Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Did Pelosi get told by Trump to have more guards/police/etc.?

Did Pelosi get told by Trump to have more guards/police/etc.? Seems pretty notable if so. But I saw nothing in the article about it by searching for Pelosi. Misty MH (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a common falsehood that has circulated, which is why it's not in the article. See this fact check by the AP. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he offered National Guard support for DC police but Nancy declined. Eegorr (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a falsehood. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Or, no he did not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This fact-check by AP provides no evidence or fact that Trump did *not* order more security. It basically just states that the claim Trump did order more security is not true. I have no idea what it relies on. Am I miss reading this right? can someone help me out? Sonderidk 16 June 2024

According to testimony, he did not order troops. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

All this time he was being asked and begged by his own people in the White House, and calling from elsewhere, to call off the attackers and call in the National Guard. He refused to act and reveled in watching the violence. That's what sources tell us. I also remember while it was happening, cameras in the White House showed him standing in front of a big TV on a wall, watching the fighting, smiling, and fist-pumping as if he was at an UCF match. His biographers say he has no sense of humor and only shows real joy when domination others, hurting others, or watching them being hurt. He seemed to love seeing the violence he had called for, and he did it knowing that there were people in the crowd with weapons. He had been warned that some of his supporters in the crowd had weapons, but he still demanded the mags be turned off because "those people won't hurt me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

POV

I think there are some problems with this article’s neutrality.

- It labels the riot as an insurrection despite the usage of that term being disputed.

- It’s labeled as terrorism which, whilst it is an accurate description, isn’t used in the case of other riots.

- Images showing the (justified and within protocol) use of tear-gas on the rioters were removed. LordOfWalruses (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Trump was impeached on "incitement of insurrection". We do not label it an "insurrection" in wikivoice, but we use the terminology they used. A Washington Examiner op-ed from 2021 entered into evidence by House Republicans is not a neutral dispute of the term.
2. The FBI has labeled this incident right-wing terrorism. If "terrorism" is an accurate description, then what's the problem? Other "riots" aren't relevant here.
3. What images were removed? Got a diff? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

   1. Ah, I see.

   2. Yeah I see your point and I think the usage of the term is fine. I just find it strange that “terrorism” isn’t used to describe other riots.

   3. Here’s the image that I believe was removed. File:Tear Gas outside United States Capitol 20210106.jpg LordOfWalruses (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Was that firced at them, or by them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To your first point, you should look at the sources. There is a plethora of past discussions on this talk page regarding whether it should be called an insurrection or not, and I will not re-hash those discussions here, because I also didn't support it being called an insurrection at first, but the majority of reliable sources call it an insurrection and as such we call it that too. To your second point, pages don't have to be consistent on Wikipedia, and inconsistency is not an argument to change one side or the other. If you have actual reasons to contest terrorism as a claim, feel free to present them (and reliable sources to substantiate them). But given you admit it is an accurate description, I don't think you do. If other riots have a plethora (or even majority) of reliable sources describing them as terrorism, please feel free to open discussions on their talkpages to include that descriptor on those pages.

To your point on images.. it's hard to decide what images are encyclopedically relevant. I would consider it acceptable to start a discussion on what part of prose you think that image directly enhances the understandability of, and why it is better than other images that are currently (or could be) in the article. I'll note that the section January 6 United States Capitol attack § Attack on the Capitol already has a large amount of media (images, graphics, and videos) that leads to, at least in my current resolution/size, only about 10 paragraphs total appearing in part/full to take the whole width of the page. This obviously isn't a rationale for not adding more in its own, but the section is media heavy right now - so the onus is on you to recommend (likely in its own section) why you think this one image should be added, where it should be added, and what if anything should be removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was the one who removed the tear gas image from the Attack section, mostly because the section was too media heavy and causing collisions, but also because that particular image was just a hair anachronistic to time frame under discussion, being taken later in the day. But it's a fine image, and I took the liberty of adding the image back into the article in a later section that had no media, which I probably should have done in the first place. Thanks for the suggestion @LordOfWalruses. Feoffer (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome, and thanks for taking my suggestion. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)