitors and reclaim the country." At the time the FBI was also viewing this and other forums, giving warnings about armed protests. The Washington Post and others also reported on it. This is established fact, documented in the article.
    • The fourth citation (#489) says that Rosanne Boyland, who was initially reported as being crushed to death under other rioters, actually died from an amphetamine overdose. For the purpose of this citation, the Daily Beast is as good as any other source. It's been corroborated by Fox and others too. Nothing unreliable about this citation.
    What, specifically, would you change about these? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus for reliability indicates that it is not found to be reliable. Reliability is something that is shown to be proof positive, not simply being found reliable because they are not categorized as "unreliable". Secondly, Wikipedia very blatantly states that only in very special case circumstances could they be used as a reference and due to the extreme subject matter we're dealing with, they do not fit that criteria in regards to the genuinely unbiased nature we are looking for. What I suggest is to have all Daily Beast references and quotes excised in their entirety. If you have quotes from other sources, use those instead. It doesn't really matter whatever The Daily Beast posts as "established fact", if it's established, then you should easily be able to find it from a reliable source, and if not, then it is in fact NOT an established fact. That's how that works. MutedL (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect; there is no presumption of nonreliability. No consensus means no central consensus has been established, not that the source can never be used. We appear to have agreement on removal of the "number hospitalized" number and source. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read the policy on neutrality. If this article reads like a CNN analysis, that is the standard of neutrality. If you disagree with the policy, then you need to get it changed on the policy pages, because editors are supposed to follow it on every page. TFD (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Viability of citing YouTube content by credible sources like the New York Times.

    I want to edit certain sections about events from that 6th of January using a New York Times documentary called 'Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol' (which actually has its own Wikipedia page), which is available on YouTube, however I'm unsure if I should use it as a citation, because even though this was made by a reputable source, there is in my opinion a negative connotation in Wikipedia about using YouTube videos as sources.

    Here's the documentary that I'm referring to: [1] GabMen20 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The negative connotation comes from people trying to cite any random YouTube video, especially because many videos on YouTube are copyright violations that weren't posted on YouTube by the copyright owner.
    This video, however, is published by the NYT on their own YouTube channel, so it isn't a copyright violation, and you can cite it, preferably with time indexing so people can jump to the correct place in the video for verification. Just be sure that if you cite somemone stating an opinion, that it's correctly attributed as that person's opinion rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! However, I don't know how to add a specific moment in the video that pinpoints the moment that I would be writing about. Could you help me out with how to integrate it into the link that would be set up for said moment in the documentary? GabMen20 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you use the actual youtube.com URL, not a link shortener URL. That would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0 in this case. Then you just add a time parameter. For example, if I wanted the playback to start at 12:32, I would add &12m32s (12 minutes 32 seconds) to that URL, as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0&12m32s - YouTube automatically translates this to the start time in seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0&t=752s - so either 12m32s or 752s would work. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot! Will definetly use it in further edits. GabMen20 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GabMen20,youtube is not a reliable source,but reliable sources do post on it,i would say you can cite reliable news sources that have posted on youtube such as the new york times,but do not cite a random channel, UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 19:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So. This article just underwent a page move.

    I must have missed the discussion/RfC/whatever it was, wherever it took place. Can someone point me to it? Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Number of casualties

    according to new york times 5 people died,meanwhile this wikipedia article says 6 people died [2] UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1256207168"