Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack sidebar

"Instigators"

I'm concerned that the use of the word "instigators" accepts the premise that Trump and several other Republicans incited the violence, which is currently a very contentious issue and one we should not take a side in per WP:WIKIVOICE. Thoughts? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The definition of "instigator" is "to goad or urge forward : PROVOKE". That has already been established by numerous reports. An alternate word "provocateur" means "one who provokes" . The word "provoke" means ": to call forth (a feeling, an action, etc.) : EVOKE" . In the Storming of the United States Capitol page, the first phrase in the second paragraph is literally verbatim "Called to action by Trump" which is the textbook definition of provocation and instigation. I remember that was a phrase of very heated debate on that talk page. I highly doubt people placed it there without the knowledge of the appropriate definitions and very contentious back-and-forth arguments for and against (similar to the argument you put forth) and edit consensus. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that it fits for several prominent Republicans, including Trump. However, as we've now seen, the Senate doesn't. We should strive for a more neutral term per [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content the principle of least astonishment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "the Senate doesn't". Are you talking about the Sedition Caucus? Definition wise it is an objective term, and Wikipedia users have already asserted it as fact per WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT, as hundreds of reports have said that they were involved in starting it. Phillip Samuel (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump was impeached by the House for "incitement of insurrection." The Senate decided they wouldn't vote to remove him from office for that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why the section heading isn't "Inciters". Inciting is understood legally from speech. the definition of "instigator" on google is "a person who brings about or initiates something." It's already established that regardless of the incitement issue and what observers think of the "something", those people were responsible for initiating it Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The point that they were responsible for initiating it is in itself contentious, and something we shouldn't take a side in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia users already verbatim stated that, the issue has already been decided. They've already asserted the textbook definition of the word as fact on the page, and the word is now contentious?Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is contentious, that is why editor consensus has put it there for others to use. They've asserted it as fact on the main page, so asserting it on the template shouldn't be an issue either, otherwise, we'd be rehashing the same arguments in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol talk page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What consensus are you referring to? The page 2021 storming of the United States Capitol nowhere uses the word "instigator" (or "instigate" or a similar form). You yourself changed the section in this template to "instigators", and are now trying to defend its inclusion on an imaginary consensus over the term. I am calling you out on this. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not referring to an imaginary consensus. Anyone can access the edit history on the "view history" tab, so as for "calling me out" it's not some big secret. If you are interested in finding others' discussions on it, I think here and here are some of them. There's probably more but those are the ones I found relevant to the lead section. You are right in that the word "instigator" isn't used, however, the definition "called to action" and "At his encouragement" was asserted as fact without quotation marks on the lead section after talk page discussions. I thought this was already resolved, but if you want to talk it out first, then I'll change it back. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

place for oath keepers and proud boys

Should "oath keepers" and "proud boys" be included in both the "instigators tab" and the "participants" section, or one or the other? They helped planned the event, and numerous reports stated that members of their organizations participated in the storming. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think for consistency "participants" should only contain individuals who were there (including people like Proud Boy Ethan Nordean) but I don't feel very strongly one way or the other. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so the organizations should be removed from the "participants" section, and just leave individual persons? Or do you think a separate section titled "organizations" should be made? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Duplication

There is a similar template Template:2021 US Capitol storming. This fact is is discussed at that template's talk page. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Antifa "conspiracy theory"

The generically-named "Conspiracy theory" link to Antifa is a little WP:EGG. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: It isn't a link to antifa per se, but a link to Antifa - Hoaxes and conspiracy theories - Capitol attack (2021). So a link to the "Conspiracy theory that antifa instigated the 2021 Capitol attack", and that's currently the only major conspiracy theory concerning the event. I guess that "Conspiracy theory concerning antifa" could be better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at January 6 United States Capitol attack § Undesirable redundancy between infobox images and sidebar images

 You are invited to join the discussion at January 6 United States Capitol attack § Undesirable redundancy between infobox images and sidebar images. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the main article talk, images duplicated on both sidebar and infobox should be replaced. Neither the gallows nor the outdoor crowds are actually examples of the attack, the sidebar should feature at least one image of actual violence. The template was recently reverted to a version that doesn't show violence. I'll restore the image of attackers inside the capitol and chop the duplicate gallows image that's already used in the main article. Feoffer (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo is too big

The photo in this sidebar template is way too big. Sidebars are meant to be unobtrusive navigation templates. For those that have photos, the photos are merely decorative. Here, the photo is huge and dominates both the template and pages that where the template is used. The gallows image is even larger than most of the other images in articles where the template is used. I propose to remove the image altogether, as it adds nothing to the template. Long sidebar templates also frequently cause disruptions in section breaks in articles, so there should be very good justification for long templates. Here, there is none. Ergo Sum 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As there is no opposition, I have removed the photo. Ergo Sum 00:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)