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.

    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]

    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]

    See the Notes section. Specifically footnotes A and B. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the notes section, where the description in footnote B says:
    5 deaths from the attack: (1 from gunshot, 1 from natural causes with one stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition") Two people also died from natural causes and one from a drug overdose that day. 4 officer deaths by suicide within seven months of the attack
    Presumably, that 5 is listing the 1 gunshot, 3 natural causes, and 1 drug overdose. Ignoring the original research problems of claiming 3 natural causes and 1 drug overdose as "attributed to the attack", how does one get to the mysterious 6th death? The only combo that works out for 6 would be some odd counting where the gunshot victim, the drug overdose victim, and 4 suicides are counted, but the 3 natural causes on the day of/after are not counted. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A police officer was beaten, a rioter was shot, and three others died during the rampage."-New York Times,that counts up to 5 UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, we are talking about the lede. I would ping the user who edited the text from five to six, but they are a vanished user. I can ping TheXuitts who made this edit on October 2nd which changed the text from and three died of natural causes, including a police officer to and three died of natural causes, and a police officer died after being assaulted by rioters which seems to have added an additional person. @UnsungHistory: If you want to revert it to the exact text used in the version in September and go from there, then I am fine with that if there are no objections. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V,the exact text used in the version in September says 6 deaths still UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't? Within 36 hours, five people died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes, including a police officer. Are we still talking about the lede or am I missing something completely? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how long this has been running for, I will just go over the entire article and try to get everything at consistent. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnsungHistory and KiharaNoukan: Done. Please see the following sub-section. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    November 20th edit

    Okay, splitting this off as I believe that the above problem has been resolved in some way. Personally, I don't like my edit, but any number errors should be resolved by it. As far as I could tell, only the lede, infobox, and the casualties and suicides sub-section list the number of people who died during and following the attack. (Technically, the notes do as well, but the ones involved all seem to originate from the lede and infobox.) The Casualties and suicides sub-section only lists the number from suicides and names everyone individually, which I do not believe has been discussed in any way.

    As far as I can tell, there are only three spots that what should be said needs to be determined: The fifth sentence of the first paragraph which mentions those who died in the 36 hours from the start of the attack, the results parameter which is displayed as Resulted in in the infobox, and the fatalities parameter which is displayed as Death(s) in the Casualties and criminal charges area of the infobox.

    I am pinging everyone whose edit to the lede sentence was active prior to my edit to see if we can get some sort of consensus about this, excluding one blocked and one vanished. I cannot easily do so for the infobox, but will ping the two users I did find in the last eighteen months who mentioned the infobox parameters or something similar in their edit summaries and who did change those parameters or notes regarding the deaths. If it is believed that I should have pinged someone, then I ask that anyone who has been excluded be pinged on my behalf. Pinged for input:Y2kcrazyjoker4, FinnSoThin, LongIslandThomist914, NSNW, Ganesha811, MalborkHistorian, Popcornfud, PentagonPizza, TheXuitts, Loytra, and ROBLOXGamingDavid. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have received the ping and by reading your statement, it led to me having to think about what to do with the two repetitive sentences "The deaths of nine people" in Resulted in, but there is already a casualties section within the infobox and, I hadn't been doing this after I had left it alone for months now, but I am just about to do so and say... that perhaps the former sentence, with the note I had laid out, may have been redundant or slightly unnecessary and that it will be removed (if you may like). This is of my note that transcribed the following (for those other than the sender, who just saw):
    "Including two people involved in the attack by direct causes, four Capitol police officers directly involved in the attack by suicides, and three others of whom two people died from natural causes and one died from a drug overdose. See Casualties and suicides section."
    As for this kind of fix, the note specifically summarizing who and when they died will stay (what I'm about to do after removing this note of mine, is to move the hyperlink to the Casualties and suicides sub-section from Resulted in down to the notes about Death(s). There'd be some slight rewrites for better understanding (if possible), but I'm just letting you and everyone else know. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up: edited it out just now and split up notes in Death(s) for each side of the civil conflict (Pro-Trump milita/supporters & US Capitol Police). ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did alter the wording of that note with my edit, so that might have been why it sounded off. Personally, I am not as concerned by the notes and only reworded the one to lay out the nine deaths. (Also personally, I don't like my change from six deaths to nine deaths among other adjustments, but that is what this sub-section is for.) In any case, thank you for your edit and hopefully this will resolve any issues with the infobox side of things. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made edits to add correct descriptions and add detail about the specified deaths and added a more up-to-date and specific factcheck.org source, beyond the immediate January 2021 reporting that is frequently filled with errors from inaccurate early info, namely about Sicknick and Boyland.
    There is no evidence that 2 of the rallygoers who died were "rioters", so I changed them to rallygoers. Per factcheck.org: Metropolitan Police Department incident report at the time states that Greeson “was in the area of the United States Capitol in attendance of first amendment activities” when he had a heart attack.; “There’s no indication Philips himself participated in the raid on the Capitol.”
    The officers were not uniformly capitol police and include MPD, so that was changed to police. At least one of the officers's deaths is believed to have 0 connection to the riot, others are up in the air. - Authorities drew no connection between the riot and his death. An official familiar with the investigation said Hashida had struggles beyond Jan. 6 that could have played a role.
    It's worth noting that if I look at other incidents, like the 9/11 terror attack, where first responders died from suicide much later on, I do not see their deaths added to infoboxes. I imagine it does not also generally include Manhattan residents who happened to suffer heart attacks or overdose on amphetamines the day of the attack. Given that multiple deaths listed in the infobox have tenuous to zero connection to the attack, grouping it all together can give a highly misleading impression, so I separated them out by cause and date. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough about Greeson and Philips. Regarding the suicides, there have been less discussion about them. It seems that there was past consensus to not include them in the infobox a week after the attack, but that was changed over time as seen 3.5 months later. (Archive 10 discussion - January 2021; Archive 16 discussion - April 2021) I think part of the reason it is included presently is due to the Senate report ::::saying that at least seven people died in connection to the attack.
    There was a discussion back in June of 2023 (Archive 21) that did suggest having a potential RfC about part of the situation. There is also an interesting comment about some consensus about the number in the infobox, but I haven't figured out which discussion it is referring to despite multiple searches. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Title

    Shouldn't the title be called "January 6th" rather than January 6? I feel that January 6th sounds more formal than saying January 6. Rager7 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:DATE says not to use ordinals. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Rager7 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack&oldid=1260639061"