Talk:January 6

Capitol Incident reverts
Deb Hi! I strongly disagree with the revert that you made on May 26. I respect your thinking and experience, but I believe my mentioning of certain groups on the page is necessary, as it's important to know which groups took part. Additionally, I find it difficult to deem local news (NBC NY), The Independent, and the LA Times as unreliable sources, as all three of these are not only reputable sources but also have generally accepted usage on Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitol attack mention in lead
Hi Bruce1ee, I saw you reverted my shortening of "Since 2021, the terms January 6, January 6th, and 1/6 have been widely used" to "Since 2021, the date has been widely used". In my opinion, including each iteration of the date is redundant. Stating all the versions of the dates isn't done in similar situations, like in the article September 11 for the September 11 attacks.

Looking at it back now, I would change it to "The date has been widely used as shorthand for the 2021 United States Capitol attack." It doesn't exactly make sense to say "since 2021" when it's still 2021. Additionally, the media aren't the only people who have referred to it in that way as shorthand. Next year, we could make it "Since 2021, the date has been widely used as shorthand for the attack on the United States Capitol that occurred that year." to make it consistent with the September 11 article. Could you let me know your thoughts, Bruce1ee? BappleBusiness (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at the way September 11 handles the September 11 attacks, I'm inclined to agree with your original edit I reverted here. As you said, there's no need to include every iteration of the date. —Bruce1eetalk 07:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any need to mention this at all? It seems to me that it's only relevant to the United States. Deb (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If it were just a regular event, no. But first, because the attack is largely referred to as just "January 6", unlike other events on the page, it would be useful to the user to have a sentence in the lead to direct them to the correct place if sent here unintentionally. Second, the event is particularly significant, significant enough to warrant that inclusion in the lead. As for it being only relevant to the United States, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, an event that's significance is largely limited to Chile, is listed on the September 11 page (not to mention that the effects of events in a country aren't limited to that country, and the United States has an objectively larger influence on the world than almost any other country). BappleBusiness (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it "referred to as just January 6" anywhere except the US? It's notable enough to be listed in events, but is it useful in the lead?Deb (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The United States has over 300 million people, and (correct me if I'm wrong) the primary consumer of the English Wikipedia. So even if it's "only" widespread in the US, it's more or less irrelevant in terms of significance. From your messages, I'm not sure if you're unsure about whether it is referred to in the shorthand, but I'm about to add sources to that sentence. BappleBusiness (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see nothing at all in the quoted references to suggest that it is, or is likely to become, "widely used" as shorthand. All of these are US news stories printed within a few months of the event. One is even a blog. Deb (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are within a few days of when I made the edit, in August 2021. There will be no source that isn't a few months from the event, unless you want me to time travel to 2022 or 2023. Despite this, we can still identify a common convention when it is widespread enough. I don't see the aforementioned blog among the sources I listed; I made sure to include national and local news sources, as well as the house committee website simply titled "January 6", an official government source. I have included more references for you from other sources, including one from the BBC, a UK news source, and one from the NZ Herald, a New Zealand news source. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the non-US sources are some use. Deb (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Not clear that we have consensus here. Do we? Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression there was consensus given that Deb acknowledged the value of the sources I provided. With the abundance and variety of sources provided, it is clear that the date and the event are synonymous to the extent that we need to include a mention and link in the lead. It is unclear to me what the issue is at this point. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 03:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this being mentioned in the article lead. When someone mentioned January 6 to me the other day, I had to ask what they were talking about. I don't associate at all that event and the date, even though it was reported here in New Zealand fairly widely, including, as mentioned, in the NZ Herald. I would also refer you all the question I asked here and get some overall agreement before having these sorts of events mentioned in article leads. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that some of the sources have some value in terms of showing that the phrase has been used outside the US to refer to the incident. I don't really believe this usage will last very long. When I hear the term "January 6", I still think of Epiphany and taking down Christmas decorations. Deb (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't relevant if individual editors don't have that association because that's not what the sources say. Additionally, the issue with the longevity argument is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we can't predict the future. There could be an argument to be made that the term "January 6" will fall out of favor post-2021, but we cannot be the ones to determine that.
 * All we know is that the usage is currently commonplace. This is even evident from the page views: from February to November of 2019, this page had an average of 100 views a day. Feb-Nov 2020: average of 135 views a day. Feb-Nov of 2021: average of 322 views a day, over triple just two years ago. This surplus of viewers after the Capitol attack is no surprise, given that the attack is commonly referred to as just January 6, as shown by the many sources I provided. We have a responsibility to make sure readers get to the right place, and if this means putting a mention in the lead (like already done in September 11 for multiple events) so be it. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Capital
In Events stuff on 1/6 2021 is biased towards the progressive agent 75.76.135.37 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Names of the five people who died on the Jan 6 2021 protest at the US Capitol Building
How do we add the five names of the people who died during the Jan 6, 2021 protest at the US Capitol? It would be nice to honor their sacrifice and note how they died. 2601:646:181:8360:1CCB:9204:698:A745 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't add them because they don't have Wikipedia articles. And we don't do "honor their sacrifice"; this is an encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Richard David Macpherson Barnes born January 6, 1961
Add to article: Richard David Macpherson Barnes born January 6, 1961. Geologist. Discoverer of Popcorn Rock in 1981 (living). 2601:681:577F:3110:393C:69FE:99E2:D44F (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There needs to be an article about him, and you need to provide a reliable source. Kiwipete (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pathet Lao Day?
Pathet Lao Day redirects to Public holidays in Laos which doesn't mention Pathet Lao Day. &#x2014;71.105.243.101 (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Now removed, thanks. Deb (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding a hatnote
I came across this page and was about to add a hatnote along the lines of . However, I then saw that other edits to add such a hatnote have recently been reverted.

From my perspective, the addition of this hatnote wouldn’t be to make it seem like Wikipedia is necessarily saying the Capitol attack is more important than everything else that’s happened on January 6 throughout history; but would rather be a case of WP:ONEOTHER disambiguation. Reliable sources are using the term to refer to the attack itself (and events surrounding/relating to the attack). I therefore believe disambiguation is necessary in this case to prevent reader confusion, given that the term is being used on its own to refer to the attack as well as the date. Per WP:D2D, I believe that this is a situation where there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

All the best, user: A smart kitten meow  10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that I’ve boldly added the hatnote in Special:Diff/1191067581, as this proposal has gone a week without objection. (This of course does not preclude any objections being made, I only mention it as I thought it was worth noting.) Best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 11:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to add my post-BOLD support for the addition; there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to the event as just "January 6". WP:ONEOTHER certainly applies. House Blaster talk 02:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)