Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Ongoing analysis of naming trends

Research of naming choices

Exhibit A

Prevalence of headlines by name (Jan. 30 2021)

Descriptor NOTE: the actual count is on the last page of search results	Results Selected RS (since Jan. 6)	Results Google News (since Jan. 20)	Search method (two part search to differentiate verb from noun, not needed for "insurrection" and "incident" which are only nouns)
riot (RM)	350 . . . [1]	208 . . . [2]	"capitol riot" / "riot at" capitol
attack	261 . . . [3]	149 . . . [4]	"capitol attack" / "attack on" capitol
insurrection (RM)	214 . . . [5] or 291 . . . [6]	183 . . . [7] or 239 . . . [8]	insurrection capitol -"insurr. act" -incite/d/ing/ment or same as above, sans capitol, (this includes titles using just "the insurrection" to name to the event, and some others such as "Insurrection Day")
siege	192 . . . [9]	122 . . . [10]	"capitol siege" / "siege of" capitol
breach	112 . . . [11]	70 . . . [12]	"capitol breach" / "breach of" capitol
storming (RM)	84 . . . [13]	36 . . . [14]	"capitol storming" / "storming of" capitol
assault	55 . . . [15]	44 . . . [16]	"capitol assault" / "assault on" capitol
rampage	21 . . . [17]	~4 . . . [18]	rampage capitol
invasion	9 . . . [19]	26 . . . [20]	invasion capitol
raid	~10 . . . [21]	~7 . . . [22]	raid capitol
protest	~5 . . . [23]	~11 . . . [24]	"capitol protest" / "protest at" / "protests at" capitol -state (most results refer to state Capitol protests or "protest" is used with a qualifier or it's from Jan. 6 before Capitol was breached)
occupation	~4 . . . [25]	~1 . . . [26]	occupation capitol
incident	~1 . . . [27]	~6 . . . [28]	incident capitol
coup attempt	~0 . . . [29]	~10 . . . [30]	coup capitol (real results mixed w. opinion and articles on how it was not a coup; reputable news orgs don't use "coup")
Selected RS: Associated Press, BBC , The Guardian, NYT, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC News, USA Today, L.A. Times, CS Monitor, WSJ, Financial Times, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, CNBC, Bloomberg News, Chicago Tribune, US News, Politico, UPI

Exhibit B

Preferred word(s) by media outlet Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Media outlet	Preferred word(s)	Last date of evidence	Evidence and references
Associated Press	mob, riot, insurrection; siege*	14 January 2021; present*	According to John Daniszewski, AP vice president and editor at large for standards.[31] *"Capitol Siege" category.[32]
NPR	insurrection	present	Use "Capitol Insurrection" as a news section name[33] (changed from "Insurrection at the Capitol" on or around 27 Jan)[34][35]
CBS News	assault	19 January 2021	"U.S. Capitol Assault" as section name highlighted on cbsnews.com main page[36]
Politico	insurrection	present	"Insurrection Fallout" as a category, within the "Congress" section[37]
PBS	attack, insurrection	present	"U.S. Capitol Attack" and "Insurrection" as categories of PBS NewsHour[38][39][40] content
NBC News	riot; insurrection*	12 January 2021	"Capitol Riot" as a category on main page of nbcnews.com[41] *The event is consistently referred to as "Capitol Insurection" on-air, incl. in MTP (flagship program)[42]00:00:50
The Guardian	breach	present	"US Capitol breach" as a category (topic) of US news[43]
BBC	riot	present	"US Capitol riots" as a category (topic) in the US & Canada section[44]
Business Insider	insurrection	present	"US Capitol insurrection" as a category (topic) in the politics section[45]

Exhibit C

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event.

List of event names of public discussion about the Jan 6 event. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Organizer Word used Event date Event title and references Chicago Council on Global Affairs insurrection 8 January 2021 World Review: Global Reaction to US Capitol Insurrection[46] Josef Korbel School of International Studies insurrection 8 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[47][48] Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters assault 8 January 2021 Assault on the Capitol: What Just Happened?[49] Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University chaos 11 January 2021 On Freedom: Capitol Chaos and Its Impact on Democracy[50] Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute insurrection 13 January 2021 Public discussion of capital insurrection[51] UC Davis School of Law insurrection 13 January 2021 Insurrection and the Rule of Law.[52] Hammer Museum insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: What’s next[53] Carr Center for Human Rights Policy insurrection 14 January 2021 (postponed) Democracy at Risk: Reckoning with the Capitol Insurrection[54] George Washington University Law School insurrection 14 January 2021 The Insurrection at the Capitol: A Discussion by Legal Scholars[55] First Amendment Coalition riot 14 January 2021 Erwin Chemerinsky On The First Amendment And The Capitol Riot[56] Northern Illinois University insurrection 14 January 2021 Ask an Expert: The January 6 Insurrection, Constitutional Processes, and the Peaceful Transition of Power[57] Central Michigan University chaos 14 January 2021 Unpacking the Chaos at the Capitol[58] North Carolina State University insurrection 14 January 2021 Responding to Insurrection: How Do We Talk With Students?[59] Interfaith Alliance insurrection 14 January 2021 Insurrection and Religious Extremism: How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Go?[60] University of Massachusetts Amherst siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Siege: Making Sense of What Happened[61] University of Connecticut siege 14 January 2021 Capitol Under Siege: Community Reflections on the Lawless and Violent Attack on Democracy[] Elon University insurrection 15 January 2021 Reacting to the Insurrection at the Capitol[62] University of Pittsburgh siege 18 January 2021 What Just Happened? Race, Justice and Politics after the Capitol Siege[63] Alma College insurrection 18 January 2021 Lunch & Learn: Community Conversation on the Capitol Insurrection[64] The National Press Club insurrection 19 January 2021 Getting it right: Breaking news, the Inauguration, and the Capitol insurrection[65] International Institute for Strategic Studies storming 19 January 2021 Crisis in America: the storming of the Capitol and Biden’s challenge[66] University of Washington attack 19 January 2021 Attack on the Capitol--What Does It Mean for Democracy?[67] Brookings Institution insurrection 19 January 2021 Truth and accountability post-insurrection: Where does the country go from here?[68] Oregon State University’s School of History, Philosophy and Religion  sedition 21 January 2021 Divided States of America: Sedition, the Inauguration, and the Unfolding Crisis in American Democracy[69] Schenectady, Albany and Troy chapters of the NAACP insurrection 21 January 2021 Aftermath of the Insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.[70] George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs riot 21 January 2021 The Capitol Riots, QAnon, and the Internet[] University of Missouri–St. Louis riot 21 January 2021 What Just Happened? Putting the Presidential Election and the Riot in the Capitol in Context[71] William & Mary Law School insurrection 22 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol[72] Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies storming 22 January 2021 The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Free Speech Online[73][74] Fordham University School of Law attack 25 January 2021 The Attack on the Capitol: an on the Ground Report and What's Next[75] Washington University in St. Louis insurrection 25 January 2021 U.S. Presidential Transition & Insurrection at the Capitol[76] Munk School of Global Affairs insurrection 25 January 2021 Insurrection and Accountability in the United States: What Just Happened? And What Happens Next?[77] DeSales University insurrection 27 January 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol: A Special DeSales University Panel Discussion[78] United States Capitol Historical Society insurrection 27 January 2021 How Do We Move Forward? Contextualizing the January 6th Capitol Insurrection[79] Harvard Institute of Politics insurrection 28 January 2021 What Just Happened? Insurrection, Impeachment, and Inauguration [80] Johns Hopkins University insurrection 28 January 2021 U.S. Democracy Post-Insurrection: What’s Next? (Part I)[81] Carleton College chaos, insurrection 28 January 2021 Carleton Talks: Capitol Chaos: Reflections on the Insurrection[82] American Academy of Religion insurrection 29 January 2021 Insurrection, White Supremacy, and Religion[83] Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University insurrection 1 February 2021 Insurrection: The Critical Reflection Forums[84] Ponars Eurasia, George Washington University storming 4 February 2021 The Storming of the US Capitol: Views from Eurasia[85] The Utica College Center for Historical Research insurrection 11 February 2021 The Impact of the Capitol Insurrection on the Modern Presidency & U.S. Elections [86] Texas A&M University School of Law insurrection 11 February 2021 [87] Arizona State University insurrection 11 February 2021 Roundtable: The Rise in Anti-Democratic Violence in the U.S.: Perspectives on the Capitol Insurrection[88]

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

Exhibit D

• Note: goal of this part of research is not so much to include all references to the event, but to find references in diverse social spheres, that may be seen as relevant (please comment in the discussion below) — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Terms used by scholars, jurists and career/military appointees (not politicians and commentators)

Type	Term used	Evidence and references
scholar, fmr. ambassador	insurrection	an armed insurrection against the Capitol inspired by the president of the United States[89]
jurist (judge)	insurrection	an active participant in a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States government[90]
generals (JCS)	insurrection, sedition	... do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection.[91]
scholars (APSA)	insurrection	Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol[92]

Discussion

• note: this section heading was added post-factum to easier navigate this section — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Riot and insurrection are leading, and I'd consider both common names. Except for attack, other words don't seem all that competitive in terms of forming a common name. "Storming" has fallen behind. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• All of that can still be true, and yet miss the main point: Word choice is not a matter of verifiability, it is a matter of tone. Choosing from among a set of near synonyms for a description of an event, Wikipedia has different concerns in tone than do many sources, even news sources. It's why we use words like "die" instead of euphemisms for it, even if more sources use "passed away" or something like that. WP:LABEL recommends using language which avoids emotional-laden words. Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement, regardless of which similar words other sources are using. --Jayron32 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, what you say is excellent, but "Storming" fails the common name criterion big time. Also these words aren't synonyms. "Attack" is indeed vague, but "riot" is not vague, and it's not synonymous to "storming". Insurrection is also neither a euphemism for "storming", nor it's synonym. You've just promulgated a thesis that "storming" is the real name (like "die" as opposed to "pass away"), and when media use other terms they are doing so as a euphemism for storming. But this just isn't true. The media don't use storming because they just don't. It's a clunky gerund that isn't in common usage. I made this resource to enable people to quickly access a list of headlines and assess how and in which context (and in which "tonal register") each word is being used. The analysis is not meant to answer the naming question by itself. What inspired are misguided attempts to claim that something is a WP:COMMONNAME based on rudimentary google searches, such as presented here (attack is used 193,000 times, Riot used 67,700 times – one would believe that attack is used three times more than riot, when riot is used significantly more than attack). There needs to be something reliable to fall back on, when the question of what the reliable sources are using arises. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I maybe didn't express myself well. When I said "Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement..." what I actually meant by that was " Whether or not we stick with "storm" or choose a different near synonym, the title should still reflect that editorial requirement." I hope that clears things up for you. I'm not married to the current title, but a simple statistical list of words is insufficient in making the editorial decisions we face. Words like "riot" and "insurrection" carry emotional weight; it's why news sources choose them to get people to read their articles, because that emotional connection with their audiences creates a connection with them that encourages those audiences to keep reading that source's articles, among many other reasons for choosing those words. As an encyclopedia recording an event dispassionately, Wikipedia has a different purpose than "eyeballs on articles to feed ad revenue", and as such, we have a responsibility per WP:TONE to choose words that, as feasible as possible, do not carry the same sort of emotional weight. Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal. "Riot" and "insurrection" are not them, regardless of how many sources use them. --Jayron32 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Roget's Thesaurus[93] gives 'storming' (noun) as a synonym for 'assault' and 'attack', also for 'bravado/ boastfulness'. A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (ed. Fowler) gives 'as in "take by storm" - direct assault on (and capture of) defended place by troops etc.'[94] Whether or not 'storming' was chosen initially with that in mind, it is good reason for it to be retained. See also Storming the City, U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam (2016).[95] Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32. It doesn't clear it up for me. It looks like you're fishing for the most extraordinarily contrived arguments to defend the current name (which you are identifying as "storm" which is a vastly more common word than "storming" used as a noun; this can make it look more common than it is). I'd rather trust the ~25 reputable news organizations, than a person's individual sense of what carries emotional weight (or their exotic theory on how reputable media organizations are so opportunistic and clickbaity... why are they considered reliable sources then?). It must be that because "insurrection" is such emotional language that this opportunistic media organization called the event "insurrection" on the second day: American Political Science Association (APSA) – Statement on the Insurrection at the US Capitol. No, the event is being called what it's called, because those words best fit it. And finally, now we're at it, this has never been my main argument, but the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, now that we know well all the implications surrounding the term. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be right about the tone of "storming" is catastrophic. By far the worst of all terms, in terms of tone, but please explain. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Sorry again for being unclear. When I said "I'm not married to the current title", what I meant by that was "I'm not married to the current title". Also, when I said "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal" (goal meaning "Of choosing a title that is neutral and does not carry unnecessary emotional weight), what I meant was actually "Maybe there are even better words than "storming" which accomplish that goal". Is there anything else I can clear up for you? Feel free to propose a better title. If it isn't "riot" or "insurrection" or other similarly weighted words, it will probably be even better than what is there now. --Jayron32 19:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good analysis. But one more suggestion. If you are going to do it this way, search in text to make sure you are pulling all the articles about the even. Then limit the intitle search with only the verb. In other words, just search for the in title for the word riot or attack.Casprings (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying that now as well. I think it produces fewer overall results than searching just the titles (probably because referring to the event by it's full name is done less frequently in the body), so I'm still figuring out if it has any added value. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment While we rely mostly on print media for referencing, there should be some nod to how the event is described in other media. For example, I've noticed that on-air, NPR almost solely calls it "insurrection" in editorial voice, when describing the event proper (i.e., "the January insurrection..."). They will use the informal "attack" in passing (i.e., "the attack on the Capitol was.."). This is similar to the apparent style of the BBC World Service as well, except that I've also heard them use "storming" and "stormed". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Personally I don't think that all of the precise statistical counting is helpful. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't dictate that we must use whatever naming has the precise by-the-numbers most use in news articles in a vacuum. When multiple possible terms are all being used in widespread contexts, with no one absolutely predominating, then we can consider there to be multiple common names (or no definitive name). As such it makes most sense to fit the one that best attests to the nature of the event, Wikipedia's policies, and broad consensus of accuracy. I'm still on team "attack", but that kind of goes without saying. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, really good. I am going to change my vote about to being neutral concerning riot or attack. You almost have me. That said, in my mind, what you want to do is combine an intitle search that is exclusive with an intext search that is expansive. In other words, search for riot intitle. But in text, combine alot of terms together (Capitol and riot or attack or insurrection or ect). That said, really good.Casprings (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Already with the above searches, any of the words can appear in the text of any of the articles, because the text is completely ignored. So if you click on one of the results for e.g. "riots", you'll see that in the article "attack" is used. To get new information one should do the opposite of what you're saying: include all the titles that may refer to the event by including all the words alternatively (intitle:siege | intitle:breach | intitle:attack etc...), and look for the specific phrase in the text, but then it's not even needed to constrain the results by title as the text containing the said phrase would certainly be dealing with the topic. Doing that set of searches (just text, regardless of the title) is certainly possible for me but the word choices in the text carry less weight because journalistic writers tend to vary their word choices to avoid too much repetition for purely stylistic reasons, so those choices are pretty voluntary and non-committal, and don't necessarily express a real person's (editor's for example) real "call" on what to name the event. Hope these thoughts make sense to you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so far the method to try to understand what WP:COMMONNAME might have been mainly by counting. While this is a good indicator, we should also take into account of what media outlets at the organization level call the event as. Some of the outlets have been explicit about what the standard wording they use. If we have evidence that they in fact standardize on using particular words, those words should be given more careful attention than just the method of overall counting alone. Also most recent evidence should be used as the words they decided to use may evolve over time. I have compiled an initial list on the table here which we can expand if we find more explicit evidence:

Note: per discussion below, Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be another indicator aside from raw counting. Z22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, we were doing some of that earlier but it's archived now. I added Politico. If you'd like to we can move this table to the top of the section so that both analyses are seen as a greater whole. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how we typically use tables in a discussion thread, but if that is what we should do to make it easier to discuss, then I'm good with that. Z22 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if Business Insider is reliable enough or not. I just added an entry in the table. If there are some disputes that Business Insider should not be included, then discuss to remove it. Z22 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus on BI status as a reliable source. Right now their senior editor for politics is someone for whom I cannot find evidence that he is a veteran political journalist. I'd say not, in this context. I remember seeing more categories and sections in various outlets, I'll keep looking to find them. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that no COMMONNAME has been adopted, unlike the many other civil disorders. If one did, it would not matter if the tone was partial or the wording incorrect. I would avoid riot, insurrection or coup, since those terms have connotations that may be inaccurate. I don't see anything wrong with the current title. TFD (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a leap of logic to look at the results, see that there are 3 fairly prominent names and a plethora of less prominent name, and conclude that this article should use one of the less prominent words because none of the three prominent ones are a common name. It's not how it works. EDIT: looking again at your post, I understand that you didn't actually refer to the top 3 words, but mentioned two of them and coup (yeah, coup isn't really discussed anymore). — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no COMMONNAME, then COMMONNAME does not apply and we are not required to choose among the three most prominent titles, or the hundred most. Instead, we have to use recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency and avoid judgmental wording, per Wikipedia:Article titles. So that rules out terms such as riot, insurrection and coup that provide interpretations of the events. TFD (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no common name it doesn't mean that the name should not be supported by reliable sources. Riot and insurrection are not interpretations of the event. These names are very well supported by reliable sources and storming is comparably poorly supported. Insurrection is thus mandated by WP:NCE because insurrection is a generally accepted word under the included definition: A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public. Insurrection is a neutral word, and storming is a problematic word with complicated connotations. Storming doesn't include incredibly important elements of the event such as the bombing attempt and the methods and goals covered in the infobox. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

'insurrection' is far from neutral. Given that the Democratic Party leadership has deliberately used it to frame the politically motivated impeachment article that the House has delivered to the Senate, it is perhaps the most controversial word of all, and intended to be so - in common parlance the word has been 'weaponized' (as in this article from Aug 2016[96] and this from April 2020[97]) If 'insurrection' is used in the name it should be in quote marks, and the lead should begin by referencing the said impeachment. The article could then mention that before the impeachment, the word was already being used in public statements, both the commercially published and official, and this could be supported by citing a variety of frequency word counts identifying the criteria for each of those counts. If within the current period, say from 6 Jan to 6 Feb, notable Republican party leaders or supporters have used it, that, too should be mentioned. A better alternative would be to use the generic "protest" in the title, then at the start of the article say that it was variously described at the time as.... etc. That would probably be the better way for an encyclopedia. Redirects can be used for other words, just as the index of a print encyclopedia such as Britannica has redirects. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: The article name will reflect reliable sources; it does not matter that one political party has used the word to describe what happened. Quotes around the word insurrection would not follow policy. There is no support for using the word protest in the article, which should be clear from the move discussion that resulted in the current title. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It is clear and demonstrates the problem we are having here. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The current title is supported by reliable sources. The argument that insurrection is a generally accepted word is incorrect, because NCE defines it as "a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event." I doubt there is any dispute that the Capitol was stormed.

Insurrection is problematic because it is defined as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." (Merriam-Webster)[98] Whether or not the actions amounted to that is something that is yet to be proved. Bear in mind that per People accused of crime, we cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of serious crimes until they are convicted.

The closest event I could find was the Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal (1849). Conservative demonstrators protesting new legislation threw stones at the governor-general, shot at the prime minister, broke into the main building and set it on fire with the legislators inside. The violence continued for days with attacks on other political targets. Yet the Canadian Encyclopedia refers to it as the "Montreal riots."

TFD (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think another indicator that can give us an insight as to how people understand the Jan 6 event as is to look at public discussion events that discuss about the Jan 6. Those public event names should be one of clearer indicators of COMMONNAME. I came up with a way to search those events. I planned to search for the top 3 words that many have talked about: "attack", "riot", and "insurrection". Then, I included "storming" as the 4th word for searching given that this page title is still that. The word that I chose to combine to form a search key in order to identify as many as public events possible are "event" and "panelists". So, it came to a total of 8 searches: "capitol" "attack" "event", "capitol" "attack" "panelists", "capitol" "riot" "event", "capitol" "riot" "panelists", "capitol" "insurrection" "event", "capitol" "insurrection" "panelists", "capitol" "storming" "event", and "capitol" "storming" "panelists". In each of those 8 searches, I inspected the first 100 results. In each of the results, I looked something that mentions a public discussion event that has an event name. If there is an article that talks about a discussion about Jan 6 but there is no way for me to find the event name / discussion title, then I don't count that in. I came across a few events that were not organized by notable entities, so, I did not include those few. Also, one event that was run by an organization that promotes a particular political party, I don't include that one. In all of those qualified events, here are the break down of the words used in the event names:

• insurrection: 28 events
• storming: 3 events
• riot: 3 events
• chaos: 3 events
• siege: 3 events
• attack: 2 events
• assault: 1 event
• sedition 1 event

Below is the list of the events. I have the table collapsed as it is a long list.

Note: per commment below Z22's table posted here was moved to the top for visibility — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you find that it is better to move this table to the top for visibility, please feel free to do so. Maybe we can expand the list, but make sure to use a search methodology that is fair to all 4 words in question. Z22 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the list of event names in the above not only establishes a common name that has been used to communicate to the public on upcoming events that are about the Jan 6 event, it also indicates generally accepted word per WP:NCE as it shows consensus among scholars (many of these listed events have scholars as panelists, and organized by academic departments) in the real world. Z22 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work, I hope many people see it — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The word 'event' in the list above is not well chosen. It tends to confuse the question under discussion, as the course of the discussion is showing, and the methodology is at least dubious.

The topic of the article is itself the event, and the purpose of this RM is to decide whether 'riot' would be a better choice than 'storming' in respect of that single event, with a view of improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please say specifically where the questionable use of 'event' is located, so I could take a look at it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Every news article I've checked today about the Bidens paying their respects uses the phrase "Capitol riot" in the first paragraph. nbc, cbs, foxnews, cnn, usatoday. Other names are used in the articles, but "U.S. Capitol riot" has emerged as the event identifier used first. JaredHWood💬 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You can check the results for the past 24 or 48 hrs using the first table, by replacing the date in the link (at the end; you can automate it in a text editor), and report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: The numbers in #Exhibit A are mostly useless. There's a note saying "the actual count is on the last page of search results", but that's wrong.

• Details: It's not easy to get useful search result numbers from Google. Maybe the number on the first result page isn't quite correct, but the number on the last page is useless – Google simply seems to deliver at most 300-350 results for these searches. Even when new pages are added to the search index, the number on the last page doesn't increase much beyond 300-350. I guess that's due to certain optimizations in the distributed algorithm that produces the result pages (see e.g. MapReduce), but only someone at Google would really know.
  
• Evidence: Currently (February 11) the number on the last page for the "riot" search from Exhibit A is ca. 370. On January 30, it was 350. Of course, a lot more than 20 pages with a "Capitol riot" title have been published since then. How many? Let's change the after parameter from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 and look at the last result page again, and we currently find a number around 220 - a lot more than 20. More evidence: Let's check how many results we get for the interval from 2021-01-06 to 2021-01-30 by using after:2021-01-06 and before:2021-01-30 parameters. The the last result page for that interval currently says 309. Of course, the count for the interval from January 6 until now should be the sum of the counts for January 6–30 plus January 30 until now. That sum would be 309 + 220 = 529. (Instead, as mentioned above, we got 370.) The discrepancy becomes even more apparent when we use shorter intervals, such that the count for each interval is below the 300-350 cutoff. For example, for the two days from January 10 to 12, the last result page says 250. For two days! If we run these searches for many small, disjunct intervals from January 6 until now and add the numbers, we get a total in the thousands.
  
• In conclusion: The numbers in Exhibit A are useless. They are based on a flawed idea about how to get proper search result numbers from Google. After running multiple similar searches, I'd say the number that Google shows on the first result page is more meaningful than the number on the last page, but I'm not sure. Google search numbers in general are tricky beasts. Sorry!

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you to those that that have contributed to this. I think these Exhibits are helpful to ground a further discussion. Exhibit A is helpful. That said, I am not sure we should be relying on American only WP:RS (plus BBC and Al Jazeera). While this article is written in American English, I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME should ignore WP:RS from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland etc. RS like CBC News, The Australian, The New Zealand Herald, Irish Independent, ABC News (Australia), The Globe and Mail, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, TVNZ etc. are also relevant if we are looking at headlines. Of course, we have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't think we should ignore differences with how the event is being described outside of the USA.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The term 'rioter(s)' is used 64 times in the article itself. 'Protester(s)' is used 14 times, and 'insurrectionist(s)' is used only once, and inside a quote. If the title were changed to 'insurrection', should instances of 'rioter(s)' also be changed to 'insurrectionist(s)'? To me that seems overly presumptive of the motivations of the individual participants, not very neutral, and would read terribly. Ar85ar (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

List not Analysis

For clarity, the word 'List' should replace 'Analysis' in the Table headings.

The leading promoter of the Tables A-D has been moving others' contributions about on this page, but is not disinterested. He has asserted a very personal opinion that 'the tone of "storming" is catastrophic' (17:53, 29 January).

Given that Analysis is a 'process of breaking a complex topic... into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it', the questions remain

• whether it is a Qualitative Analysis that 'is concerned with which components are in a given sample' or a Quantitative Analysis that is 'to determine the quantity of individual component present in a given sample'?
• what is its purpose?
• wheher it is fit for that purpose?
• whether that purpose can be at most a minor aid to deciding the question currently in issue, viz,, whether the word 'storming' is less suited than 'riot' to the article's name.

From the point of view of decision-making for editing, distinct from personal opinion, and allowing for guidance about secondary sources etc., it can be argued[99] (but not in this comment) that the Memorandum in Support of the impeachment,[100] which is intentionally framing the charge as Incitement of Insurrection, is the best evidence we have in support of retaining 'storming' though that word appears only once in the text, in section 'E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol' (p.23) and in two references: 1. Associated Press, Trump Doesn’t Ask Backers to Disperse after Storming Capitol, PBS (Jan. 6, 2021) (p.21) and 2. Raphael Satter, Laptop Stolen from Pelosi’s Office during Storming of U.S. Capitol, Says Aide, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2021).(p.40).

(For 'Answer to Article 1 Incitement of insurrection' addresed to the members of the Senate see[101])

The Tables on this page offered as analysis are in fact no more than lists of number counts, unaccompanied by a critical appraisal of the external sources, in respect of criteria for click bait, headline grabbing, editorial policy and control, imitative, repetitive, inciting or following a twitterstorm[102]. -Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I take that back, when I said it was catastrophic, it was a bit of unfortunate hyperbole. I think the tone is really bad for reasons widely discussed on this talk page, and it's the most problematic of all descriptors, but not "catastrophic". I am disinterested. I am not a promotor of anything. I didn't read the rest of your post. What is offered is an analysis and not a list. Update: voila, I minimized the usage of "analysis" so we don't have to talk about that hopefully. Update #2: the most comprehensive of the tables, that took the most effort by far, was not even done by me, so I shouldn't be made to look more important here than I am — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So, to better clarify: it's an ongoing analysis, the analysis isn't complete, it's a team effort. We break the naming trends down and come to a conclusion, over some time, no? We are looking if there's a common name, or what names are significantly supported by reliable sources and what aren't ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."), and/or what is the generally accepted word. If you have a superior methodology you are entitled just as I am to proffer one. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of Section

This section has been restored due to a few events that led it to be archived when it should not have. When the RM was closed, the section after it was closed as well despite not being a sub-section at the time. Then, a different editor made it a sub-section while moving an unrelated discussion. It was then pointed out that there seemed to be an error when closed and that they were different sections. Separately, a user made a modification to raise the auto-archive from one to three days. The closing of the RM was modified to un-close this section. This should have been enough to now restore this section to a normal section, but Lowercase sigmabot III archived it as it only looks at User:MiszaBot/config and not a combination of it and Template:auto archiving notice. (Which should be considered a bug, but alas.) That was adjusted and this section restored from the archive after a brief discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In order to ensure that users know it has been restored I am pinging the following editors for making at least one signed comment in the above discussion: Z22, Alalch Emis, Jayron32, Qexigator, Casprings, Symmachus Auxiliarus, BlackholeWA, The Four Deuces, Jared.h.wood --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thanks. We've been working on the same thing apparently. I've created a subpage with the same purpose as this restored section cca 2 hrs ago. Please tell me what you think is the best way to proceed. Ongoing analysis of naming trends — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your rationale for the restoration is extremely valid, but ProcrastinatingReader's rationale not to restore, but to create a subpage (or copy the content into a new section) is also very valid. Basically it's a just a matter of what creates the most utility, not what is the most appropriate. At this point I don't know what creates the most utility, and I'd like to leave that decision to you. If you tell me to delete the subpage I'll do it immediately. If you think a subpage is better, you can replace all of the content in the subpage with the content in this section. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I don't have any pings from you in my notices, so I wonder how I didn't get this message. If the subpage is a better location, then that is fine, though this would need to be re-archived as it would otherwise be lost. The subpage might be better as it would mean that it would not be archived automatically, though it might not see as much discussion. Then again, the only comments here are about this section being restored. (Also, I think ProcrastinatingReader believe there was only one section based on their reply to Z22.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the subpage would be less noticed, if only pointed to by a small bit of link text. I didn't actually get my ping for some reason, and certainly would not have noticed the subpage; I only saw this message because I saw it had been restored as I checked through this talk. Personally I don't think there's much need to separate this discussion out somewhere where it will get less discussion, and considering that it might not have much longevity beyond the ongoing naming dispute (which would bring the rationale for its special treatment into question). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ReliverMattWiki (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "hostage taking" and "lynching" from infobox

While we are talking about the “Methods” section of the infobox, I think we should remove "(alleged: potential hostage-taking)[12]" which is currently in the box. From Chrisahn’s comment above I gather that it earlier said "alleged: hostage-taking and lynching". There was no hostage taking. There was no lynching. There were threats, but no harm actually came to the targets, so it was not a “method”. At best we could add “threats” to the methods used, but we already say “intimidation” which covers it. So I think we should remove that line. BTW this does not require an RfC; a quick informal discussion is enough if it produces consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Those terms should be removed, and of course it doesn't require an RfC. Moncrief (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "potential hostage-taking" is appropriate, plenty of video evidence that the participants were in fact looking for specific members of congress, and planned to take hostages (or worse)... possibly just moved to the "Goals" section of the infobox instead... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree No hostages were taken, and no one was lynched, so placing it under "methods" is flat-out misleading and factually, objectively incorrect; the word "method" insinuates to a global audience of readers that a lynching/hostage-taking was undertaken or had some degree of success. Certain individuals within the riotous mob may have appeared to favor that (verbal suggestions of intent, at least 1 guy was seen carrying zip ties, etc.), no lynching or hostage situation occurred during the Storming of the Capitol, so it should be removed from that section. RopeTricks (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comments/Additional thoughts: Also, leaving it under "methods" implies to an uninformed reader that lynching and taking hostages were unambiguous, primary goals of the entirety of the mob, a messy implication considering the relative spontaneity of the storming and sheer crowd size. It would make more sense if a majority of the mob made it clear lynching and taking hostages was what they wanted, or if there was a clear "leader" specifically demanding that. None of that occurred because the storming was done via a riotous mob of hundreds, a mixed crowd with a plurality of intentions. Because that's how leaderless mobs with no clear, understood objectives beyond "let's get inside!" works. And I don't recall seeing video of any of the indivuals that used megaphones demanding any lynchings or hostages.RopeTricks (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have to disagree in part given the calls to "Hang Mike Pence" which numerous participants did say during the 6th. While no one was killed, there were calls for officials to be killed. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed attempted assassination, the source only supports "threat of assassination" which was likely made after the whole event was over, since it referred to the officer who shot Babbitt. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
  
• Nobody got lynched, although the rioters had the means (gallows) and stated intent (chanting "hang Mike Pence"). Should lynching be listed as a goal rather than a method? Terjen (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm dubious about ascribing "goals" at all, since this was such a mixed crowd, and since goals may constitute crimes which have not been charge, let alone prosecuted yet, for example "attempted <foo>" or "conspiracy to commit foo". We risk egregious BLP violations down this path. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
    
• Disagree. This is longstanding infobox content that is based on what mainstream media were saying about the zip-tie guy, the calls to hang pence, the gallows, the attacker sho was specifically going after AOC, and then these informal allegations have become supported by formal allegations of prosecutors. This should also be an RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be an RfC? Moncrief (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's why it isn't: Per WP:RFC, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• These characterizations should be removed from the infobox, which more generally needs to be drastically shortened. The attack and the goals of the individuals involved were diverse, and to communicate this neutrally we need to use prose in the body of the article. Not everything merits a one-word summary in a bloated infobox. Re "This should also be an RfC", can you explain why in the context of WP:BURO? ETA: this is an article about an event that happened just over a month ago. There is zero long standing content in it. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The goals of the riot can be most easily surmised as the following: disrupt the Electoral vote count; Overturn results of 2020 election. Anything else is simply one or a few people there - that is not the goal of the event overall. The methods should also not include ideas of a small group of those present - especially when those ideas are held by a small group of people there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support removal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. Nobody got lynched and there was no attempt to take any hostages .Slogans like Lock her up do not mean unless it is followed by action Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal Given what reliable sources have said, I do believe some mention is needed. There were participants on the 6th who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence" along with the issue that "Within the mob were radicals plotting to kill or kidnap the vice president and members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The rioters came within moments of catching up to Vice President Mike Pence." In addition, there is a list of threats from The New Yorker:

• “Shoot the politicians!” somebody yelled.
• Their cries resonated through colonnaded rooms: “Where’s the traitors?” “Bring them out!” “Get these fucking cocksucking Commies out!”
• I followed a group that broke off to advance on five policemen guarding a side corridor. “Stand down,” a man in a maga hat commanded. “You’re outnumbered. There’s a fucking million of us out there, and we are listening to Trump—your boss.” “We can take you out,” a man beside him warned.
• The America Firsters and other invaders fanned out in search of lawmakers, breaking into offices and revelling in their own astounding impunity. “Nancy, I’m ho-ome!” a man taunted, mimicking Jack Nicholson’s character in “The Shining.” Someone else yelled, “1776—it’s now or never.”
• When Babbitt was shot, I was on the opposite side of the Capitol, where people were growing frustrated by the empty halls and offices. “Where the fuck are they?” “Where the fuck is Nancy?”
• “We have guns, too, motherfuckers!” one man yelled. “With a lot bigger rounds!” Another man, wearing a do-rag that said “fuck your feelings,” told his friend, “If we have to tool up, it’s gonna be over. It’s gonna come to that. Next week, Trump’s gonna say, ‘Come to D.C.’ And we’re coming heavy.”
• Later, I listened to a woman talking on her cell phone. “We need to come back with guns,” she said. “One time with guns, and then we’ll never have to do this again.”
• Another man, in a black leather jacket and wraparound sunglasses, suggested that journalists should be killed: “Start makin’ a list! Put all those names down, and we start huntin’ them down, one by one!” “Traitors to the guillotine!” “They won’t be able to walk down the streets!”
• At the heap of wrecked camera gear outside the Capitol, the man in the leather jacket and sunglasses declared to the crowd, “We are at war. . . . Mobilize in your own cities, your own counties. Storm your own capitol buildings. And take down every one of these corrupt motherfuckers.”

Personally, this is beyond "intimidation" and I feel that the line should not be removed without it being replaced given the calls and searches for officials on the 6th to harm them. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis for the most part - but all you've really shown is that those statements/people deserve mention in the article. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of major, overarching things - not listing every single thing one person at the event felt/tried to do/screamed outside or whatever. In fact, the vast majority of the infobox goals/methods sections should be removed and replaced with the goal of "disrupt the counting of electoral votes; overturn results of 2020 election" and the methods of "rally at the White House; march to and breach of the Capitol Building". All else are minutia compared to those goals and should be covered in prose but not the infobox. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me then, bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. My comment as a whole is that there was intent to harm and to hold members of Congress though force. I understand that what exist should be changed, but I don't believe it should be straight up removed with nothing in its place. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per editor Goku above. I would agree with moving to 'Goals'. Bert Macklin (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of hostage taking. 'Attempted' should be noted. Plastic and regular handcuffs were carried by some. They could not complete their goal, but the attempt is still valid and documented on video. Best, IP75 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal from methods. The documentation for the methods field of Template:Infobox civil conflict is very short and simply says "methods used in the civil dispute", but I think it's clear that these are the methods that were actually used, not the ones that some of the perpetrators may have intended to use. But I also weakly support adding something to the goals field. As Super Goku V shows, it's reasonably well documented that at least some rioters would have liked to harm lawmakers in some way. It's hard to tell though how much of that was just talk. What would have happened if they had found Pelosi or Pence? Would they have shoved them around a bit? Killed them? No one knows. Until the courts produce more evidence, we can at most say something like this: Goals: ... Alleged: hostage-taking. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Template:Infobox civil conflict Methods says that multiple terms may be used. I think that Goals is fine as is and nothing more should be added. But there are terms that are either redundant or are not methods that can be removed. IP75 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

7 dead

During recent impeachment trial proceedings, the impeachment prosecutors are taking about seven deaths.

Which I believe is fair. There are indisputably five victims who died on the insurrection day.

However, sadly, two more capitol police officers took their lives shortly after the riot. I believe the mental trauma suffered during the violent day is significant factor Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a source of the claim: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123 Jakeblake0713 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Very similar requests have already been discussed here, here, here and here, and a related discussion is here. tl;dr: Unless there are WP:RS that directly connect the suicides to the riot on January 6, we probably shouldn't add them to the five deaths. Thanks for providing a source! But I think it supports the current statement in the article that five people "died from" the event. Quote: "Five people died as a result of the riots, and two officers later died by suicide." — Chrisahn (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the impeachment managers are not a reliable source for this - their job is to attempt to make it look as bad as possible while not technically lying. Thus, they aren't an independent source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe recent reporting by The Washington Post makes this link: "That two police officers had died by suicide after confronting rioters thrust the most private of acts into the national spotlight and made clear that the pain of Jan. 6 continued long after the day’s events had concluded, its impact reverberating through the lives removed from the Capitol grounds. Now, families of both Smith and Liebengood — who were buried in private ceremonies lacking the pageantry that accompanied Sicknick’s memorial service in the Capitol Rotunda — want the deaths of their loved ones recognized as "line of duty" deaths." Note specifically the description of the suicides as an "impact reverberating" from the riot. Further testimony in the article expresses this belief here as well, but I think this is enough to say that WaPo says it outright for themselves. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s not. The language in that article is very carefully crafted to not ascribe blame for the suicides to the rioting, and instead just connects them superficially in time by saying things like “reverberating”. Regardless, until multiple high-quality reliable sources clearly and confidently make such an assertion, no further linkage should be inserted into this article, and even then it may not be due. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if there's a clear link (which there probably is), I'm not sure it's reasonable to include these in the tally. It's fundamentally different from dying at the event or as a result of injuries. Ar85ar (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Factually misleading language

Within the articles first paragraph strongly implies and in some cases directly states that trump called for the riot at the Capitol. This is factually false as there were numerous points within his speech which showed intent for a peaceful demonstration.

Examples include: - “I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” This statement explicitly states his wishes for the demonstration to be peaceful, the complete opposite of what they became.

- “If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are." This statement also shows clear intent to peacefulness as instead of calling for the protester to force politicians to follow their wishes but instead to wait until the primaries to democratically vote out politicians whom they don’t want.

- Finally, he called to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

He at no point encouraged violence or rioting. By purposely omitting those points and through the language used, implying that he encouraged a riot when he did not is disingenuous and is false information. Tfost73 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your viewpoint does not reflect the current consensus. Please read the notice at the top of this talk page.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

He used the word "peacefully" once. He used the word "fight" 20 times. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this wiki article is factually misleading at best and the epitome of fake news naratives being spread by the MSM and this wiki platform... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.76.63 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

IP: You are welcome to suggest contributions based on secondary information from reliable sources, although given your current contributions to date, I'm not holding my breath.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's what someone said yesterday at Trump's impeachment trial:

January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he’d lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. [...] There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President’s intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ‘trial by combat.’ It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President. [...] The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. [...] This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.

Is this "disingenuous"? "False information"? "Factually misleading"? "Fake news narratives spread by the MSM"? You decide. You can read the full statement by Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate Republican Leader, here. I guess we should quote it somewhere in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Impressive rhetoric, but ultimately still a nay-sayer. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is good to be reminded of McConnell's statement. Anyone could pick and splice bits or portions of it to suit any POV and NPOV. Read as a whole, and knowing that it was composed with the skill of an experienced longtime senate majority leader in a difficult party postion -- and with an eye to the future, which took him and his party and the government and people of his country to the acquittal of citizen Trump after a hearing of the best the House Managers could do in support of the impeachment and the well presented defence -- now many may be left feeling passionately that justice has been denied, but others that justice has been done, while congressional business will carry on as before in the name of 'one Nation under God'. Ongoing reviisions of the 'storming' article and others linked in the main body will maintain npov with that in mind. This may result in further discussion on this page. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No soapboxing please, Chrisahn! Do not clutter the talk page with 200 words of Mitch McConnell's oratory. I disagree that it needs to be quoted here. A better place would be the impeachment article, if anywhere.--FeralOink (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Did any of you actually watch the live stream of the "breach/riot". BI did. Based on what I saw, it was basically a giant tour of the Capitol in the very beginning, and the only violence I noticed was when the police shot one of the protesters. I don't mean to be rude, but this is actually what I saw. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? So you did not see the break-and-enter, wilful damage and looting? Yeah, just a "giant tour" ... WWGB (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent Quote worth adding?

Worth adding? - Following Quote ("A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise.") seems relevant - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be the original source of the quote. Not a WP:RS, just an opinion on a blog. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No. It's just an opinion by an MSNBC legal correspondant. Anyway, the theory that the 800 hooligans who stormed the Capitoi almost took control of the U.S. government is absurd. TFD (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Or another... Is The Times newspaper, of London, RS for the storming article? It has a headline on p.44 (print issue) February 13 "Sham trial is just cancel culture, claims Trump"[103] The first paragraph reads 'Donald Trump's legal team dismissed his impeachment trial yesterday as "constitutional cancel culture", a "sham" and a danger to free speech as they urged senators to acquit him of inciting insurrection,' Qexigator (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should hold off on delving too much into the impeachment until we actually see a conclusion to that. The two events are related, but not so inextricably intertwined that every mention within one topic deserves an equal mention in the other's article.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article and not that notable for the impeachment article. IP75 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

remove "panic buttons torn out" of Rep Pressley's office

Given new information, it seems irrelevant to the subject of this article that duress buttons were likely missing from Pressley's office—unless it's to describe the "social media explosion" resulting from her and her staff's conspiracy theory that they'd been removed in advance as part of a nefarious plot. In the meantime, I've edited it to at least make it accurate. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

An opinion piece full of speculation does not exactly qualify as a reliable source... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and the investigation is still ongoing. IP75 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Substance of classicly fascist video

This televised news interview features a fascism expert, who examines the the short video played at the "March to Save America" rally. Our article covers what the former president said in his speech, but this video is fascinating and disturbing for its persuasive fascist imagery. I wonder how the substance of this arguably influential video could be summarized (maybe it's discussed in print journalism elsewhere). Just throwing this out there. Mcfnord (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that fasci-nating video made as the trial entered its third day. Given that there is no reason to doubt Jason Stanley's interpretation of events as being offered by him in good faith from his POV, is he to be regarded as an oracle and RS for the 'storming' article? Maybe he has bees in his bonnet? Maybe, unlike Senator McConnell, he represents a certain naivety? Qexigator (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That video should not be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Jason Stanley has been complaining about Trump for years, see here. I am Jewish, and I am offended by the video, as Stanley starts going through who is Jewish in the Senate and who isn't. Furthermore, if we are going to include THAT then we should include this treif article featured in the latest issue of Time magazine: Written by acclaimed journalist Molly Ball ("Yale graduate and TIME's National Political Correspondent. Previously, she covered U.S. politics for The Atlantic and Politico, and worked for newspapers in Nevada and Cambodia. She is the author of Pelosi, a bestselling biography") her news report of 4 February 2021, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, she explicitly states (rather than doing an interpretive work like Jason did on youtube):

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster....That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

I do not consider that appropriate content for this article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people have been "complaining about Trump". Complaints have been coming since 1927. Since Fred Trump. Since that Trump was arrested wearing Ku-Klux-Klan-robe in 1927! He is a second generation fascist. In New York, where he is known, he could not have been elected to anything. "I am Jewish" is an argument for what? Arthur Finkelstein and George Birnbaum - are also Jews themselves - but those right-leaning American political consultants helped create the world's largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory! Could they have anticipated the deadly scale of their supposedly "ingenious" invention "Der böse Jude"? Yes, they could.

Ball may be typically diligent reporter, and there are things in her article worth knowing and exploring, but she really should have been much more careful about throwing around terms like “conspiracy” and “cabal” and asked harder questions about what her sources. Jason Stanley's seeks to explain ‘how propaganda works’ and ‘how Fascism works’ at a academic and and scientific level. A much welcomed and needed work! --217.234.66.101 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

The link to "https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html/" is incorrect, it should be "https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html" without the trailing slash. Including the slash results in a 404 from CNN. Ephilihp (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed! Mcfnord (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should be updated to include that Trump tweeted attack on Pence 11 minutes after Pence was evacuated

Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m. on January 6 2021 — only 11 minutes after live television coverage showed Pence being hustled from the Senate floor because rioters were streaming into the building one floor below. The Senate then abruptly went into recess. The text of Trump's 2.24 tweet was:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Cogan79 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's tweet about Pence is notable; the article currently states: "Trump tweeted that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" at 2:24 p.m." Because he was escorted from the Senate floor about 10 minutes earlier, does not mean that Pence and several of his family members lives were not in danger. You may want to read this article: [[104]] IP75 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Article should be updated to include conversation between McCarthy and Trump on Jan 6 2021

While rioters engulfed the Capitol on Jan. 6, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy phoned President Donald Trump. A worried McCarthy called on Trump to urge him to get his supporters under control. But Trump didn’t seem interested at first saying that it was antifa, and not his supporters who were responsible for the riot, according to Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a GOP lawmaker from Washington. When McCarthy pushed back against that interpretation, Trump got angry. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump reportedly said. Cogan79 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cogan79, thanks for the suggestion. It's best if you provide multiple sources and propose text to be added, instead of just a general idea. This is because the reliable sources which can be found are what will ultimately determine what the text says. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Source 1. THE SLATEST Trump Reportedly Sided With Capitol Insurrectionists in Angry Call With McCarthy BY DANIEL POLITI FEB 13, 20218:55 AM Source 2. The Independent Feb 12 2021 McCarthy snapped at Trump when he refused to help during riot, report says: ‘Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to?’ House GOP leader and ex-president were embroiled in shouting match as riot raged

Graeme Massie Los Angeles @graemekmassie Source 3. CNN New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN Updated 10:29 PM EST, Fri February 12, 2021 Cogan79 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you linked the sources, and you haven't provided any proposed text here User:Cogan79. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Cogan79, McCarthy's conversation with Trump is already in the article. It is in this section: [[105]]

Best, IP75 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

he said to "peacefully and patriotically protest" 2601:588:8500:2860:251B:522C:5088:74F4 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - already mentioned... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the time Ashli Babbitt was shot. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Already in there. VQuakr (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Add this pic to one of the main pics?

File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol.webp

What do you guys think of this picture as one of the infobox pictures Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I've changed it to display the picture directly here, hopefully you don't mind. That being said, I don't think this is a better picture - to me at least it gives the inaccurate appearance that the building was on fire. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help I don't know how to do that User. I don't particularly mind either way, I was just hoping for consensus. I was surprised that the picture wasn't on the Wikimedia Commons page, since I remember seeing that pic all over the news. Do you think it portrays it inaccurately? The picture doesn't give an appearance of fire. I added a description and you can access the source. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    I do personally, as to me, the first thing I saw was the big, bright, yellow/orange region which has smoke coming off of it. The word "fire" is what came into my mind at first. I realize that that's not possible (as there wasn't a fire), but this picture could give such an impression. Others may disagree - and I'm fine with that - just was offering my opinion (and fixing it so it displays so more people can more easily comment). I agree that the current pictures could use revisiting, but I don't feel this one in particular would be an improvement. BTW, see Help:Images for inserting images into a page as a thumbnail - in this case, I used [[File:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol.webp|thumb|right]] to make it display on the right as a thumbnail. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    • I see your point. I found the picture from the actual page which had a caption, so I didn't initially assume it to be the case. But if you think it will give an inaccurate portrayal then others might see that too. Should we get a consensus for this? Thanks for the image tip Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There are much better pictures to choose from. The wall is saturated bright and it makes detail of the crowd and building hard to see. I don't think we need it in the article let alone the infobox. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: it has been deleted now as it is owned by Reuters. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Brian Sicknick

Mentioning Brian Sicknick in casualties is misleading and factually wrong. NY Times and the Time updated their stories claiming Officer Sicknick was killed by protestors using a "fire extinguisher." There is no medical/official finding or report concluding that he died from injuries sustained in the riot. The only sources that have been used in this article are media outlets dated just after the storming. In the second impeachment trial, no additional evidence was presented too. What we exactly know is he was "well" after the incident as his family said.

So, in the article, it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.125.196 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the cop died from anything related to the protest. His mention should be removed unless reliable sources show his death was related. Innican Soufou (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do either of you have reliable sources to support your claims? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You'd like me to provide sources that prove that something didn't happen? Isn't that proving a negative? I think it's on people making the claim that protestors killed him to provide citation. Innican Soufou (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou, and they have. There are multiple citations that he died as a result of an injury that occurred while he was defending against the riot. Whether that was a "fire extinguisher" by rioters, or whether he suffered a stroke and medical care was delayed due to the riot, he is still a casualty of this event unless you can provide sources to suggest otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

those reports have been established as lies and debunked conspiracies. I'm not the only one who thinks it should be removed until reliable sources can provide evidence that protestors were the ones responsible for his death. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any reliable sources to verify your claim? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Linked immediately below:"...both the police and rioters used spray in the siege. It is difficult to prove who sprayed irritant on Officer Sicknick." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you'd actually read the NYT piece updating it (linked here for convenience) you would note that even if it wasn't a "fire extinguisher" (which they haven't formally retracted, just said it is "in question") they still say that he was injured by "chemical irritants" at the riot. At this time, there is no hard evidence to point to his death being unrelated to the riot, and reliable sources are virtually unanimous in saying it was related to the riot, even if they may disagree with the methods. I've clarified the circumstances of his injury by making a minor edit for now until more information comes out - but he definitely was a casualty of this event as were the other three medical emergencies that resulted in deaths outside the Capitol building. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The story, citing a "law enforcement official" again, actually only says investigators "increasingly suspect" or are "focused on whether" any "nonlethal deterrents" were a "factor". Nothing like "injured by". Read closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2021

2021 storming of the United States Capitol → Storming of the United States Capitol – There has been no other past or future stormings in the USC than this, so an addition of "2021" is redundant. GeraldWL 13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeraldWL 13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• OPPOSE ANY MORE WP:RMs NOW! IP75 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS MOVE. THE MOVE SHOULD BE UNDONE. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)m revision 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I was on the fence, but seeing you SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS convinced me... that you are wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That is hardly a rational editorial response. The move appears to be not a bona fide RM but a unilateral error on the part of someone[106] who has little or no recognition of what has already been discussed at length, and who does not know how to undo it. My alert to the untimely actual move was not a contribution to this untoward RM, but you are welcome to moving off the fence. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me instead of SHOUTING AT ME. Now I will examine the merits of your argument. You say "little or no recognition of what has already been discussed at length" but I cannot find any such discussion. I see extensive discussion of riot/insurrection/siege/breach/storming/assault/rampage/invasion/raid/protest/occupation/incident/coup attempt/QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor but no discussion of whether to include the year. Can you provide a link to this "extensive discussion" about whether to include the year?

As I surmise you know for yourself, RM has been discussed at length (now Archived), as mentioned in ! votes below. Agreed, whether or not 2021 should be retained was not the main discussion point, but that does not signify that a change should have been made without consensus. Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Now why on earth did you do that? It doesn't take much sifting through the archives of this talk page to know that there's no consensus for ANY RM whatsoever.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose talk about ignoring consensus... or just failing to even check the talk page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Enough already, this has been discussed to death. The present name is fine!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I see zero prior discussion about this specific move. It appears to be a completely uncontroversial change, completely in line with WP:MOS, that should not result in any complaints. Those complaining above are confusing the difficult question of what to call this with the easy question of whether this needs a year to differentiate it from all of the other times there has been a storming (or whatever) of the US capitol. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Guy Macon this was discussed extensively previously. There is consensus for this name and this RM is in no way uncontroversial. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Evidence, please. Show me a diff. I see extensive discussion of riot/insurrection/siege/breach/storming/assault/rampage/invasion/raid/protest/occupation/incident/coup attempt but no discussion of whether to include the year. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Guy Macon there's Talk:Storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 11 § Requested move 16 January 2021 (2) (procedurally closed), as well as discussion of said name at Talk:Storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 2 § Requested move 6 January 2021. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's all you have? One procedural close without discussion and one discussion about whether to call it 2021 United States Capitol protests or 2021 storming of the United States Capitol? Clearly you couldn't find a place where including/removing the year was discussed either. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Guy Macon the title "Storming of the United States Capitol" was brought up at the latter move. I'm in favor of removing the year, but there needs to be consensus to do so - which there currently is not. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  If you can call one person suggesting "Storming of the United States Capitol" with nobody bothering to agree or disagree an "extensive discussion", is it OK for me to call one person suggesting "Storming of the United States Capitol" with nobody bothering to agree or disagree an "extensive discussion with 100% consensus for removing the date and no opposition"? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth (not much), there was also limited discussion of explicitly removing the year at Talk:Storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_11#Removal_of_the_year_2021_in_the_title. and Talk:Storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_3#'2021'_in_the_title_really_necessary?, although not formatted as RM. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Not exactly a "extensive discussion" but at least it was discussed. Would you say that the consensus in those two discussions was for or against inclusion of the date? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. Looks to (inexperienced editor) me that the consensus was against inclusion of the year in those limited discussions, with only a couple of objections. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Whether or not to include the year has been part of every RM discussion. There has been no consenus. Here are a bunch of quotes from these discussions:

  16 January: "the discussion up the page that so far has preferenced including the year 2021 ... I think the year inclusion is a major point of debate", "Inclusion of the year still got the most support", "Leaving the year out is a good idea", "I also agree that the year should be included", "I also think the year should be included", "If used, 'riot' is general enough that the year would be important to include", "I would add the curent year to the title", "Oppose strongly, the proposed title [...] omits the year", "too vague without the year", "Oppose [...] does not include the year", "I support as long as the year is included", "I think the new name should include the year 2021", "I would support this title change, especially removing the year", "I think any page move should keep the year in the title", "I think the new name should include the year", "the year is not needed"

  23 January: "I don’t think you need a year", "It's probably best to keep the year", "no strong preference for the year being included or not", "Once the appropriate noun is chosen we can decide about details like including the year or not", "a year is recommended per WP:NCE", "I think WP:NOYEAR applies here"

  4 February: "There was some debate over the inclusion of the year", "I support including the year in this RM and any future RMs"

  — Chrisahn (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, to be clear, I was only commenting on the two limited discussions explicitly about inclusion of the year, and did not claim that there was broad consensus to exclude the year. Your examples provide additional evidence (requested by Guy Macon) of previous discussion on this topic, which is clearly not settled. Lester Mobley (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that Storming of the United States Capitol appears to be a clear and unambiguous natural name for the event, and see no reason not to use this as the article title. Jonathunder (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Even if the consensus goes against "storming" it should be, say, QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor, not 2021 QAnon self-guided tour of the Capitol floor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support the title Storming of the United States Capitol, but the move should be undone while the discussion here continues. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - According to the letter of WP:CONCISE, it may technically be unnecessary to include a year identifier, but in general for events like this we do include the year, just because it makes it *much* easier for readers to identify what the subject is. And that's a key part of the WP:RECOGNIZE policy. See for example: 2016 Munich knife attack (redirect from Munich knife attack), 1997 Asian financial crisis (redirect from Asian financial crisis), 1977 Atocha massacre etc. Also, although this is technically the only *storming* of the capitol, there have been other events that could possibly be confused with this one. 1998 United States Capitol shooting for example. Overall it's much better to retain the year, and also there is a real fatigue with constant move requests on this page. We need a moratorium. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  You appear to be replacing the clear instructions of WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") with your personal preferences. I agree that there may be other Asian financial crisis' or other Munich knife attacks, but there is only on Atocha massacre, and I have started the ball rolling to remove the unnecessary "1977". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  It turns out that there has been more than one thing called "Atocha massacre". So all three of your examples need dates to differentiate them because multiple incidents are called the same thing. I have yet to see anyone in this discussion point to anyone anywhere calling the burning of Washington or anything else any time in history "storming the US Capitol". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This controversial move should be undone ASAP. All RMs for this article so far also discussed whether to include the year, and there was no consensus on this point. It was a mistake that this move was added to the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section of WP:RM/TR by Gerald Waldo Luis, and it was a mistake that the request was implemented half an hour later by Anthony Appleyard. Anthony, could you revert the move? This obviously isn't "uncontroversial". Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Could someone please explain why this should be an exception to WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that")? Do any of you think there were other examples of storming of the United States Capitol that need to be differentiated from this one? What purpose does the "2021" serve? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly care what the title of this article is, but "Storming of the United States Capitol" makes me think it could have to do with Burning of Washington#U.S. Capitol in the War of 1812. Maybe that's my problem. Lester Mobley (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In previous discussions about whether to keep the year in the title, the burning of Washington during the War of 1812 has been brought up repeatedly. Quote: "Upon arrival into the city [...], the British targeted the Capitol (first the southern wing, containing the House of Representatives, then the northern wing, containing the Senate). Prior to setting it aflame, the British looted the building..." — Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like adding a "not to be confused with" would fix that. I searched, and could not find any source calling the burning of Washington "storming of the United States Capitol". We have had a fair amount of discussion about whether to call this page something with "protests" in it, and the consensus was that the storming of the US capitol was one thing that happened during the larger protests. In like manner, the Brits setting fire to the capitol in 1812 was part of a much larger attack on the city that burned multiple government buildings -- which is why nobody calls the burning of Washington the "1812 Storming of the United States Capitol". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and enact a 1-year moratorium on future move requests. @Anthony Appleyard: this move was controversial; inclusion of the year has been discussed extensively on this talk page without development of a clear consensus. Can you please rv the technical move? VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: "inclusion of the year has been discussed extensively on this talk page", diff please. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The move discussion closed 2 weeks ago is the first that comes to mind. It is a low bar to establish that a move is not uncontested. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It occurs to me I didn't actually provide a reasoning with my vote. WP:NCE recommends including the year, plus there is the potential for historic confusion with various other protests over the years and the British invasion/burning in 1814. Sure, the 2021 storming is highest on our minds now, but only time will tell if that is only because of recentism. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and Undo controversial move (SPEEDILY) - @Anthony Appleyard: Can you undo this move. It was not an uncontroversial request, as seen above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Come on now, what is this? We just went through about 10 RMs to get away from the current title and all were shut down after weeks of debate, and now this has been speedily moved without discussion? What is happening here? When I posted the attack RM it was based on arguable consensus at the time from the RM before it, and even that wasn't an instant move (because opposition was anticipated, and rightly so). BlackholeWA (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whether or not there has been any prior discussion or not to include the year is immaterial. This is a controversial move for a controversial topic, one where the scope constantly changes from week to week. If we have to have the discussion again, let's have it again.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Gershonmk (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. This article should never have been moved without a full discussion. It should be moved back to the previous title immediately. However, I support the removal of the year in the title as it is unnecessary overdisambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note I've reversed the move from earlier today that removed 2021 from the title, as the discussion here clearly indicates that there was no consensus for this change. I have no personal preference regarding either name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Comment This discussion should be closed. It has been mostly about the problem that the move was done without discussion. Most !votes didn't even address the question whether there should be a year in the title or not. We can't change the subject of this discussion anymore – it would be unclear what the existing oppose comments are opposed to: the removal of the year, or the lack of discussion? Cc GeoffreyT2000 (who had closed the discussion), Jonathunder (who reopened it). — Chrisahn (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close on the principle of taking a break from constant RMs. I see no rationale for taking out the year at this time. The US Capitol was invaded and stormed in 1814. Moncrief (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we all pleaseeeee be WP:CIVIL and understand that I did not do harm?! Everyone here shouts and makes it as if I'm disrupting the project by making an RM which can be closed in no time. It feels super disappointing that I was just trying to voice an opinion in civil fashion, but others think as if I don't and went on to make me FEEL like the bad person. Yes, I am wrong for not checking through the 1000 archives, but can we please correct each other in civil fashion, so that we can understand each other? It's really frustrating to discuss when others are heated and don't WP:AGF, and makes it seem as if I'm a criminal for making an RM. I'm happy for this be closed if there is consensus to do so, but incivilities like this make such pages not fun to edit, and particularly for me it has been a harsh experience. Not one that builds, but one that cripples. GeraldWL 01:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Completely inappropriate firing up of flamethrowers. I hereby volunteer to be abused in Gerald WL's place. After creating WP:CANCER and WP:YWAB I got used to being called a nazi pedophile robocalling bedwetter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Move Moratorium

The endless churn of RMs is distracting at best. I propose a ~9 month moratorium on move proposals (through the end of 2021). VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I'm pretty sure I have commented on or supported a similar proposal previously, all of this continual move nonsense is detracting from the discussions regarding improving the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) - EDIT: Per later comments, I agree 6 months should be plenty... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support 6 months - 6 months will put us into August, which hopefully being virtually between major election years (halfway from 2020 to 2022) will be at the most "peaceful" and people can actually argue policy instead of feelings like has happened in every single RM so far by a decent number (not necessarily a majority, but the large minority of people making such arguments taints the RM and makes finding a consensus difficult if not impossible). Oppose anything shorter than 3 months or longer than until 1 November 2021 - anything in between is okay to me and 6 months is just a round number. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — there's no need for a year disambiguation in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to consider improving it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Gershonmk (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose everyday there is increasing recognition that this was an insurrection. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/15/ron-johnson/yes-jan-6-capitol-assault-was-armed-insurrection/ Caffoti (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

See this failed RM. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's near universal consensus that it can be called a 'riot' or a 'storming'. Perhaps it was an insurrection, but is there a rule that says you have to use the strongest possible term in the article's title even if there's considerable public debate over it? Ar85ar (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support – I guess few Wikipedia pages have seen so many failed move requests in such a short time. These continued RMs are wasting everyone's time that could be spent more productively. But maybe nine months is a bit long? I think there's a chance that in six months or so, a common name for the event will have emerged. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment- Agreed we would be better engaged on something else than another RM, whether about words or year in or year out. How long for a moratorium? 6 months minimum. By then maybe it will be clearer how things are beginning to firm up for mid-term congressional election, and what will then be the ongoing narrative of public discourse that may need adjustment to the article's name. Who knows? But I'm thinking whether McConnell's post-acquittal statement will be gathering support or otherwise, and what will become of Pelosi's proposed inquiry, not to mention the other issues keeping the situation churning. How, as they say, Will it play in Peoria? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ed. 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral (comment) - I don't like the idea of not having the year and I am kind of sick of RMs also, but I also think that the current title still probably isn't ideal and so I won't vote to close all suggestions just yet. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with an exception allowed if a clear common name develops in the media and through public usage before then. Without doing a lot of research, my memory is that the term 9/11 didn't arise in universal usage until a few months at most after the event, after which there were few people if any, at least in the USA, who didn't call it that. I would hate to have a mandatory 9-month moratorium that couldn't be budged to accomadate a linguistic development like that. But otherwise, yes. We certainly don't need to keep revisiting a new RM every week or two. Moncrief (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an exception to a moratorium with a subjective standard like that is workable. There is either a moratorium on RMs for a specific period of time or there isn't one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support 6 months. There is clearly no consensus on changing the descriptive term in the title (i.e. protest, attack, terrorist attack, riot, insurrection, etc.) based on the dozen RMs over the past 6 weeks. However, I think a discussion on whether or not the year disambiguator in the title is necessary is fine to have. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support 6 months the current title is fine and we're going to get nowhere discussing this. After 6 months, hopefully, we can get a clearer view from RS on what this should be called. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Blocking a title change until the end of the year is just going to cement the current title as the accepted one, even though it's one of the least-used terms as per the ongoing analysis of naming trends section above. A month after the event, there's more than enough data to show that reliable sources are coalescing around "Riot," "Attack," and "Insurrection" to describe the event. There's no reason to block name changes on this, especially until nearly a year after the event occurred. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As multiple lists of search results and numbers presented during previous discussions have shown, "riot" and "attack" have been the most common terms since right after January 6, and "insurrection" has always been among the top five or so. We've had move requests for all of these terms, and all three have failed. It's true that reliable sources have been coalescing around these terms, but that's nothing new. I think it's unlikely that much will change in this regard in the next couple of months, and starting a new RM for any of these three is likely to have the same result as before. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There might be requests like the above that aren't ready for primetime. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a discussion about the year. That said, the move discussion has come to a natural end. Why put an artificial moratorium on that natural end?Casprings (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Jonathunder is correct. There is zero need for a year in the title and it would be ridiculous to keep it there for months because some editors don't want to follow the clear instuctions at WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") but are not willing to try to change that policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Conciseness one of the five major characteristics in that policy. Reasonable editors can disagree on how best to balance them when deciding an article title. But the strength or weakness of the rationale for any particular name isn't the reason I proposed a pause in new move discussions. It is because endless back-to-back RMs are distracting regardless of their merit. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Us insurrection" re-listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us insurrection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Us insurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)